Why not? You’re assuming that any criteria that predominantly result in the selection of a historically privileged majority must be discriminatory, no question about it, no evidence required. That is, at best, debatable, because there are many perfectly valid reasons why that might happen.
You know what is NOT debatable, but is a perfectly self-evident truism? That when you introduce extraneous factors into your selection criteria, such as gender, sexuality, or ethnicity, then you are explicitly abandoning the “best person for the job” principle. Reverse discrimination – however well-intentioned it may be – is not at all the same thing as the absence of discrimination. As soon as you introduce any kind of quota or pre-determined diversity outcome, you’re no longer doing an objective evaluation.
And maybe you shouldn’t be – it may well be that the goals of diversity are sufficiently important that it’s worth the compromise. But let’s keep our arguments coherent. The whole concept of “affirmative action” as an inherently discriminatory policy arose from a distortion of an executive order issued by JFK back in 1961, which required federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed … without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.” Nixon’s Philadelphia Plan eight years later marked the beginning of the first efforts to re-interpret that sentiment of non-discrimination into one of quota-based reverse discrimination, which has been contentious ever since.
This is not to say that diversity isn’t important. It absolutely is. But recognize that you’re making trade-offs, and basically saying that the sort of person you pick for the job should be balanced by broader societal interests and not just a narrow evaluation of skills and value. Just don’t try to pretend that you’re still picking the best person for the job in a totally objective and non-discriminatory fashion.
Or perhaps you’re motivated to pretend that your approach is working, despite the rather substantial evidence that racial bias exists even when race isn’t explicitly stated, as has already been shown in this thread.
You can dispute all you want and keep repeating the “colorblind” argument over and over again. It won’t make it true. One can, for example, point to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s first major foray into her SCOTUS role, in which her viewpoint was undeniably influenced by her own personal experiences as a black woman in America. There are many areas where varied representation and cultural experience are incredibly valuable, and being blind to that isn’t a virtue.
Reducing the issue to an overly simplistic form in order to justify an overly simplistic solution won’t do a damn thing for equality either.
It’s probably also driven by all the TDS-inspired spinoffs - most notably Last Week Tonight With John Oliver and Jon Stewart’s new show on Apple, but also shows by various other TDS former correspondents and writers. The main players in this niche used to be TDS and, arguably, Bill Maher’s show. Now there are several, spread across different streaming platforms. That’s going to dilute viewer numbers.
Conversely, Gutfeld’s audience are glued to a very narrow band of media that appeal to their particular worldview, so naturally he will get more viewers, as Stewart did when TDS was pretty much the only show of its kind for its demographic.
I disagree. By definition, the more identity factors are removed from consideration, the less effect they can have on the decisions being made.
I assume from your position that you are opposed to completely blind orchestra auditions?
That it is not perfect (no process can be) is no reason to backtrack or ignore the clear benefits it brings
Which solution is actually more simplistic?
1)Completely revamp and monitor our hiring practices to ensure that they are and continue to be made as fair as possible and provide equality of opportunity for everyone
2)Exclude identity (a) and preferentially hire identity (b) until we are happy with the outcome
But that assumes that there is truly a “best person for the job”. That we can tally all their jokes and the laughs they got, or any other rubric for that matter, to determine inherently who will be the best.
And there isn’t. There is a pool of qualified individuals, each of whom will meet whatever criteria you may have in the “be funny” department, and then you make your choice from there.
I would say that diversity, giving the audience something different, can and should be a significant part of that selection process.
Yeah that is a fair point. For something like this IMO there is no way to do an undisputable evaluation of who is “best” for the job before you see results. The final choice will be a judgement call.
Ah, I certainly don’t want to tar you with the epithet American, given what this country has become and given that Tucker Carlson is in it.
But that also disqualifies you from full participation in this thread. Just as a white straight man can never have the lifetime experiences of being the non-default, the life that non-straight non-white non-men must live every minute of their days, a non-American cannot viscerally understand the roiling cauldron of culture, race, diversity, oppression, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and political stupidity that lies beneath the welcoming surface of the American land of opportunity. Other countries have their own unique set of evils as well, of course, but their entirety translates equally poorly. Americans try to see them through their custom lenses and fail miserably.
I just want to emphasize that in the United States at this moment in time “colorblindness” is a right-wing code word for white supremacy and active racism. Just watch Tucker. Whatever it codes for in your country, it will taken by American non-Fox cultists in the worst possible way.
And I can tell the difference between an Inuit and a Comanche. Noting that end-members of continuous series differ a lot isn’t exactly particularly noteworthy.
Goalpost-move noted
Yes. I believe the term is ferret phrasing…no, wait, polecat prevarication? No, that’s not it - it’ll come to me any second now.