You can’t define yourself out of your racist hole.
Your policy is racist, prejudiced, bigoted and unjust. No-one should be discriminated against due to characteristics over which they have no control.
I find it quite sickening that the board allows you to spout such bile and have no doubt that what you say would be modded in an instant were it being directed the other way round.
You are racist and proud and that’s the last keystroke I’ll waste on you.
Not at all. I’m happy to say that there is a long history of bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. Individual and systemic, that still continues to this day. In all areas of hiring, absolutely in the hiring of talk show hosts and many other areas besides. I’m happy to clear that up.
What I do say is that you do not stop it by implementing the further policies of bigotry, discrimination and prejudice that others in this thread are eager to see.
Warning for Novelty_Bobble
This is a strait out attack on a user and not in the Pit. I just checked your record and you’re without warnings in the last 2+ year, so this will only be a warning and not a 1 day suspension to go with it.
If you have a problem with another poster, take it to the Pit or follow your own advice and ignore them.
This topic was automatically opened after 20 minutes.
There’s no such thing. You have to implement an anti-institutionalized racism hiring practice. If you are not actively and aggressively countering inherent advantages enjoyed by straight white men, then you are passively allowing a racist system to function unimpeded.
Your system can’t be “neutral.” It must be designed to counter advantages inherently enjoyed by straight, white men, specifically.
Missing adverb?
Thanks. Fixed.
not only can it be neutral, but neutral is the only way forward to any type of common future that treats people equally.
A neutral system inherently counters advantage. What it doesn’t do is fix past injustices.
Whelp, the whole long response I posted is unnecessary now, but this bit still needs posting:
No-one is being discriminated against. Discrimination involves prejudice. No-one’s advocating not hiring a White&male host because they’re White&male and that’s bad in itself. What’s being advocated is hiring a non-White&male host, because that’s a fresh perspective and that’s good and desirable.
And you can’t hire a non-White&male host by hiring a White male one. That’s just fundamentally impossible.
Then you are preserving an inherently racist system, and you will never have an equitable society.
You can’t just pretend the past didn’t happen, because everything that exists in the present is a product of the past.
Yes you can!
So by that logic what exists in the future is the product of what we do now, correct?
So equitable policies now will bring about a more equitable future, correct?
Which is another way of saying
The conditions you place - again, carefully framed - are simplistic and in appearance superficially worthy while in practice guaranteeing that the racist policies and processes already deeply embedded in western society will never change. Indeed, this attitude is one of the biggest obstacles on the liberal side of the fence to actually addressing racism; the idea that “I’m an ally as long as I don’t have to ever give an inch of what I have now” is something black people have long been railing about.
And there is no simple solution. I’m not even sure there’s a complicated solution that won’t take generations to even put a dent in the problem. But affirmative action (or whatever form this is now) alleviates some of the current problems with a lack of representation in certain areas of society caused by that historic and systemic racism. It’s a very minor fix and it’s not remotely enough, but it’s better than the “We should all now move forward in this race neutrally without favor or hindrance even though I’m starting from a position 90 yards ahead of you for historic reasons” approach.
In 60,000 years, yes.
We’ll all be equal when the heat death of the universe comes.
How can anything not be?
Of course.
Unless you are nobility or born into wealth from other means, you enjoy a better life because policies have changed in the past 200 years. Why do you even question this?
Though this study is ~20years old, I think it’s both ‘clean’ and telling:
Now a “field experiment” by NBER Faculty Research Fellows Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan measures this discrimination in a novel way. In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. Thus, they experimentally manipulated perception of race via the name on the resume. Half of the applicants were assigned African-American names that are “remarkably common” in the black population, the other half white sounding names, such as Emily Walsh or Greg Baker.
This wasn’t in-person job application process. It was indirect/remote. I’d be interesting in seeing this study replicated today.
If the results were valid then, and – arguendo – if the results are valid now, then how can one argue that the doing nothing to counteract provable discrimination is the right approach?
“For those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
who has suggested doing nothing to counteract provable discrimination?
The blinding of identity criteria and other potential discriminatory factors is exactly the right thing to do. It is a policy I implemented over 15 years ago in my own hiring practices and we get better and better at it.
But since the OP is about a television show, eventually, the proverbial mask comes off.
What then? Isn’t it possible/likely that – once a person is in your office, across the desk from you – we’re back to where we started: (not) dealing with deleterious effects of conscious/unconscious bias?
ETA: “you” = the collective ‘you’
Everything is possible. what is far more likely is that with fair and equitable hiring practices you get people into jobs on merit alone and those people you do end up working with are trusted and valued and whatever diversity naturally arises from that process is infinitely more worthy than any that can engineered.
It is certainly slower than simply parachuting diversity in.