|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Affirmative Action, or "Positive" Discrimination
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Barnabas62: quote:
The safeguards were different for external recruits. In general, people were recruited to an entry grade and interviews were carried out by an independent body.
...so all the interviews you yourself conducted were a choice between different internal candidates? Then you're right, your organisation was not typical. Very few organisations have the luxury of a workforce large enough to fill all vacancies from internal candidates, and even fewer would think it desirable to do so. In fact the organisation I used to work for was obliged to advertise all vacancies externally, even if there were several internal candidates suitable for the job. And it is very rare indeed for any but the largest private-sector organisations to train interviewers for the recruitment process. I sat on an interview panel (once, because they needed my technical expertise to understand what the candidates were saying when asked about the job they were applying for) with no training whatsoever.
I can tell you from my own experience that women candidates are still being asked to give details of their childcare arrangements, even though this is not relevant to whether they are suitable to do the job they are being interviewed for. Perhaps interview panels ask all candidates the same question in order to "comply" with the law, but the fact that so many of them ask the question at all shows a persistent bias.
[ 07. August 2017, 06:19: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Nowadays in the NHS, and therefore I think probably also the civil service, all vacancies have to be advertised - except that folk at risk of redundancy have a right to be interviewed for any where they meet the person spec.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Jane R
Sure, times have moved on. In general, the Civil Service used to promote from within, though there were exceptions, including schemes for mutual private sector public sector swapovers. Entry level grades in my day were Clerical Assistant, Clerical Officer, Executive Officer, Assistant Principal.
People joined the Civil Service as a long term career move, rather than just for a specific job. It was part of the ethos.
I'm not sure how open to external application current vacancies are. It's an interesting question, I'll do some digging.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I accept this may not be fashionable, but our recruitment training was very strong on the notion that the purpose was to recruit the best person for the job, and not to assume that was the person who fitted our preconceptions because everyone we'd seen doing it before was a white male or female without a disability.
The primary purpose is not providing more opportunities for people who might have been denied them. Nor is the primary purpose to be affirmative. The primary purpose is to recruit the best person, irrespective of who they are. Ensuring equal opportunities and not being discriminatory are secondary purposes that contribute to that primary purpose, not purposes that might function independently in a way that subverts or diverts the primary purpose.
Except that recruitment to a university course is usually recruiting several people, rather than one single applicant from a field, I can't see there's any difference. Choosing somebody for a course on, say nuclear physics, because you want more deaf people in your classes, rather than because applicant x is best qualified or on one's assessment of their potential, shows the best capability of making the most of the course, strikes me as unjust, foolish and intellectually dishonest.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Funny the complaints about positive discrimination.
One of the most common is:
"The job should go to the most qualified"
This assumes that jobs have ever got the most qualified ...
This. This. This.
I am a chronically unwell WoC in the second tier of my profession. To make it into the first tier, I *don't* need there to be law obliging a panel to choose me instead of a white man. I *do* need those who create job specifications and "competency frameworks" and all that guff to stop framing them in terms which inherently advantage able-bodied white blokes and therefore make it easy to mark them up as "the most qualified".
And having been on interview and promotion panels myself, I've seen the reverse-engineering of "scores" to ensure the choice of candidate is supported by the so-called objective framework.
There is still both unconscious bias in how we define qualities such as "leadership", "resilience", "communication" and fully conscious discrimination on the part of those who would rather teach/work with someone who looks and sounds like them.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Jane R
It looks as though the significant decline in Civil Service numbers has had a major impact on internal promotions. There has been a big increase in interdepartmental transfers to fill vacancies, rather than hold formal interview boards. The aim, obviously, is to minimise redundancy costs.
That aside, it does look as though the process has been opened up significantly since my day. Departments are free to consider internal and external candidates in accordance with need.
Ironically, my second Civil Service appointment in the 60s was obtained in competition with both internal and external candidates because the job was entry grade. A dozen of us were recruited to meet a new IT need in a Department changing location. On the initial training course I met a mixture of new and existing Civil Servants. That was relatively unusual in those days, less so now I think.
[ 07. August 2017, 13:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept this may not be fashionable, but our recruitment training was very strong on the notion that the purpose was to recruit the best person for the job,
You cannot know the best person for the job unless you hire everyone and have them do it for a sufficient time.
As evinced in one of the links prior, most interview strategies are flawed, even before prejudice is accounted for.
And, as I've said before, most jobs don't need the best. The efficacy of most jobs doesn't change between the "best" and basic competency.
quote:
The primary purpose is not providing more opportunities for people who might have been denied them. Nor is the primary purpose to be affirmative. The primary purpose is to recruit the best person, irrespective of who they are. Ensuring equal opportunities and not being discriminatory are secondary purposes that contribute to that primary purpose, not purposes that might function independently in a way that subverts or diverts the primary purpose.
This sounds nice, but it essentially just maintains the status quo. And isn't, as I mentioned, of net benefit to most jobs.
quote:
Choosing somebody for a course on, say nuclear physics, because you want more deaf people in your classes, rather than because applicant x is best qualified or on one's assessment of their potential, shows the best capability of making the most of the course, strikes me as unjust, foolish and intellectually dishonest.
Everyone brings up jobs like neurosurgery and nuclear physics as if this is representative. It isn't.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everyone brings up jobs like neurosurgery and nuclear physics as if this is representative. It isn't.
All right. Medical school or a course on French Literature. The point I'm making and my view, if not yours, is the same.
[ 07. August 2017, 17:16: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, as I've said before, most jobs don't need the best. The efficacy of most jobs doesn't change between the "best" and basic competency.
The first statement is true. The second isn't.
Let's put neurosurgeons, physicists, and whatever else to the side, and consider a shop assistant. A "good" shop assistant will do the job much better than an "adequate" one, and the employer will benefit from that. Give me a choice between a helpful, knowledgeable staff and a person operating a till, and I know where I'm going to shop. But being the world's best shop assistant isn't necessary.
Sure - if all you can find is the till jockey, then he'll be better than nothing, but you'd be disappointed if you were looking to hire someone, and that was the best that was on offer.
Or I could point at various tradespeople that have done work for me. They're all qualified, all have the required certification and training. There's a significant difference in the quality of the work of the people who meet basic competence vs the good ones. I'll take the competent if I have to, but I want the good.
So I'd be surprised if it wasn't true of most or every job. Not that you need the very best, but that you want better than basic competence.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Choosing somebody for a course on, say nuclear physics, because you want more deaf people in your classes, rather than because applicant x is best qualified or on one's assessment of their potential, shows the best capability of making the most of the course, strikes me as unjust, foolish and intellectually dishonest.
Let's work on the assumption that people with physical disabilities are no less capable of studying intellectually challenging subjects/working in intellectually challenging jobs. On that assumption, all other things being equal, you'd expect the proportion of physically disabled people on those courses/in those jobs to be representative of the population.
The fact that they aren't represented in those proportions indicates that physically disabled people are being disadvantaged, whether actively, unconsciously, structurally, socially, whatever.
Your post quoted above seems to indicate to me that the deaf candidate has to "qualify" themselves for selection, while the able-bodied candidate has to avoid "disqualifying" themselves for selection. That is an inherently unequal position.
Why not start from the assumption that the disabled candidate is at least as suitable as the able-bodied until your selection process finds objective evidence otherwise?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
No Erroneous Monk, I'm saying exactly the opposite. You choose the best person for the job or course, irrespective of whether he or she is deaf.
Separately, and so far on this thread, this is a tangent, If, as a result, you have chosen a deaf person, then you provide everything necessary, arrange the environment etc to accommodate them and enable them to do what they need to do.
[ 08. August 2017, 14:12: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, as I've said before, most jobs don't need the best. The efficacy of most jobs doesn't change between the "best" and basic competency.
The first statement is true. The second isn't.
You say this and then go on to demonstrate the second is true. Or at least mostly true.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You say this and then go on to demonstrate the second is true. Or at least mostly true.
That's not at all what I said.
Is a person of basic competence better than not having a person? Yes, absolutely. So if "basic competence" is all I can find, I'll take it. But a "good" person is measurably better than a "basically competent" person, in almost all jobs.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... You also have a group of people not involved in the formal process (other colleagues who were not up for promotion and not on the panel) who would be able to smell a rat if the better candidate was passed over in favour of the white guy.
...
Would they also smell the rat if the better candidate was passed over in favour of the woman, or the non-white person?
My experience is yes, but they are too scared to say anything about it.
For example, our Prime Minister is proud of the fact that his cabinet is 50% women. However, there were better candidates for cabinet who were not selected, and nobody was willing to stand up to him.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You say this and then go on to demonstrate the second is true. Or at least mostly true.
That's not at all what I said.
Is a person of basic competence better than not having a person? Yes, absolutely. So if "basic competence" is all I can find, I'll take it. But a "good" person is measurably better than a "basically competent" person, in almost all jobs.
Not almost all jobs, IME.
Joan can file twenty documents an hour, John can file ten. Does it matter who you hire if there are less than 80 or more than 160 a day? No.
Henry is an employee in Blackwell's. Henry doesn't know how the books are organised. Does this prevent LC from finding a book? No.
Ed is the best plumber in the city. his soldering tidy and his routing of pipes economical and artful. James' soldering is messy and his routing of the pipes adequate, but unattractive. Neither work leaks. Does it matter who you hire? No.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not almost all jobs, IME.
Joan can file twenty documents an hour, John can file ten. Does it matter who you hire if there are less than 80 or more than 160 a day?
What are the chances, do you think, that I might have some work other than filing documents for John or Joan to do?
quote:
Henry is an employee in Blackwell's. Henry doesn't know how the books are organised. Does this prevent LC from finding a book? No.
But if I'm looking for a book, and Henry invites me to search through his shelves, whereas Jane in the bookstore next door leads me to the section where they keep that kind of book, which bookstore am I likely to return to?
quote:
Ed is the best plumber in the city. his soldering tidy and his routing of pipes economical and artful. James' soldering is messy and his routing of the pipes adequate, but unattractive. Neither work leaks. Does it matter who you hire? No.
James's work is likely to be harder to modify in the future, is likely to create more areas that, whilst not being problems might look like problems (and so increase the effort required to inspect the plumbing), and is likely to leave less space for future installations of other things.
In short, I dispute every single one of your "no" answers.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fine. You could provide exceptions to whatever example I give.
I've observed production in manufacturing sites. What mattered to quality of the product was the design and specifications, not the workers. The workers merely had to be good enough. I've observed design. And what mattered to design was adequacy, not brilliance. For every bridge that is an engineering marvel, there are thousands that are engineering acceptables.
Most doctors are adequate because most people don't require House, not because they are prodigies.
Most physicists are smart, but very few are geniuses.
Most teachers one will encounter are not gifted, but adequate.
Yes, given the choice, you may want the "best"* but in reality good enough is typically good enough.
*Best is much more difficult to quantify than most people think.
[ 08. August 2017, 23:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But I think the point is, that better is very often better.
You would be better off, I think, giving examples of someone doing 18 widgets to someone else's 20, not comparing someone who can only do half as many. Someone who can only do half as many is clearly inferior and definitely not a good hire.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I think the point is, that better is very often better.
You would be better off, I think, giving examples of someone doing 18 widgets to someone else's 20, not comparing someone who can only do half as many. Someone who can only do half as many is clearly inferior and definitely not a good hire.
You can posit expamples and find exceptions. Most things don't work that way.
But more important points are that you don't know who is the best, better or even good before you hire them and most hiring is more likely to operate on bias rather than finding the better candidate.
ETA: I'm not backing down from my claim about good enough.
[ 09. August 2017, 00:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But more important points are that you don't know who is the best, better or even good before you hire them
True, but has nothing to do with those 3 examples, or at least is not something you mentioned until now.
quote:
and most hiring is more likely to operate on bias rather than finding the better candidate.
Likely but again has nothing to do with your 3 examples.
quote:
ETA: I'm not backing down from my claim about good enough.
Bully for you. But you might want to try just a little harder to find examples to back your claims. Because your examples suck.
[ 09. August 2017, 01:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But more important points are that you don't know who is the best, better or even good before you hire them
True, but has nothing to do with those 3 examples, or at least is not something you mentioned until now.
read upthread. This is part of what we've been discussing.
quote:
Likely but again has nothing to do with your 3 examples.
which three? The first ones I gave to LC or the subsequent 5 I gave in a later post?
quote:
But you might want to try just a little harder to find examples to back your claims. Because your examples suck.
I think the first three were simplistic, but don't suck. The last 5 are very real examples.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... I'm not backing down from my claim about good enough.
And the rest of us aren't being swayed from the position:-
a. that we didn't agree with you to start off with, and
b. that you haven't persuaded us.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The issue about hiring someone who is "good enough" is that in virtually all cases you are hiring someone who will not be the "best" whatever on day one (even assuming we can define "best"). Everyone will need to learn on the job to become better, and it's almost impossible to judge that ability to learn a specific job. Exam results show ability to pass exams, and probably the influence of school, home and social environments over which the candidate had little control (an area over which affirmative action attempts to level the field by recognising that exam grades are statistically higher for candidates from advantaged backgrounds and adjusting the entry grade accordingly). References are fairly subjective, and often inaccurate (most people wouldn't write something really bad about someone, even if accurate, even more so when the candidate has the right to see what was said about them). Interviews are artificial environments where people only have a short time to impress.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I’m surprised that no one’s yet mentioned the current kerfuffle at Google (an employee getting fired for claiming that women are inherently less suited for tech/engineering).
In an ideal world, I agree that you should hire the most able candidate, independent of sex, race etc. But how do you counterbalance that against that fact that people like Mr Google Arsehole are automatically going to assume that a woman is less talented for the job?
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Or go back to Erroneous Monk's example of the deaf candidate. How do you ensure that the face-to-face interview gives the deaf candidate, who may be struggling to understand the questions being fired at them in an unfamiliar (and possibly noisy) environment by a bunch of strangers, an opportunity to demonstrate their competence that is equivalent to the one presented to a candidate with 'normal' hearing?
Employers are required to make 'reasonable accommodations' to ensure that disabled/differently abled employees can do their jobs, but I don't think there is a legal requirement to apply this thinking to the recruitment process (I could be wrong, of course).
[ 09. August 2017, 09:12: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555
|
Posted
The problem is long before uni. in England. Positive Discrimination won't help. The problem is deeper and more complex.
Many English Academies/Free Schools require uniforms bought from expensive shops - not supermarkets, thus disenfranchising poorer families. As already stated a quiet place to do homework is important. I used to study in a library on a Sat morning but many local libraries are now closed.
For me, growing up, my mum worked and as the eldest I had to do housework and usually cook the evening meal - not much time for homework. Many families are like this.
I had a friend who won a scholarship to a posh private school. Great. But they couldn't afford the very expensive uniform, books and sports equipment, so she couldn't go. Not the first to experience the "kindness" of expensive schools!! Scholarships need to be full, including uniform and travel/accoodation.
Loans for uni are another bone of contention. It's not just the fees but accommodation, food, books etc. Many years ago, I had a grant. It didn't cover everything but was a huge help. As someone from a working class family whose father, during my course, was made redundant, it was very necessary. Today - English students wouldn't have the chance, I had.
When our son went to do his degree in Bristol, because of the course he was on (had to be available in the evenings for placement) he couldn't get an evening job to support himself. It was also a very expensive town to rent accommodation in and landlords had rubbish properties which they rented to students at inflated prices. My working salary as a mum (we were fortunate) had to pay his rent and living expenses so he didn't have to take out an expensive second loan with higher than inflation interest.
The poor and working class really have a financial problem that the English Government ignores (the Scots are different with free university places for Scottish people - much more sensible)
If we want disadvantaged kids from whatever background to succeed, it's not positive discrimination that will get them there but an equal playing field financially.
Fine words from politicians don't cut the ice, action does. Lets bring back means tested grants and make landlords provide good quality and affordable accommodation for students.
Let's bring back Sure Start and stop pandering to Free Schools and Academies and fund all schools equally with enough money to educate all children in sensibly sized classes.Let's allow teachers to teach without constant interference from politicians who don't ever visit schools, talk to teachers and know nothing of how children learn. Let's pay teachers a sensible wage and stop paying huge salaries to Academy Superheads who don't teach (and some never have).
I speak as an ex-teacher who was at the rough end of politicians unfulfilled promises.
Better shut up, hadn't I!!!!!
--------------------
wild haggis
Posts: 166 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It may depend upon the legislation where you are, but I'd be very surprised if an employer did not have to take reasonable steps to ensure a level playing field at the interview stage. With someone who is hearing impaired, an employer should provide someone who can sign, for example. Of course, probably limits to that - an employer with fewer than x employees probably has a very informal selection process and taking such a step might be unrealistic.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, that's another thing. A person who's been deaf all their life has probably learnt English as a second language. Their first language will be British Sign Language. Yet, because they are British they will be expected to be as fluent in English as a hearing person who actually did learn English as their first language.
I don't think there is a requirement for people to be interviewed in their first language.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555
|
Posted
Wow! Discussion had moved on since I listed my last reply, which seems daft. Sorry.
Employment.
Are there different rules in different countries re necessity of supplying a "translator" for a hearing impaired person? I thought you had to for Disability Discrimination.
The problem are the hidden disabilities, such as Dyslexia, ADHD, Asperger's etc. I need a spell check (What about one on SofF?). I never got more than 0/10 for dictation at school. But I'm not stupid, have a post grad MA and was asked to do a PhD (can't afford it).If someone saw my pure written stuff they might discriminate saying, I'm thick.
So often we label people wrongly.
I sometimes wonder if at application stage names should be blanked out until you get to interview stage.
Certainly there is discrimination in schools, workplace and society in general, but how you change people's perceptions is a difficult one.
--------------------
wild haggis
Posts: 166 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Well, that's another thing. A person who's been deaf all their life has probably learnt English as a second language. Their first language will be British Sign Language. Yet, because they are British they will be expected to be as fluent in English as a hearing person who actually did learn English as their first language.
I don't think there is a requirement for people to be interviewed in their first language.
A person with someone signing for them will be interviewed with the panel speaking English and the person signing will sign in Auslan. There'd really both be an interview in the person's first language (assuming a hearing problem dating from birth) and also in English. After all, the job would most likely be carried out in English and the need for a signer may very well be a relevant consideration in employment
And yes, Wild Haggis, legal requirements in all sorts of things differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
The challenge, as I see it, is as La Vie en Rouge and JaneR say.
Where we are today: very few people I know (but then I don't work at Google......) believe that they, personally, discriminate. Even those who know about unconscious bias believe that they personally "deal with it".
But the statistics don't bear this out because in my profession, women, LGBTQ+, BME and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses that should make no difference to their performance (after reasonable adjustments) are under-represented.
Of course at some levels they are under-represented in the pool available for selection, but this is, in itself, a product of bias. For example, we know from research that equally qualified male and female candidates will respond differently to the same job advertisement - men are more likely to consider themselves qualified and apply, women less likely) and we aren't being creative enough in adjusting for this in how we advertise jobs, attract candidates and create selection pools to start with.
In my firm, data showed us that male graduates were responding faster to invitations to apply and we were filling roles first-come-first-served. Further research indicated that we were therefore turning away equally qualified or better qualified women who had applied within the dates put in the adverts, because we'd already given a disproportionate number of jobs to qualified men who applied earlier (though it hadn't been clear in our advertising material that we were doing this) - we were giving earlier applicants, who tended to be male, an easier ride. We have now divided up the application/recruitment period and spread vacancies across it to ensure that the availability of vacancies at different points in the application period matches the historical experience of number of applicants. This should mean an equally challenging ride for anyone applying in the period, regardless of how much time they took to consider applying.
My profession is also committed to active outreach to lower socio-economic groups, including the development of more non-graduate routes into the profession.
There's much still to do, but we won't do it if we keep telling ourselves that we're already recruiting "the best person for the job" and not trying to understand *why* the apparently "best person" is currently more likely to be straight, white, male, able-bodied and from a household with graduate parents.
Why do it? Because we want the very best talent. Not the best from a very small demographic. Inclusion is good business. It will become essential business.
[ 09. August 2017, 11:31: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I’m surprised that no one’s yet mentioned the current kerfuffle at Google (an employee getting fired for claiming that women are inherently less suited for tech/engineering).
<snip>
But how do you counterbalance that against that fact that people like Mr Google Arsehole are automatically going to assume that a woman is less talented for the job?
I have read that Google employee's statement, and that's not what it says. He says that unequal numbers of men and women in software engineering is not necessarily proof of discrimination. If fewer women than men apply for these jobs, there will be fewer women in them.
He specifically said that he sees this more as a difference in interests than a difference in ability. He also said that he had worked with female software engineers and he had a high respect for their skills.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The issue about hiring someone who is "good enough" is that in virtually all cases you are hiring someone who will not be the "best" whatever on day one (even assuming we can define "best"). ...
I agree. And if we are talking about hiring someone to bus tables and empty the garbage at McDonald's, "good enough" is fine. For many jobs, it is not.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Moo: quote:
He says that unequal numbers of men and women in software engineering is not necessarily proof of discrimination. If fewer women than men apply for these jobs, there will be fewer women in them.
And by saying that he identified himself as part of the problem. As wild haggis says, the bias starts in preschool. Before that, even. If you've been told all your life that girls aren't good at science/maths/engineering, why waste your time trying to study a STEM subject at university and make a career in it? If the job advert asks for qualifications you don't have, because nobody encouraged you to get them (because girls don't do that stuff), is it really surprising when you don't apply?
The problem doesn't just affect women; there are plenty of men whose real aptitudes and interests are ignored and/or actively discouraged because they don't fit traditional gender roles. Sexism is bad for men too.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Moo: quote:
He says that unequal numbers of men and women in software engineering is not necessarily proof of discrimination. If fewer women than men apply for these jobs, there will be fewer women in them.
And by saying that he identified himself as part of the problem. As wild haggis says, the bias starts in preschool. Before that, even. If you've been told all your life that girls aren't good at science/maths/engineering, why waste your time trying to study a STEM subject at university and make a career in it?
This man is not responsible for what happens in preschool. As I mentioned, he had worked with women whose skills he admired. It is not an established fact that many girls would like to study math but are discouraged by what other people say.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Moo: quote:
As I mentioned, he had worked with women whose skills he admired.
This is the traditional 'some of my best friends are female/black/gay' defence employed by all bigots.
...and actually, if he'd just said 'there aren't as many women here as men because more men apply' it wouldn't have been a problem. He could probably even have got away with suggesting that most women weren't interested in earning shedloads of money working for Google. But he didn't stop there. He went on to suggest that the reason why women didn't apply was because their brains were wired differently, which is bollocks.
I don't know anyone who works for Google, but what I hear of their corporate culture suggests that it is... let's say unfriendly... to those with caring responsibilites (for children or elderly parents). That issue alone would put me off applying to them.
[ 09. August 2017, 12:44: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Moo: quote:
It is not an established fact that many girls would like to study math but are discouraged by what other people say.
Actually it is: Women in UK science
And here's the Wikipedia article on the subject.
A friend of mine is an electrical engineer working for National Grid. She is also LGBT+, so she gets a double whammy of discrimination.
[ 09. August 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The problem doesn't just affect women; there are plenty of men whose real aptitudes and interests are ignored and/or actively discouraged because they don't fit traditional gender roles. Sexism is bad for men too.
This sounds very similar to the memo:
quote:
From the Google menu:
The male gender role is currently inflexible.
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Moo: quote:
As I mentioned, he had worked with women whose skills he admired.
This is the traditional 'some of my best friends are female/black/gay' defence employed by all bigots.
No, it is a clear statement that he does not believe that all female software engineers are inferior to male software engineers. quote:
But he didn't stop there. He went on to suggest that the reason why women didn't apply was because their brains were wired differently, which is bollocks.
No, he said their interests were different.
quote:
I don't know anyone who works for Google, but what I hear of their corporate culture suggests that it is... let's say unfriendly... to those with caring responsibilites (for children or elderly parents). That issue alone would put me off applying to them.
It would put many men off applying to them also.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I haven't read all 10 pages at the moment.
This excerpt is from page 3
quote:
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech3
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just
socially constructed because:
● They’re universal across human cultures
● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify
and act like males
● The underlying traits are highly heritable
● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these
differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences
are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions.
Not sure who one can get from what is written here to claiming he doesn't think women are biologically inferior. At least in regards to the ability to write code.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But he didn't stop there. He went on to suggest that the reason why women didn't apply was because their brains were wired differently, which is bollocks.
No, he said their interests were different.
Which is plainly bollocks if they are interested enough in a software engineering job to train for it and apply for it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
His whole screed sounds like nothing more than a whiny example of white male fragility.
[ 09. August 2017, 14:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
No, it is a clear statement that he does not believe that all female software engineers are inferior to male software engineers.
Does he believe that any male software engineers are inferior to female software engineers?
Does he believe that in a population of software engineers with the same qualifications and experience that male and female should be represented in any "superior" and "inferior" populations in proportion to their representation in the total population?
Or is he just sexist?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This excerpt is from page 3 ....
Not sure who one can get from what is written here to claiming he doesn't think women are biologically inferior. At least in regards to the ability to write code.
It certainly seems to be the case that he's saying that on average women are less able to write code (or hold positions of leadership).
It's also the case that he's incapable of making a strong argument given the number of holes that can be shot in his list without even thinking about it
quote:
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
● They’re universal across human cultures
Since human culture is a social construct therefore any culturally determined differences between people is by definition a social construct.
Added to which he needs to justify that these differences are universal in human cultures, ideally in independently developed cultures (ie: that these differences aren't simply inherited from one culture to another). I think that it's very likely that all human cultures include differences between men and women, but that what those differences are will vary considerably. If there were only two cultures, in one women take all the leadership roles and in the other men take all those roles, then you can say that all human cultures include differences between men and women - but that would be totally uninformative in deciding if there's some inherent biological (non-socially constructed) basis for women being better or worse suited for leadership.
quote:
● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify
and act like males
● The underlying traits are highly heritable
● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
All of which needs a lot of supporting evidence. And, I can almost guarantee in most (if not all) cases any evidence cited could be countered by equally good academic studies showing the opposite.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't know anyone who works for Google, but what I hear of their corporate culture suggests that it is... let's say unfriendly... to those with caring responsibilites (for children or elderly parents). That issue alone would put me off applying to them.
The Google memo suggested...
quote:
Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work [to] keep more women in tech.
...which at least goes part of the way to helping people with caring responsibilities.
The author also said that women on average are more prone to anxiety than men (then linked to research on this) so Google should make itself more friendly to women by reducing stress in the workplace. He also argues that women tend to be more people-orientated, hence it might help if Google introduced more collaboration.
There's a (IMO) pretty balanced discussion about the memo on The Young Turks. Ana Kasparian acknowledges many of the memo's points and disagrees with others.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
No, he said their interests were different.
Slate Star Codex has an article about gender differences that's rather better argued than the memo, as well as a slightly older one applying to libertarians.
[ 09. August 2017, 16:19: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All of which needs a lot of supporting evidence. And, I can almost guarantee in most (if not all) cases any evidence cited could be countered by equally good academic studies showing the opposite.
In general the standard of most of his citations are gladwellic.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
In general the standard of most of his citations are gladwellic.
Dans l'anglais?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
In general the standard of most of his citations are gladwellic.
Dans l'anglais?
About the same level as the citations in the average Malcolm Gladwell book.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And the rest of us aren't being swayed from the position:-
a. that we didn't agree with you to start off with, and
this is a problem. You are starting from a bias. This is natural, humans are bias machines. However, one needs to be at least open to a concept before it can be evaluated.
b. that you haven't persuaded us. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what would. I gave examples in this post of things I have some experience with. Care to discuss those, your own career or will you just adamantly stick to your predetermined conclusion?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, given the choice, you may want the "best"* but in reality good enough is typically good enough.
*Best is much more difficult to quantify than most people think.
Especially as a lot of jobs are going to involve multiple skills all measured on different axes. Given that people are normally hiring against an existing team, the mix of skills required may vary over time anyway - as they seek to balance their team.
There's also another manner in which employers already widely acknowledge that they don't require the 'best person for the job' - pay.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
