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.
Comments
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.