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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Welfare programs  are based on income, not race, around here as well. 

People were formally " divided into groups", by law, in the US until fairly recently.

Minorities got the bad end of the stick in ways white people did not experience.

 There are a lot of different levels of " hard" when basic civil and human rights are involved. 

It doesn't matter what anyone likes or dislikes.

Share this post


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

Welfare programs  are based on income, not race, around here as well. 

Good.

3 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

People were formally " divided into groups", by law, in the US until fairly recently.

Good, shouldn't go back to that.

4 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Minorities got the bad end of the stick in ways white people did not experience.

Thankfully that changed.

4 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

 There are a lot of different levels of " hard" when basic civil and human rights are involved. 

Absolutely. And?

5 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

It doesn't matter what anyone likes or dislikes.

That's true, but what matters is society should not fall into traps of legitimising "positive" division and categorisations. 

Share this post


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

 

Thankfully that changed.

 

How much and in what ways is the open question. 

 

Edit: Actually, no...it isn't so much of an open question. Based on my own and my family's and my community's experiences. 

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing diversity is actually really difficult to do in hiring and jobs, even if someone wanted to do it. For example, in the US, if you go for a job interview and don’t get hired, there are a million different excuses a company or manager could give for not hiring someone. If u nitpick anyones resume or their interview you could find a reason not to hire them, anyone could, without mentioning the real reason you didnt hire them, I.e. their race, religion, gender, etc. Its just too easy to get away with discriminating against someone.

Usually the only ones who get caught are the ones who openly admit, either on social media or in person to someone that tell on them, that they didnt hire someone because they were black, a women, Muslim, etc. Most people who progress far enough in their career that they are making decisions about hiring, they probably arent stupid enough to admit something that they know would kill their career. It happens, but its rare.

It is very rare that a business or corporation is anything resembling a democracy. They operate by the golden rule, the one with the gold makes the rules. Everyone who works there either goes by these rules or they find another job. So if those who have the gold want diversity, there will be. If they don’t, there wont be. Most owners want to hire people who are like them and don’t want to hire people who are not like them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as gender is concerned that's a whole different story, one of which is that men and women are not suitable for all jobs equally, nor are men and women wired to pursue the same jobs. Forcing diversity here would be even more pathetic.

Share this post


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

I'd wonder about a business that was so worried about

Back in the early nineties, l read that American corporations were "little Love Boats" (from the name of a TV program, sitcom type in the 70s). This is easier to explain by recounting that before this, corporations would not hire a husband and wife, and if a couple met and married, one was expected to leave the company. That/this way, spats or professional disappointments and all did not disrupt the whole company.

Share this post


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

and if a couple met and married, one was expected to leave the company. That/this way, spats or professional disappointments and all did not disrupt the whole company.

This is still the socially expected thing to do in my (former) profession, civil engineering, though I don't know of companies that have it stated in their policy manual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 4:39 PM, Sumerian said:

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.

The picture is about the context I was speaking about, not mental disabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 6:52 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?

Yes it is negative and it is rather a contradiction of it's premise too, so it's incoherent. 

The world was very diverse before the modern world, the fact of this is enough to show how wrong these kinds of movements are. Through imperialism and globalization, we are increasingly becoming less diverse and less free in general. It's the weaponization of language and creating buzzwords that mean the opposite of what they appear to imply. They say "diversity" but they mean "monoculture", which means that it's very subversive.

On 8/12/2019 at 6:52 PM, 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?

That example is exclusivism. I'm not sure if it's "immoral" per se but it's unethical and comes across as a bit perverse. Aside from that it's an appeal to aesthetic or appearance, definitely a thing that should make any rational person frown in unease.

Edited by HakimPtsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 14, 2019 at 4:54 PM, Sumerian said:

It changed in the eyes of the law. 

With enforcement being difficult or weak, as @Reza and @Abu Hadi have pointed out.

But your premise is that companies, etc. are being " forced to hire" minorities, etc. 

That's not what the law does, so your premise is false.

In fact, " quotas", etc. have been an anathema to a lot of supporters of affirmative action ,including Bill Clinton and a host of others.

The law was meant to stop discrimination against qualified applicants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 14, 2019 at 9:52 PM, hasanhh said:

Back in the early nineties, l read that American corporations were "little Love Boats" (from the name of a TV program, sitcom type in the 70s). This is easier to explain by recounting that before this, corporations would not hire a husband and wife, and if a couple met and married, one was expected to leave the company. That/this way, spats or professional disappointments and all did not disrupt the whole company.

That's not sexual harassment, though. That's a consensual relationship...especially if it ends in a wedding. And asking one partner of a couple who choose to marry to leave a company isn't dealing with sexual harassment. Sexual harassment isn't consensual. 

I have no idea how companies deal with the " no fraternization" rules, if they have them, which forbid any dating or relationships between employees. Marriage doesn't create the only spats.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, root said:

Diversity has been proven to give better results in team work. So sometimes diversity > most qualified.

I have no idea why any organization would purposely want to leave out the brainpower of the majority of its population ( putting women into the mix as well as minorities). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HakimPtsid said:

Yes it is negative and it is rather a contradiction of it's premise too, so it's incoherent. 

The world was very diverse before the modern world, the fact of this is enough to show how wrong these kinds of movements are. Through imperialism and globalization, we are increasingly becoming less diverse and less free in general. It's the weaponization of language and creating buzzwords that mean the opposite of what they appear to imply. They say "diversity" but they mean "monoculture", which means that it's very subversive.

That example is exclusivism. I'm not sure if it's "immoral" per se but it's unethical and comes across as a bit perverse. Aside from that it's an appeal to aesthetic or appearance, definitely a thing that should make any rational person frown in unease.

Your statement makes zero sense,In my humble opinion.

If a society is " diverse" and one group is oppressing all of the other groups...yes...it's "diverse" ,but it isn't " just" or equal". 

That's what the law addresses...as per our Constitution.

 

Share this post


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

With enforcement being difficult or weak, as @Reza and @Abu Hadi have pointed out.

But your premise is that companies, etc. are being " forced to hire" minorities, etc.

That's not what the law does, so your premise is false.

In fact, " quotas", etc. have been an anathema to a lot of supporters of affirmative action ,including Bill Clinton and a host of others.

The law was meant to stop discrimination against qualified applicants.

uhhh no.

I said this:

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.

so ur wrong

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?

You started out with this statement....and kept circling back to it. You didn't start qualifying until far into the conversation. This initial statement is what I, and others, are reacting to.  

So, now....if no one is being "forced to hire "anyone...what is your beef?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

You started out with this statement....and kept circling back to it. You didn't start qualifying until far into the conversation. This initial statement is what I, and others, are reacting to.  

So, now....if no one is being "forced to hire "anyone...what is your beef?

Yea.. no. Ur wrong. The US was first mentioned by other members, not me. I don't live in America anyway. There are quota laws in other countries.

The O.P made no reference to any nation, but I gave an example. So yea, that's my beef. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


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

How about it is left for the employer to make the decision on who would benefit his/her business the most?

Salam I think ,it highly depends on policy of your company or etc ,if you make a company to help weak minority to provide jobs for all of them you can prefer one person from minority over a qualified person from outside but if you are making company for better benefit & co working with others you can prefer qualified person from outside .

Share this post


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

How about it is left for the employer to make the decision on who would benefit his/her business the most?

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. If the employer thinks diversity makes the company run better rather than just hiring the best people then I don't think that is morally wrong. Nowadays, in IT for example where there is a lot of teamwork, they hire with the aim of diversity + skills.

Share this post


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

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. If the employer thinks diversity makes the company run better rather than just hiring the best people then I don't think that is morally wrong. Nowadays, in IT for example where there is a lot of teamwork, they hire with the aim of diversity + skills.

No nothing wrong with that. That's their choice as the employer. I'm speaking more about a regulation or a law that forces the employer to choose diversity, instead of doing that independently.

Share this post


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

No nothing wrong with that. That's their choice as the employer. I'm speaking more about a regulation or a law that forces the employer to choose diversity, instead of doing that independently.

Ahh..ok I misunderstood then. No I don't agree with forced regulation unless something is proven to be discriminatory. Companies in normal situations should be allowed to hire whomever they think will benefit the company.

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...