However you'll have to prove it, which requires examples, or brilliant lawyers.
So this is awkward, because white heterosexual males have much better than average access to brilliant lawyers.
the deliberate act of choosing one type of person over an other, on the grounds of anything other talent for the position in question is wrong.
If you seek to be neutral in this way, even if you are successful, then you are allowing advantages from other sources to carry over. You are deliberately allowing white, heterosexual males to retain their existing advantages. You are not accounting for hidden, quiet, long-standing social engineering that is in favour of existing power structures. That is not neutrality.
If you seek to be neutral in this way, even if you are successful, then you are allowing advantages from other sources to carry over.
If you're hiring, other sources are none of your business. You have limited information and limited scope of responsibility. The only alternative to what KaiserPro described is subverting your position as an employer/interviewer to try to "correct" some general issues of your choosing by "reverse" discrimination. There are many self-evident problems with this.
Why should you as an interviewer act like some ultimate judge of privilege? How do you know it will help to solve the general issue? Why should the particular person you're interviewing be affected by what's effectively a stereotype? Not to mention that "reverse" discrimination is still just a form of discrimination, so you're effectively supporting it. If you're allowed to discriminate in the way of your choosing, how can you demand others to not to do the same?
That is not neutrality.
You're simply redefining the word to mean nothing and then using that to attack the concept it used to refer to.
That is not neutrality. You're simply redefining the word.
The first definition of neutrality found on the internet is
Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
I'm using that definition. By claiming that this is none of your business and you have limited scope of responsibility, you are very clearly favouring one side.
You do have responsibility for who you choose to hire.
So this is awkward, because white heterosexual males have much better than average access to brilliant lawyers.
No, rich people have access to lawyers.
The inference of your remark is that: "all people other than what straight males are not talented enough." This attitude is re-enforced by "positive" discrimination. Its also pretty condescending, and is far more harmful than "I dislike you because you are Insert slur"
Let me illustrate Discrimination:
"you only got in because you are <insert type here> here have the shit jobs, deliberately designed to trip you up"
"Despite us being actively hostile to you, we expect you to 'fit in' with the team"
"We are going to bully you, however its not bullying, as none of us get hurt, only you. Therefore its 'banter'"
Those three examples are actually not the preserve of minorities, they are applicable to every section of society.
However Positive Discrimination fails to tackle the root cause, as I said in my original post. The root cause is the lack of access to education, and ignorance of others.
I agree with this, and I think we are generally in agreement.
Rich people are mostly white males. For example, check your favourite image search for "rich people". Correlation is not causation but correlation is correlation.
The root cause is the lack of access to education, and ignorance of others.
I would prefer to say that the root causes are exactly what you said: "here, have the shit jobs", "us being actively hostile to you", "we are going to bully you".
Those problems are not being solved through education: schools, as they exist today, foster this type of behaviour. And so, well-educated adults are no less likely to exhibit this type of behaviour and are more likely to be in a position where it's a serious problem.
If you seek to be neutral in this way, even if you are successful, then you are allowing advantages from other sources to carry over. You are deliberately allowing white, heterosexual males to retain their existing advantages. You are not accounting for hidden, quiet, long-standing social engineering that is in favour of existing power structures. That is not neutrality.
That's pretty much the definition of neutrality. You are not altering something for better or for worse. You're not on the side of equality, and you're not on the side of discrimination. It's pure and simply something that you've decided is not your business to address.
Comments
So this is awkward, because white heterosexual males have much better than average access to brilliant lawyers.
If you seek to be neutral in this way, even if you are successful, then you are allowing advantages from other sources to carry over. You are deliberately allowing white, heterosexual males to retain their existing advantages. You are not accounting for hidden, quiet, long-standing social engineering that is in favour of existing power structures. That is not neutrality.
If you seek to be neutral in this way, even if you are successful, then you are allowing advantages from other sources to carry over.
If you're hiring, other sources are none of your business. You have limited information and limited scope of responsibility. The only alternative to what KaiserPro described is subverting your position as an employer/interviewer to try to "correct" some general issues of your choosing by "reverse" discrimination. There are many self-evident problems with this.
Why should you as an interviewer act like some ultimate judge of privilege? How do you know it will help to solve the general issue? Why should the particular person you're interviewing be affected by what's effectively a stereotype? Not to mention that "reverse" discrimination is still just a form of discrimination, so you're effectively supporting it. If you're allowed to discriminate in the way of your choosing, how can you demand others to not to do the same?
That is not neutrality.
You're simply redefining the word to mean nothing and then using that to attack the concept it used to refer to.
The first definition of neutrality found on the internet is
Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
I'm using that definition. By claiming that this is none of your business and you have limited scope of responsibility, you are very clearly favouring one side.
You do have responsibility for who you choose to hire.
You need to read my post again, very carefully.
No, rich people have access to lawyers.
The inference of your remark is that: "all people other than what straight males are not talented enough." This attitude is re-enforced by "positive" discrimination. Its also pretty condescending, and is far more harmful than "I dislike you because you are Insert slur"
Let me illustrate Discrimination:
"you only got in because you are <insert type here> here have the shit jobs, deliberately designed to trip you up"
"Despite us being actively hostile to you, we expect you to 'fit in' with the team"
"We are going to bully you, however its not bullying, as none of us get hurt, only you. Therefore its 'banter'"
Those three examples are actually not the preserve of minorities, they are applicable to every section of society.
However Positive Discrimination fails to tackle the root cause, as I said in my original post. The root cause is the lack of access to education, and ignorance of others.
I agree with this, and I think we are generally in agreement.
Rich people are mostly white males. For example, check your favourite image search for "rich people". Correlation is not causation but correlation is correlation.
I would prefer to say that the root causes are exactly what you said: "here, have the shit jobs", "us being actively hostile to you", "we are going to bully you".
Those problems are not being solved through education: schools, as they exist today, foster this type of behaviour. And so, well-educated adults are no less likely to exhibit this type of behaviour and are more likely to be in a position where it's a serious problem.
That's pretty much the definition of neutrality. You are not altering something for better or for worse. You're not on the side of equality, and you're not on the side of discrimination. It's pure and simply something that you've decided is not your business to address.