So, how do you fill vacancies...

[Nemo]

...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:

Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... r-BB1iOltl

Aggression against who?

[88V8]

...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:

Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.

So this nonsense has been around quite a while, but of late has become the latest piece of detritus in the bag of woke garbage.

Duh.



V8

[clissold345]

A quick internet search gives some background info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -defeat-it

[Niksen]

...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:

Britain's top universities warned staff and students that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... r-BB1iOltl

Aggression against who?

It is aggression against the person that got the job, exactly as the article says -

“The university suggested that the statement meant that some people only got their job to tick a box or fill a quota”

i.e the job was given to the best person, but some will insinuate and gossip that it wasn’t.

[Lootman]

...give jobs to the most unqualified presumably:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/s ... r-BB1iOltl

Aggression against who?

It is aggression against the person that got the job, exactly as the article says -

“The university suggested that the statement meant that some people only got their job to tick a box or fill a quota”

i.e the job was given to the best person, but some will insinuate and gossip that it wasn’t.

No, surely the main criticism of affirmative action programmes is that the best person cannot be given the job because they have the misfortune of being in a demographic considered to be "privileged".

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

SCOTUS finally nailed affirmative action for college admissions last year after decades of racial quotas.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/11811380 ... t-decision

[Niksen]

It is aggression against the person that got the job, exactly as the article says -

“The university suggested that the statement meant that some people only got their job to tick a box or fill a quota”

i.e the job was given to the best person, but some will insinuate and gossip that it wasn’t.

No, surely the main criticism of affirmative action programmes is that the best person cannot be given the job because they have the misfortune of being in a demographic considered to be "privileged".

The university report had nothing to do with affirmative action programmes, and the fact you raise that topic indicates you fell smack bang into the trap the Daily Mail set in its twisting of the report to get its readers clicking.

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

And that was exactly the point of the university report, but of course that story doesn’t generate clicks from the Daily Mail readership, hence the twisting of it into something that does.

[Lootman]

No, surely the main criticism of affirmative action programmes is that the best person cannot be given the job because they have the misfortune of being in a demographic considered to be "privileged".

The university report had nothing to do with affirmative action programmes, and the fact you raise that topic indicates you fell smack bang into the trap the Daily Mail set in its twisting of the report to get its readers clicking.

The term "affirmative action programme" applies to any policy that consciously uses race as a criterion. So it does not matter whether such a policy formally calls itself that or not. If you deviate from merit to consider other factors then you are introducing distortions into the selection process, and you run the risk that more qualified applicants will be discounted due to an accident of birth.

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

And that was exactly the point of the university report, but of course that story doesn’t generate clicks from the Daily Mail readership, hence the twisting of it into something that does.

If racial biases are removed from the hiring process then I suspect that any resentment of that type will vanish.

[Niksen]

The university report had nothing to do with affirmative action programmes, and the fact you raise that topic indicates you fell smack bang into the trap the Daily Mail set in its twisting of the report to get its readers clicking.

The term "affirmative action programme" applies to any policy that consciously uses race as a criterion. So it does not matter whether such a policy formally calls itself that or not. If you deviate from merit to consider other factors then you are introducing distortions into the selection process, and you run the risk that more qualified applicants will be discounted due to an accident of birth.

To repeat, the guidance from the university had nothing at all to do with any sort of racial hiring policy, it was to trying to address the exact opposite.

The report was highlighting the accusations of people only getting a job because they were a diversity hire even when no such policy existed.

That you raised diversity hiring policies was exactly why the Daily Mail twisted this report into a story because they knew their readers wouldn’t see the report for what it was but what they wanted it to be.

[Lootman]

The term "affirmative action programme" applies to any policy that consciously uses race as a criterion. So it does not matter whether such a policy formally calls itself that or not. If you deviate from merit to consider other factors then you are introducing distortions into the selection process, and you run the risk that more qualified applicants will be discounted due to an accident of birth.

the guidance from the university had nothing at all to do with any sort of racial hiring policy, it was to trying to address the exact opposite.

The report was highlighting the accusations of people only getting a job because they were a diversity hire even when no such policy existed.

Again, if a perception exists that merit is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness then that college can expect adverse scrutiny. So it is still a problem for colleges EITHER because those colleges are considering non-merit factors OR because they are not but have failed to make a clear statement to that effect.

My recommendation to each college so accused is to make this very public pronouncement: "Scumbag College hereby asserts that selection by race is a racist endeavour. This college has never employed such bias and never will". Problem solved.

I have actually seen institutions use phrasing like "applicants from minority backgrounds are particularly encouraged to apply", which is indicative of bias. Just don't do it - be seen to have clean hands.

[Niksen]

the guidance from the university had nothing at all to do with any sort of racial hiring policy, it was to trying to address the exact opposite.

The report was highlighting the accusations of people only getting a job because they were a diversity hire even when no such policy existed.

Again, if a perception exists that merit is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness then that college can expect adverse scrutiny. So it is still a problem for colleges EITHER because those colleges are considering non-merit factors OR because they are not but have failed to make a clear statement to that effect.

My recommendation to each college so accused is to make this very public pronouncement: "Scumbag College hereby asserts that selection by race is a racist endeavour. This college has never employed such bias and never will". Problem solved.

It is really funny how your persistence in turning this back to an issue of your perception of discriminatory hiring is exactly the issue of aggression this report is about when a diverse candidate is hired despite the fact that they were the best candidate.

It says an awful lot about your thinking when you expect an institution to explicitly say that they were not breaking the law, because if they don’t you believe they might have done.

I have actually seen institutions use phrasing like "applicants from minority backgrounds are particularly encouraged to apply", which is indicative of bias. Just don't do it - be seen to have clean hands.

It isn’t indicative of bias in the hiring process, it really isn’t, but your belief that it is really does explain why the Daily Mail produces such twisted stories.

[Lootman]

Again, if a perception exists that merit is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness then that college can expect adverse scrutiny. So it is still a problem for colleges EITHER because those colleges are considering non-merit factors OR because they are not but have failed to make a clear statement to that effect.

My recommendation to each college so accused is to make this very public pronouncement: "Scumbag College hereby asserts that selection by race is a racist endeavour. This college has never employed such bias and never will". Problem solved.

It is really funny how your persistence in turning this back to an issue of your perception of discriminatory hiring is exactly the issue of aggression this report is about when a diverse candidate is hired despite the fact that they were the best candidate.

This alleged "aggression" is a myth as far as I can see and indeed that word is not helping the debate. There is no doubt that some discrimination takes place (both ways) but the over-riding factor here is of perception, and the perception continues that some institutions have failed to demonstrate that they are 100% merit-based. Trying to sweep that under the carpet looks self-serving in that context.

Besides you would have no way of knowing that the a hire was the "best candidate" unless you were part of that hiring process.

[scrumpyjack]

This is bonkers!

You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?

[Lootman]

This is bonkers!

You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?

Those who argue for affirmative action selection probably claim that is a price worth paying. But as I noted before, affirmative action has been formally banned in the US.

Although there are still some back door routes to do that, as you can still discriminate based on (say) economic background, which can be a proxy for race in some places. And some US cities still have a system of "bussing" high school students from one part of town to another, rather than just have every kid attend his or her local school. Parents apply to their city and then the city decides which school they attend, which can be on the other side of town.

[Niksen]

This alleged "aggression" is a myth as far as I can see

And yet you previously said this.

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

Do make up your mind.

This is bonkers!

You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?

You fell into the Daily Mail trap.

The issue is that in your example the surgeon is the best person for the job, but the snide comments from those who were less able and didn't get the job is that the successful applicant only got the job because of their race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc.

[Lootman]

This alleged "aggression" is a myth as far as I can see

And yet you previously said this.

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

That is not aggression. It is merely the expression of free speech. And the inevitable consequence of institutions playing games with their selection criteria whilst engaging in poor PR.

The issue is that in your example the surgeon is the best person for the job, but the snide comments from those who were less able and didn't get the job is that the successful applicant only got the job because of their race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc.

Except that you have no way of knowing that he/she is "the best person for the job". It just suits your bias to assume that without evidence.

[Niksen]

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

That is not aggression. It is merely the expression of free speech.

You don't think someone saying without any evidence at all that someone didn't deserve the job and the employer broke the law by hiring them isn't aggressive?

That's a very strange view to have.

The issue is that in your example the surgeon is the best person for the job, but the snide comments from those who were less able and didn't get the job is that the successful applicant only got the job because of their race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc.

Except that you have no way of knowing that he/she is "the best person for the job". It just suits your bias to assume that without evidence.

Since it would be illegal to discriminate, then to assume without evidence that an employer has broken the law and hasn't hired the best person for the job says more about you than the person you are smearing and being aggressive to.

[Lootman]

But you are correct about the corollary that if you get a job and you are a minority then there is always that patronising whisper at the water cooler that you are a "quota pick" or "diversity hire".

That is not aggression. It is merely the expression of free speech.

You don't think someone saying without any evidence at all that someone didn't deserve the job and the employer broke the law by hiring them isn't aggressive?

No, such clams are not that an employer or college broke any law but rather that the law allows for such "positive" discrimination and that moreover the institution did so, meaning that their selection criteria included factors other than merit.

And in my experience such things are only said when that hire screws up. So are you saying that it is "aggressive" to point out hiring mistakes?

[Hallucigenia]

This is bonkers!

You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?

Well that's the whole point of the original guideline, is to encourage people not to think in terms of "best person for the job" versus "diversity hire" - not least because in the UK affirmative action is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. By talking about affirmative action you're taking a US perspective which is not relevant here. How about that black surgeon *is* the best person for the job and not a "diversity hire"?


To see the original guideline in context, before the Telegraph started twisting it, see :
https://www.gla.ac.uk/explore/togethera ... gressions/

[Niksen]

You don't think someone saying without any evidence at all that someone didn't deserve the job and the employer broke the law by hiring them isn't aggressive?

No, such clams are not that an employer or college broke any law but rather that the law allows for such "positive" discrimination and that moreover the institution did so, meaning that their selection criteria included factors other than merit.

Positive discrimination isn't legal in the UK.

Sorry, but I thought you knew that! Frankly I thought everyone knew that!

So are you saying that it is "aggressive" to point out hiring mistakes?

Nope, it is just that you seem to only be defending those who want to point out "hiring mistakes" for which they have no evidence in very specific circumstances that relate to an illegal hire based on diversity.

[Lootman]

This is bonkers!

You are about to have a heart operation. Do you want the surgeon to be the best person for the job or the diversity hire?

Well that's the whole point of the original guideline, is to encourage people not to think in terms of "best person for the job" versus "diversity hire" - not least because in the UK affirmative action is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. By talking about affirmative action you're taking a US perspective which is not relevant here. How about that black surgeon *is* the best person for the job and not a "diversity hire"?

The term "affirmative action" is in common use here. And as I noted above there are various backdoor ways of engaging in "positive" discrimination, as also indicated by the article cited upthread.

Also if a company has employees that are 100% white then someone somewhere is going to accuse it of racism, even if each individual hire was purely on merit.