Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sumerian

Forced diversity

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This is a dilemma, but I want to expose the problem of both aspects.

In one hand, forcing diversity as one strategy more to impose multiculturalism is politically and socially negative, as it contributes even more to the development of the empty multicultural identity that is, by itself racist (in the sense that sees the "Other" - the exotic person with a specific and structured cultural identity - as a level below him - the multiculturalist who identifies with no culture and accepts/tolerates all of them through an unperceived western/European lens). And it is politically wrong as it kills any ideological clash between cultures that should, naturally, exist.

In the second hand, I was just talking about positive discrimination in another thread. That is completely an error, as it removes the focus of an universal problem (eg racism) to a specific problem (the difficult access of unemployed lesbian black mothers to jobs in the IT sector). Nonetheless, diversity shall also be looked for, but not through positive discrimination, but a genuine search for diversity because there is advantages to it (and indeed, in many cases, there is). An example of this is my sector, digital entertainment. Content creators shoulf be as diverse as possible to reach wider audiences. Products developed by multicultural teams will be more accurate (things like putting the quranic verses in a bathroom as happened with a videogame, wouldn't happen if there was at least one single person who is familiar with our culture). Another aspect to it is that the search for diversity shapes society. In videogames, the fact that universities and companies have also searched for women to work in their projects have contributed to an increase in women studying a degree in game development. This is not a casual coincidence but a achieved consequence of the search for diversity. This search has shaped the game development world for the good, and not through positive discrimination in job interviews.

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Do you believe that forcing diversity on people can often be a negative rather than a positive - both socially and with respect to our religious institutions?

It being forced

is the problem & to establish synergy becomes difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Do you believe that forcing diversity on people can often be a negative rather than a positive - both socially and with respect to our religious institutions?

For example, forcing a business to hire a person belonging to an ethnic minority instead of allowing the business to choose based on qualification and experience. Isn't that immoral?

If there aren't strict guidelines to enforce representation, personal biases and prejudices may act as a barrier to employ individuals outside of one's "comfort zone." 

That being said, if companies or managers or CEOs can't or don't understand the benefits of having representation, then forcing them to hire outside of their "comfort zones" would result in negative sentiments and it would create a toxic work environment, for both the employer and the employees. 

Education must precede the implementation of diversification in order for those in charge to want to diversify, willingly. 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

For example, forcing a business to hire a person belonging to an ethnic minority instead of allowing the business to choose based on qualification and experience. Isn't that immoral?

How would it be immoral?

There are good and bad results to forced diversity in workplaces, but I don't see it as a moral issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, notme said:

How would it be immoral?

you’re hiring based on ethnicity and not achievements. What if a white person is more qualified? If anything, this forces ethnicist thinking even more. We look at colour when hiring.

Dear God... what a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is a white supremacist society. Naturally, they have a problem with hiring people of color. That's where affirmative action legislation comes in. They have to prove the same standards were applied when rejecting black applicants that they applied to white applicants, for example. If you weren't racist, you have nothing to fear with that kind of legislation. 

 

What is a bigger problem is America imposing quotas on schools in the Middle East (eg UAE, Saudi) to make them hire American staff and accept a fixed number of American students. That's the kind of [Edited Out] that popularizes people like bin Laden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

you’re hiring based on ethnicity and not achievements. What if a white person is more qualified? If anything, this forces ethnicist thinking even more. We look at colour when hiring.

Dear God... what a terrible idea.

I didn't say it's a good (or bad) idea. What does it have to do with morality? Which moral standard is violated by the workplace requirement to hire certain numbers of individuals of a given ethnicity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Do you believe that forcing diversity on people can often be a negative rather than a positive - both socially and with respect to our religious institutions?

For example, forcing a business to hire a person belonging to an ethnic minority instead of allowing the business to choose based on qualification and experience. Isn't that immoral?

It's clearly wrong. You would want the business to hire a person based on his skills and not his race. His/her ethnicity doesn't define his qualifications.

This reminds me of a company here in Perth that got shut down because the boss was hiring "educators" who literally knew nothing about the job nor did they have any kind of degree or qualification. A total of 90 employed, and when the government found out she lost her whole business. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

Which moral standard is violated by the workplace requirement to hire certain numbers of individuals of a given ethnicity?

There is, notme, though it is subtly veiled.

Imagine a group of people doing a strike in the street against institucionalized racism. Imagine that the strike started as a reaction against a particular case: for instance, leaked data that has shown that university teachers in the country are 95% exclusively white. What is the typical reaction to this? A law to enforce diversity for other ethnicitied in universities. Who lost this battle?

The people in the strike.

Their universal, ideological, social and extremely political battle against the universal racism was thwarted by a specific discriminatory solution that bring no social contribution. Rather the contrary. But it will end the strike.

When governments bring such "solutions" as positive discrimination, they are also negating and thwarting the political efforts to achieve a social change in society. And not sure if morally, but that is indeed, ethically wrong. People want a space where they can discuss ideology, universal concepts, and not merely specific individual problems (which is the trend today due to global capitalism).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Their universal, ideological, social and extremely political battle against the universal racism was thwarted by a specific discriminatory solution that bring no social contribution. Rather the contrary. But it will end the strike.

So this situation would be an example of treating the symptom while dismissing the root problem.

Therefore the moral issue is exactly the same as the one that precipitated the "requirement"?

Edited by notme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, notme said:

So this situation would be an example of treating the symptom while dismissing the root problem.

Therefore the moral issue is exactly the same as the one that precipitated the "requirement"?

Ironically, yes. The moral issue and desire for the real social justice is bypassed by an "utilitarian" approach in this era of pseudo/post politics, as correctly exposed by Ranciere in his short book Disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, notme said:

I didn't say it's a good (or bad) idea. What does it have to do with morality? Which moral standard is violated by the workplace requirement to hire certain numbers of individuals of a given ethnicity?

Not a workplace requirement, I meant a law which forces businesses to hire based on race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Not a workplace requirement, I meant a law which forces businesses to hire based on race.

Internal company law or state or federal law, the result is the same and this doesn't answer my question anyway.

However, I got an answer from @Bakir: this "solution" sidesteps the existing problem of racism, which is then allowed to continue, and that continued racism is the moral issue.

However, if you have a different answer to the question of which moral standards are broken by forced diversity, please do share. I genuinely want to know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, notme said:

Internal company law or state or federal law, the result is the same and this doesn't answer my question anyway.

Of course it matters. If I'm an employer and want the most successful outcome for my business, is it not immoral to force me to hire someone who I believe does not fit my criteria (can cause failure)?

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Of course it matters. If I'm an employer and want the most successful outcome for my business, is it not immoral to force me to hire someone who I believe does not fit my criteria (can cause failure)?

So having a potentially unsuccessful business is immoral? Under which religion? Capitalism?

Which moral requirement is violated by following affirmative action rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, notme said:

So having a potentially unsuccessful business is immoral? Under which religion? Capitalism?

Forcing a business to fail is immoral. 

11 minutes ago, notme said:

Which moral requirement is violated by following affirmative action rules?

Having affirmative action rules is by definition immoral, because it sees identity and ethnicity as more valuable than action and qualification. 

You are seeing people in colours and numbers, you aren't judging and dealing with them based on their actions. This is in fact unIslamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nearly impossible to prove discriminatory hiring anyway. It's a non-issue for small business and only becomes relevant when the company is large enough that ethnic representation becomes statistically significant. Affirmative action isn't going to cause any small business to fail, and it's unlikely to fail any large business, because large companies will attract a large enough applicant pool that they will have plenty of minority applicants to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, notme said:

It's nearly impossible to prove discriminatory hiring anyway. It's a non-issue for small business and only becomes relevant when the company is large enough that ethnic representation becomes statistically significant. Affirmative action isn't going to cause any small business to fail, and it's unlikely to fail any large business, because large companies will attract a large enough applicant pool that they will have plenty of minority applicants to choose from.

Nevermind the real-life current actual application of these rules, I'm just questioning the premise of forcing diversity.

Like I said my main issue is it makes you see and define people by their colour, rather than their actions. That's my main issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

Like I said my main issue is it makes you see and define people by their colour, rather than their actions. That's my main issue.

I agree, racism is immoral.

I do not agree with your previous assertion that it will cause business to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, notme said:

I agree, racism is immoral.

So you agree forcing diversity on businesses is immoral?

Just now, notme said:

I do not agree with your previous assertion that it will cause business to fail.

It certainly effects businesses and does have the potential to cause a business to fail. 

Although, affirmative action rules in the US are not as bad as those in other countries. As far as I know there isn't a law in the US requiring businesses to have minority workers.

In any case, I support a colour blind policy, which is that race shouldn't be a legally binding condition when hiring. To me this is the most moral way of dealing with this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

So you agree forcing diversity on businesses is immoral?

 

My answer is more nuanced than an absolute right or wrong. If the hiring manager is rejecting qualified applicants on the basis of ethnicity, that is wrong and perhaps immoral. If those applicants belong to a protected minority or if they don't, it is wrong. So what's the solution? I don't know. Forced diversity, AKA "affirmative action" normalizes diversity within the workplace, eroding subtle prejudices among the younger and newer workers, and that is a positive effect. It doesn't address, or perhaps even exacerbates, the problem of racism among higher level executives, and that is bad.

23 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

In any case, I support a colour blind policy, which is that race shouldn't be a legally binding condition when hiring. To me this is the most moral way of dealing with this issue.

This is ideal, but not really possible where humans (or human controlled AI) are involved. Perhaps removal of the name and address of the applicant from the review process, along with elimination of interviews would do it, but nobody would like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studies have been shown that if two identical applications are received, with the same qualifications, with one a “white” name and the other a “minority” name, the former is significantly more likely to get a call back. 

Attempts at increasing diversity are modest, yet incomplete measures to create a level playing field of opportunity at the macro level, and to raise consciousness of inherent systemic inequities.

This conflation of promoting diversity with permitting lower qualifications (insinuating that they go hand in hand) is part of alarmist rhetoric to cast suspicions on any effort to address these inequities, which is dismissed as reckless social engineering destroying our utopian meritocracy.

First, prove we live in a true meritocracy. Secondly, how would you address these inequities, if at all? And if they are not to be actively addressed, tell me how the status quo is sustainable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reza said:

any effort to address these inequities, which is dismissed as reckless social engineering destroying our utopian meritocracy.

This.

Surprisingly enough, the establishment attending particular problems perpetuates the universal problem of inequality.

Do we even have historical records of such a cruel (anti)political system in human history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Reza said:

Studies have been shown that if two identical applications are received, with the same qualifications, with one a “white” name and the other a “minority” name, the former is significantly more likely to get a call back. 

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place to protect people from not being hired as a result of their background.

9 hours ago, notme said:
 

This is ideal, but not really possible where humans (or human controlled AI) are involved. Perhaps removal of the name and address of the applicant from the review process, along with elimination of interviews would do it, but nobody would like that.

It is possible, it is the current system available in the United Kingdom. As far as I know the United Kingdom is doing very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place to protect people from not being hired as a result of their background.

Yes, but as said before, discrimination is very difficult to prove in a court, especially in individual cases. An employer can simply deny discrimination and claim there was another reason for not hiring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've done studies that companies in the US were more likely to hire a candidate with a non-black sounding name than one with a white sounding name, and both of the job candidates had the same qualifications. Thats why stuff like this have to exist.

 

IISC_EqualityEquity.png

Edited by Lilly14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Reza said:

This conflation of promoting diversity with permitting lower qualifications (insinuating that they go hand in hand) is part of alarmist rhetoric to cast suspicions on any effort to address these inequities, which is dismissed as reckless social engineering destroying our utopian meritocracy.

First, prove we live in a true meritocracy. Secondly, how would you address these inequities, if at all? And if they are not to be actively addressed, tell me how the status quo is sustainable? 

Whether we live in a meritocracy or not is irrelevant, because the fact is many businesses, in fact the overwhelming most in the Western world, will favour quality and disregard ethnicity if there is indeed a qualification gap. There is no reason to punish a business for making the sane decision of employing people based on qualification, just because some businesses will favour a white person over a minority person in the less likely case of two people with the exact same qualifications going for the job.

The status quo is quite sustainable. The United Kingdom has no affirmative action policies and does better than the US which does have it.

Furthermore, it's not as if minorities are doing so much better in the US in states that have these affirmative action policies. These are real life comparisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 11, 2019 at 11:52 PM, Sumerian said:

Do you believe that forcing diversity on people can often be a negative rather than a positive - both socially and with respect to our religious institutions?

For example, forcing a business to hire a person belonging to an ethnic minority instead of allowing the business to choose based on qualification and experience. Isn't that immoral?

I have no idea what goes on in other countries.but the law in the US is not designed to force businesses ( and many businesses are exempt from affirmative action laws anyway) to hire minorities. It was to keep them from discriminating against qualified persons based on race, gender, religion, etc. 

which was happening. All over. Hence...the law. 

Whether discrimination (or solutions for it ) is " immoral" or not would depend on one's views of morality. 

But this kind of discrimination is  patently unconstitutional and against the Equal Protection clause. 

That said, some states within the US, including uber-liberal California, have banned the use of "affirmative action " in things such as university admissions, etc, and use other means to increase diversity.

 

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lilly14 said:

They've done studies that companies in the US were more likely to hire a candidate with a non-black sounding name than one with a white sounding name, and both of the job candidates had the same qualifications. Thats why stuff like this have to exist.

 

IISC_EqualityEquity.png

This picture is meaningless. The reason why you treat kids and the mentally disabled different is because they do not have the same mental and physical capacity as adults. 

People of different colour do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Following @LeftCoastMom 's prompt, last year there were news reports that businesses were careful-to-not hiring women fearing claims of harassment.

They will possibly get in trouble for that. Of course, I'd wonder about a business that was so worried about its " corporate culture " that it couldn't handle hiring women. Would they be turning down folks due to color and religion as well for fear of accusations of racism and other prejudices among the employees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeftCoastMom said:

^ You might be taking that picture a little too literally.

I know what she is trying to say, that different groups in society have not been treated equally and therefore demand extra measures so they can stand up like other groups.

I do not like dividing people into groups. People are individuals. People can have it hard regardless of race and ethnicity.

Which is why welfare programs that support people on the basis of income are much more moral in my opinion than these race based rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...