DNC: we don’t want to recruit any cis gendered white males

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 11:10 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Who said I was only concerned  about gay people being professional in the office?    

I have had gays come in and during the interview they were being fruity....  It’s fair to not want my office to turn into an episode of will and grace.  

The only people who should be prancing around are little girls.   Unfortunately that isn’t the case.    

I don’t think diversity really matters when you sacrifice quality for the sake of diversity.

'K. That's creepy.

But you are still ignoring that they would hire QUALIFIED "fruity people" or train them.

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2017, 11:10 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Who said I was only concerned  about gay people being professional in the office?    

I have had gays come in and during the interview they were being fruity....  It’s fair to not want my office to turn into an episode of will and grace.  

The only people who should be prancing around are little girls.   Unfortunately that isn’t the case.    

I don’t think diversity really matters when you sacrifice quality for the sake of diversity.

"prancing"

"an episode of Will and Grace"

Maybe don't make these statements when asking why someone is interpreting your statements as ridiculous. Because those are just ridiculous.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since I wasn't quoted in the post I was under the assumption the question had not been asked of me, and so I was not attempting to answer it. I was merely commenting on how the question you were asking was not representative of the situation described in the OP.

I have no problems with preference given to hires based on any demographic qualifier. I disagree with quotas and I disagree with people being disqualified because of a demographic qualifier, but preference in an attempt to further diversity is not something I have an issue with.

Once again the OP didn't say they preferred to hire folks  based on any demographic, they said the preferred NOT to hire folks based on a demographic, so perhaps your answer is "not representative of the situation described in the OP."

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again the OP didn't say they preferred to hire folks  based on any demographic, they said the preferred NOT to hire folks based on a demographic, so perhaps your answer is "not representative of the situation described in the OP."

"I prefer to hire candidates in a minority demographic" and "I prefer not to hire candidates in the majority demographic" are making the same implication. The meaning behind those statements is the same.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 11:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: "I prefer to hire candidates in a minority demographic" and "I prefer not to hire candidates in the majority demographic" are making the same implication. The meaning behind those statements is the same.

If you say so. I just wondered why you word it as you do and not the way it is worded in the OP

I'll keep this in mind next time Lucie states who he prefers not to hire as it seems to be an issue to many.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If you say so. I just wondered why you word it as you do and not the way it is worded in the OP

Because I wanted to insure my statement was clear and reflective of my opinion. As I said right off, their choice of words wasn't the best, but the meaning of the statement matches the meaning of mine.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because I wanted to insure my statement was clear and reflective of my opinion. As I said right off, their choice of words wasn't the best, but the meaning of the statement matches the meaning of mine.

I prefer you hire for diversity

I prefer you don't hire white males.


Same thing?

To me they are two entirely different messages. But just my opinion. I hate when race (ect...) is a hindrance for any hire.

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I prefer you hire for diversity

I prefer you don't hire white males.


Same thing?

To me they are two entirely different messages. But just my opinion. I hate when race (ect...) is a hindrance for any hire.

From the OP:

Quote:I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they're already in the majority.

Seems they don't have a problem hiring the poor, put down straight white males.  They just have a LOT of them and would "prefer" a little more diversity.

Not demand.

Not insist.

Not recommend.

"prefer".

But I know how hard it is for straight white males to get ahead in the country so I feel your pain over this one email. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-31-2017, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have no problems with preference given to hires based on any demographic qualifier. I disagree with quotas and I disagree with people being disqualified because of a demographic qualifier, but preference in an attempt to further diversity is not something I have an issue with.

So since minorities in the general population are over-represented to the point od being majorities in the NBA and NFL, would you support an owner who states they would prefer to no longer hire black people? That they want to hire more white guys?

Or is diversity only a thing when there is too many white guys?

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 02:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: From the OP:



Seems they don't have a problem hiring the poor, put down straight white males.  They just have a LOT of them and would "prefer" a little more diversity.

Not demand.

Not insist.

Not recommend.

"prefer".

But I know how hard it is for straight white males to get ahead in the country so I feel your pain over this one email. 

It is noted that you are OK with hiring preference based on race and you are not alone in this forum.

I prefer race not be an issue in hiring and folks are hired based on their merit.

I was a diversity hire when I began my career as a Human Resource Manager and it had nothing to do with my race, gender, sexual orientation, ect... A culture can develop diversity in other ways than saying they prefer a certain ethnic group not be hired. But there are those that will fight to support their discrimination if it is a population, in which, they have no problem discriminating.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 02:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So since minorities in the general population are over-represented to the point od being majorities in the NBA and NFL, would you support an owner who states they would prefer to no longer hire black people? That they want to hire more white guys?

Or is diversity only a thing when there is too many white guys?

Again, I am okay with that. If an employer wants to give preference like that, then I do not have a problem with it. Doesn't matter which direction it goes.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 02:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So since minorities in the general population are over-represented to the point od being majorities in the NBA and NFL, would you support an owner who states they would prefer to no longer hire black people? That they want to hire more white guys?

Or is diversity only a thing when there is too many white guys?

I would not be OK with such a position. As I have said: I prefer race not be a factor in hiring preferences.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I prefer you hire for diversity

I prefer you don't hire white males.


Same thing?

To me they are two entirely different messages. But just my opinion. I hate when race (ect...) is a hindrance for any hire.

The intent/meaning is the same. Like I have said thrice, though, the word choice in the email was bad.

(10-31-2017, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is noted that you are OK with hiring preference based on race and you are not alone in this forum.

I prefer race not be an issue in hiring and folks are hired based on their merit.

I was a diversity hire when I began my career as a Human Resource Manager and it had nothing to do with my race, gender, sexual orientation, ect... A culture can develop diversity in other ways than saying they prefer a certain ethnic group not be hired. But there are those that will fight to support their discrimination if it is a population, in which, they have no problem discriminating.

Preferential diversity hiring is still based on merit if it is applied correctly. The idea it isn't is based on people crafting bad policy around the concept. We use this sort of policy for hiring in Virginia for state jobs, but we do it for veterans. On my screening grid, I have 3-6 qualifiers for the job, either mandatory or preferred, and each candidate is ranked how I see fit for each of those qualifiers. This is based on their experience, education, and job related qualities. On our applications are five questions related to veteran status, four of which will garner a candidate an additional preferred qualification.

This results in a screening process that allows for preferential treatment of veterans, but still allows for it to be merit based. The same sort of system can be used for other qualifications in an attempt to foster more diversity in the workplace without losing the merit based situation. It isn't perfect, but it's one way to apply such policy.

I think all of us would prefer race to not be a factor, or anything not merit related, but the truth is we all have implicit biases that make that highly improbably to ever be the case without active intervention.

[Benton]

(10-31-2017, 02:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So since minorities in the general population are over-represented to the point od being majorities in the NBA and NFL, would you support an owner who states they would prefer to no longer hire black people? That they want to hire more white guys?

Or is diversity only a thing when there is too many white guys?

I don't think diversity is an issue outside of a few areas. In this case, you're talking about politics, which is a numbers game, a glorified popularity contest. Back in the 60s, I don't recall anyone on internet message boards criticizing Nixon and Thurmond for the Southern Strategy saying they wanted more diversity as they sought to unite Christians, southern anti-Civil Rights voters and anti-big government. Sharon Day was active in trying to get more women involved in GOP races. That's not sexist, that's just trying to tap into that demographic.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 03:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The intent/meaning is the same. Like I have said thrice, though, the word choice in the email was bad.

..and that's where we differ, you think only the word choice was bad; I feel the hiring practice of preferring one race over another is bad.


The example you give is a little different that saying I prefer we don't hire white men in an email. But then again, just wording.

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and that's where we differ, you think only the word choice was bad; I feel the hiring practice of preferring one race over another is bad.


The example you give is a little different that saying I prefer we don't hire white men in an email. But then again, just wording.

...MORE white men.

Wording.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and that's where we differ, you think only the word choice was bad; I feel the hiring practice of preferring one race over another is bad.

The example you give is a little different that saying I prefer we don't hire white men in an email. But then again, just wording.

I think the practice of preferring one race over another is bad, as well. I just recognize that vast numbers of studies have shown that implicit biases we all have means we already give preferential treatment based on race and other factors, and so the only way to counter that is to institute policies where we actively account for it.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 03:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the practice of preferring one race over another is bad, as well. I just recognize that vast numbers of studies have shown that implicit biases we all have means we already give preferential treatment based on race and other factors, and so the only way to counter that is to institute policies where we actively account for it.

Enough of the round and round; perhaps I'm too idealistic in my approach. Pat stated they are a private organization and can hire based on their preference. Affirmative action is one thing and the benefits of it can be disputed; however, the message that this woman sent to her staff is wrong in both wording and intent and I have zero idea how that can be disputed.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 04:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Enough of the round and round; perhaps I'm too idealistic in my approach. Pat stated they are a private organization and can hire based on their preference. Affirmative action is one thing and the benefits of it can be disputed; however, the message that this woman sent to her staff is wrong in both wording and intent and I have zero idea how that can be disputed.

That's your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it. I disagree. 

In an ideal society, we wouldn't use race in hiring, but everyone does it in one way or another because we aren't an ideal society. The question is whether we continue to allow our implicit biases to rule the day, or whether we acknowledge them and actively work against them.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 03:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: ...MORE white men.

Wording.

You may want to go back and read the wording as that is not what she said.