Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
abel_hazard
· 4 years ago
· FIRST
If it’s anything like my hometown it had a lot to do with disproportionately rejecting nonwhite candidates because they “didn’t seem like they’d assimilate well.” Source: I’m the kid of one of the dudes in that decision making process.
10
guest_
· 4 years ago
Thank you. People seem to discount these stories- if you don’t have specifics you must be exaggerating; and if you do have specifics- you’re exaggerating or it is a pocket case. Personally, in my long career I’ve been present for many hiring decisions- seen everything from overt and undisguised prejudice to euphemisms and less obvious but clear bias. The receptionist needs to be young, pretty, and have good tits- that’s one I saw a lot of- even over more qualified applicants, even when the staff that has to deal with the receptionists work overwhelmingly favored a more qualified person- and no- to those who say things like “businesses ran like that exist.. but they won’t be in business long/be successful...” one example (that my inside sources say still do this in 2020..) was and still is a VERY well known and successful large business group.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
The person making that reply is missing the point- it doesn’t ultimately matter the race of a person doing a job or able to do a job- but it DOES matter that we are giving people a fair shot at these jobs. Many people say: “leave race/gender/etc. out of it! Just hire the most qualified candidate!” Well... yes. I agree that we SHOULD hire the most qualified person- the “best” person for a job in general... but.... if ask yourself this- are 70-90% of leading actors “white” because there are so few “good” actors from other groups... or are we passing up good- potentially better candidates because they aren’t white? The reason we have to look closer at “race” or other seemingly disproportionate bias is because that argument is a 2 way street- we have to be certain that when a group is seemingly underrepresented that it IS because for whatever reasons-
▼
Show All
guest_
· 4 years ago
they just weren’t the best candidates- not because of prejudice, and not because of systemic or other barriers preventing people from being able to do things they want to do.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
That is a major part of how we find legitimate bias as opposed to cases where certain people FEEL a bias, or BELIEVE there is bias. The answer is obviously not to take drastic action at the mere mention that someone somewhere feels discriminated against- but we also ant just ignore any or all evidence that there could be discrimination. We have to look closer when we see there is possible evidence of discrimination- try to find a cause- of any- and correct it- or exonerate those involved and show with impartial data that there isn’t anything sinister or malicious afoot- but some other explanation. Not a lot of Canadians become pro sumo wrestlers- and well... part of that we could say is discrimination and part of that is just “innocent” circumstance.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
But specifically- when it comes to law enforcement and other jobs that serve the community- there are many advantages to having all types of people from the community represented. It can remove many feelings of bias based on those factors, it can eliminate a feeling of “us vs them” that can happen when one group from outside a community or sub community holds all the power- it can help citizens take pride and ownership and involvement in their communities instead of carving out their own subcultures that often exist outside of a system of government that doesn’t understand or often respect or accommodate them.
▼
