Preferably Caucasian

[sanantone]

The obligation is not my opinion; the obligation is the law. You, obviously, neither understand the law nor care to understand the law. White women benefit from Affirmative Action more than anyone else, and there have been white men who have been granted full rides to HBCUs because of AA. AA is not race or gender-specific.

It is illegal to make race a requirement for hiring. You cannot put in a job ad that you want the hire to be black or Hispanic. It is legal to say that minorities and women are encouraged to apply. Making race a factor in the hiring process is not the same as encouraging underrepresented groups to apply. Employers can ask for men or women only when it's justified i.e. home healthcare jobs or law enforcement jobs that require strip searches.

I don't have the patience to address your white supremacist ideology, but the law is the law.

---

> You never fail to defend racism.  

and liberals never fail to promote it 

and as for what I wrote, you only see what you want to see 
I did not defend the racism in those articles 
" as well as two emails where a hiring manager instructed the recruiting team to 'only consider' candidates from 'historically underrepresented groups.' "
I called that practice out for what it is -- racist 

when are liberals going to stop being hypocritical ? 
liberals think having a majority of workers be white and asians is racist 
but setting goals of decreasing whites and asians and hiring minorities is not 
LOL - liberals don't see that as racist ?? it obviously is 

> Employers have an obligation to attempt to recruit applicants from groups that are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the population in the local area.

that's just a personal belief of yours 

my personal belief is that employers have an obligation to make make money for themselves and their share holders 
and do it without polluting the environment or making a dangerous product

look at this quote 
http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-201...ty-report/

According to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report on diversity in the tech industry, tech firms hire a larger share of White, Asian, and male employees than the private sector overall.

Black and Hispanic or Latinx workers make up 14.4% and 13.9% of the private workforce overall, respectively. In the tech sector as a whole they are 7.4% and 8% of employees.

they say all that as if its a bad thing 
they imply underrepresentation 
but they provide no context at all  

but if you look at the number of minorities getting science and engineering degrees 
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/college-11.html

only 8.8% of science and engineering bachelors degrees are earned by blacks
and when they say "science and engineering" they're including psychology, and social science  
 

Degree data reflect U.S. citizens and permanent residents only; they do not include foreign nationals with temporary visas. Population data include all U.S. residents, regardless of citizenship status.
S&E = science and engineering. S&E includes biological/agricultural sciences, physical sciences, computer sciences, mathematics/statistics, engineering, psychology, and social sciences; excludes health sciences. Physical sciences = chemistry, physics, astronomy, and earth/ocean/atmospheric sciences.

so if 8.8% of bachelors degrees in S&E are earned by blacks is it really a big deal that they make up 7.4% of the workforce in tech ?

sounds pretty fair to me 

and also 

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/dige...minorities 

look under the tab 
Degrees earned by underrepresented minorities
scroll down to 
Bachelor's degrees earned, by ethnicity, race, and citizenship: 2016

Hispanics or Latinos earned 13.5% of science and 10% of engineering bachelor’s degrees; black or African American students, 9% and 4%; and American Indians or Alaska Natives, 0.5% and 0.3%.

black or African American students earned 9% of science degrees and 4% of engineering degrees 

how can a group that is earning 4% of engineering degrees claim to be underrepresented in the tech industry ? 

it is racist to hire someone based on their race 
liberals will never admit this 
because if they did it would gut their entire political platform 

so no, I don't defend racism 
but anyone who encourages hiring minorities just to ensure diversity does   

> An experiment from a few years ago ... 

I know about that ... 
all that proved was that companies wanted employees with names that sounded professional, 
that weren't going to hire some white guy named Bubba or Bobby Joe or Billy Ray either 

> That's ridiculous.  How about if they are BOTH wrong.  How about if a company just tries to hire the best PERSON for the job, without looking at any of the other crap.

but what if the best person for the job is a white person ? 
like in the video I posted, 
some chinese companies hired white people not because of their skills, but just because they're white 
because it gave the company a look of international reach and makes it easier for them to get contracts 
 

 

The was a lesser-known study that compared black and white names that were associated with class. White applicants still got more callbacks regardless of the class status their names represented. You do know that there are names that are European in origin that are now mostly associated with African Americans? One example is Yolanda. It's a common name among African Americans, but it is Greek in origin. How is that name unprofessional? There are also many African American names that are African and Arabic in origin i.e. Jamal (used in one of the studies). Who gets to decide that entire languages are unprofessional?

---

You also don't understand what racism means. Racism is the belief that a race or ethnic group is inferior. You've stated before that you think that Africans inherently have low intelligence. That is racism. Encouraging women and minorities to apply for a job is not racism.

[sanantone]

You never fail to defend racism.

Let's separate college admissions from employment laws because those are two different things. Affirmative Action says that, if you have two top candidates who are equally qualified, then you are supposed to hire the candidate from the underrepresented group. Employers have an obligation to attempt to recruit applicants from groups that are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the population in the local area.

Affirmative Action is designed to combat discrimination based on protected classes, but it doesn't work well because it's hard for applicants to tell if they've been discriminated against. An experiment from a few years ago proved that African Americans are less likely to get called for interviews. They used fake resumes with Anglo and African American-sounding names.

Oh please, it has nothing to do with racism to say that there are double standards which are inadequate. There is no rational reason to say that two equally qualified candidates should be selected based on race or should be prioritized based on race, not unless you can prioritize in either direction without being penalized. If it is not racist to prioritize a minority group over a majority group, it also would not be racist to prioritize a majority group over a minority group.

If I were faced with two equally qualified candidates, one white and one black, my choice would never come down to race, because I'm not a barbarian or an ignoramus. I would then differentiate by references, distance from the office, culture fit, etc. If, by some crazy occurrence, both candidates were equal in literally every way thus far, then the question would come down to can I afford to hire both people or only one? If I can only select one, I would devise a complex test of reasoning to see how well my thought process lines up with theirs regarding a nonstandard issue which may plausibly happen on the job, with the candidate whose answer provides the most insight being chosen over the other.

If the chosen applicant happens to be black, so be it. If white, so be it. I want the best applicant for a job, the best fit in culture, the most ingenious, the most capable -- if that person is white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or an ET hailing from Jupiter, that person would be hired for the job over the other candidates. To reduce it to race is monumentally hypocritical at best.

Many companies do not hire like this; this is why AA exists. It's not perfect, but it's the best solution that people have been able to come up with to combat discrimination. You and bluebooger need to look up the definition of racism.

It is illegal to put in a job ad that your preferred hire would be of any race. That is not how Affirmative Action works.

---

I don't see the problem

there's often a push to hire minorities or women

That's ridiculous.  How about if they are BOTH wrong.  How about if a company just tries to hire the best PERSON for the job, without looking at any of the other crap.

I don't want to get a job just because I'm a woman.  I want to get it because I'm a great candidate.

Quotas are illegal. If Google did use quotas, then they violated the law.

[sanantone]

Here is another study that found that black and Asian applicants who "whitened" their resumes received more callbacks. Black applicants tended to remove organizations and scholarships that revealed their race. Asian applicants tended to Americanize their names and add outdoorsy activities.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-wh...interviews

---

A Canadian study found discrimination against Asian names.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advice...calls-back

[Thorne]

Many companies do not hire like this; this is why AA exists. It's not perfect, but it's the best solution that people have been able to come up with to combat discrimination. You and bluebooger need to look up the definition of racism.

It is illegal to put in a job ad that your preferred hire would be of any race. That is not how Affirmative Action works.

Oh, okay, since you insist:
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Well, that's interesting. Can you explain where I defended antagonizing or discriminating against anyone of any race based on the notion that my race is superior? Even if you take out the concept of superiority, can you point to where I defended antagonizing or discriminating against someone of a race that is not my own?

Here, let me do that for you:
"There is no rational reason to say that two equally qualified candidates should be selected based on race or should be prioritized based on race, not unless you can prioritize in either direction without being penalized. If it is not racist to prioritize a minority group over a majority group, it also would not be racist to prioritize a majority group over a minority group."
Yeah man, look at how I defended racism by outlining a double standard and proclaiming OUTRIGHT that selections should not be made based on race. Hell, I even went out of my way to explain a process that eschews race COMPLETELY from the equation.

Since I did what you suggested, let me offer you one in return: You need to stop acting like I'm your enemy when I am not exhibiting the traits your enemies show.

AA is not a solution, it is a bandage. It's also inadequate enough that people like me going at it from the standpoint of logic, justice, and fairness can rightly proclaim that the 'solution' does nothing more than discriminate and propagate racism. Yes, it is racist, at least by one of the definitions which doesn't mention superiority as mandatory. Why? Because to prioritize Race A over Race B, you are aiding Race A and discriminating against Race B. Discriminating, as you are probably aware, is defined as, "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit." If you are therefore prioritizing Race A (a category) over Race B (also a category), you are discriminating against Race B on matters of race, which is.....what's the word? Oh yeah, racism!

[videogamesrock]

I’d like to go work for them — did I mention I have a nationally accredited degree?

[sanantone]

Many companies do not hire like this; this is why AA exists. It's not perfect, but it's the best solution that people have been able to come up with to combat discrimination. You and bluebooger need to look up the definition of racism.

It is illegal to put in a job ad that your preferred hire would be of any race. That is not how Affirmative Action works.

Oh, okay, since you insist:
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Well, that's interesting. Can you explain where I defended antagonizing or discriminating against anyone of any race based on the notion that my race is superior? Even if you take out the concept of superiority, can you point to where I defended antagonizing or discriminating against someone of a race that is not my own?

Here, let me do that for you:
"There is no rational reason to say that two equally qualified candidates should be selected based on race or should be prioritized based on race, not unless you can prioritize in either direction without being penalized. If it is not racist to prioritize a minority group over a majority group, it also would not be racist to prioritize a majority group over a minority group."
Yeah man, look at how I defended racism by outlining a double standard and proclaiming OUTRIGHT that selections should not be made based on race. Hell, I even went out of my way to explain a process that eschews race COMPLETELY from the equation.

Since I did what you suggested, let me offer you one in return: You need to stop acting like I'm your enemy when I am not exhibiting the traits your enemies show.

AA is not a solution, it is a bandage. It's also inadequate enough that people like me going at it from the standpoint of logic, justice, and fairness can rightly proclaim that the 'solution' does nothing more than discriminate and propagate racism. Yes, it is racist, at least by one of the definitions which doesn't mention superiority as mandatory. Why? Because to prioritize Race A over Race B, you are aiding Race A and discriminating against Race B. Discriminating, as you are probably aware, is defined as, "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit." If you are therefore prioritizing Race A (a category) over Race B (also a category), you are discriminating against Race B on matters of race, which is.....what's the word? Oh yeah, racism!

I said that bluebooger defends racism because he is a racist. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. He thinks that black people are dumb. Would you like me to find the thread?

Yes, employers have a tendency to prioritize the hiring of white people; that's why rebalancing is done by the courts if discrimination appears to be happening at a workplace. 

Your solution to widespread racism is to do nothing, which is just as bad as the discrimination that's occurring. AA doesn't work, so I don't know why people continue to complain about it. Employers are still getting away with discriminating against non-white people. Someone being angrier about an anti-discrimination policy than widespread racism tells me everything I need to know about the person.

[eriehiker]

I think that there is a bigger issue. In my area of Michigan, people fly the Confederate flag everywhere. I see it on the back of pickup trucks. Roadside vendors fly it. People wear it on jackets and fly it on their houses. Then, evangelical churches put up signs right next to the city limits signs that say things like "Jesus Christ Died for Your Sins." A barn has "Jesus Christ is Lord Over ------- County."

Any African-American who drives into the area for a job interview would very quickly get the hint that this area is not very welcoming to African-Americans and then turn around and go home. So only white people get hired and move to the area.

[armstrongsubero]

A company has the right to hire who the hell they want. If they want a white guy, black guy, woman whatever.

I dont see the big deal. They're paying the salaries.

---

They should hqve added 'caucasian men are encouraged to apply'

[eriehiker]

Not in the United States of America:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm

One of the reasons that America is so great is that we efficiently utilize the talents of all people. Discrimination based on race, gender, etc. is inefficient from an economic standpoint and is rightly banned.

[videogamesrock]

Not in the United States of America:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm

One of the reasons that America is so great is that we efficiently utilize the talents of all people.  Discrimination based on race, gender, etc. is inefficient from an economic standpoint and is rightly banned.

Discrimination cuts into profits. We saw this with Jackie Robinson, other teams had to integrate to have a competitive team. By bringing out an inferior product teams couldn’t compete with the Dodgers—inclusion was inevitable.