Discriminatory Hiring Practices…Morally and ethically correct?

So recently this has become a hot topic with some of my peers. Some of “us” (I use the combining term loosely here) believe that affirmative action or similar policies which take into account an applicant’s race and sex are okay as long as it favors either women or minorities. My take is that factoring race or sex either for or against women and minorities is equally wrong morally and ethically. The old axiom “two wrongs don’t make a right” comes to mind. In addition, it is a poor business practice in that an organization may not always hire or promote the most qualified person to a particular job and the slack will have to be made up by someone else (assuming it is made up at all). So given the diverse opinions on this forum and our uncanny ability to be largely civil on controversial topics (most of the time) I thought I’d see what your thoughts are.

 

I'm torn. I recognize that discrimination does exist, and women and minorities often face disadvantages in the workplace.

I don't, however, want to discriminate in order to reverse this trend.

IMO, the best policy on affirmative action is to focus on providing opportunities for women and minorities to compete for jobs. This may mean that interviewers intentionally strive to make sure that they interview some women and minority candidates. (Although it can tend to tokenism, think of the Rooney rule in the NFL for minority candidates.)

The problem we face is that because of structural inequities, sometimes female and minority candidates may not have as strong of a resume at first glance, but often a person's resume does not necessarily reflect their potential. Inviting some of these candidates for interviews that may not have otherwise been given the opportunity provides the opportunity for them to make the case that they are the best candidate for the job, but it doesn't mean that you have to hire them if they are not the best candidate.

I like this approach because it increases equity in opportunities without artificially forcing results.

 

I think it is wrong to practice discrimination in any form and that includes (in my opinion) favoring one group because they are disadvantaged. Everyone should have the opportunity to apply and be interviewed based on skills and merit, not on race or sex. I believe in hiring the best person not the best man or woman.

 

I would assume a new model would need to be created and the white man is the minority.

 

A typical Non-Discrimination Statement (declaratory):

Company XXXX “…does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, veterans’ status, sexual orientation, marital status or disability in employment”, is in my opinion … merely pretentious nonsense and is at best legalese designed as deception. Try confirming such discriminations which are likely to take place in too many organizations’ realistic, yet, obfuscatory hiring and/or dismissal practices.

BTW, according to the International Debate Education Association … “Ageism is the most prevalent form of discrimination in the workforce today.” And per Gibson et al. (2010), in 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recorded 19,103 age-discrimination cases which became the most common form of discrimination in the country. Moreover, a study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), revealed that nearly 70% of employees between the ages of 45 and 74 reported experiencing or observing some form of age discrimination in the workplace (Gibson et al. 2010).

Re: Gibson, Jane W. et al. (2010). Ageism and the baby boomers: Issues, challenges, and the TEAM approach. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, January 2010, 3(1).

 

First, something was needed to help rectify the wrongs (ethnic and gender) of the past. I'm not sure affirmative action as designed did that though.
Second, no one is upset with the good old boy network unless they aren't a part of it.
Third, too many people equate getting even with being equal.

My thought to improve affirmative action would have been to implement a limited affirmative action. For example, you get a 10 point preference in hiring, your child gets a 5 point preference, your grandchild gets a 2 point preference, and after that your family is on it's own. (I use points for illustrative purposes; I recognize not all hiring systems use points).

No system is going to be perfect and to suggest that racism and sexism will cease to exist is foolhardy. I have been discriminated against for both gender and race. Maybe it mattered less for me and to me as I am male and white and was able to find other opportunities.

 

Of course using language like "white" seems to imply a monolithic cultural identity, which is certainly not true. Do you believe there is discrimination even today among whites? Irish, Italian, Jewish or even people born with Slavic surnames...none of these fit the "Anglo Saxon" profile of the typical "white male" we seemed to be lumped in. Also people are just entirely too complex to classify accurately with any measure of socioeconomic effect. For example, I am Brazilian by birth, with a Welsh surname, Irish bloodline (almost exclusively), married to a 1/2 Hispanic, 1/2 Dutch women with children who are now 25% Hispanic, 50% Irish and 25% Dutch with a Brazilian national for a father. Exactly which checkbox would that be on an application? Does that checkbox belong there?

Even among Hispanics and Asians there is not a monolithic culture, so exactly how would affirmative action level the playing field unless you were breaking down distinct socioeconomic groups? For example, do you discriminate against Japanese Americans because they are very disproportionately represented in white collar jobs when compared to their overall population segment? Do you then favor Laotians because they are not?

I guess my argument is that any form of racial discrimination is at its base morally wrong regardless of the intentions (no matter how pure) behind it. Not only is it wrong but it is impossible to make effective long term changes. I guess the only people who could say unequivocally that this is the “right” thing to do are those who do not believe that it is possible to be racist against whites (a notion I find absurd but there are those who argue that).

 

I think it is also fair to say we want to hire people that are more like "you". A Harvard graduate might be more apt to hire a Harvard graduate vs. a Yale graduate. Perhaps, the same cold be said for race, color, and sex.

 

Perhaps there should be a box for "Poor White" and "Rich White"

 

I too am torn....I don't believe that anyone should be given preferential treatment just because they happen to be a certain race or gender; I do believe, however, in merit-based preferences, such as for military veterans. However, if a need can be demonstrated for people who possess certain qualities that are crucial, then I'm not so sure.

For example, my city has a section that has a huge Mandarin Chinese-speaking population, many of whom either don't speak English or speak it very poorly. Several years ago, we hired several officers who are fluent in Mandarin, because we previously had none; there was a demonstrated need in that case. Likewise, several years ago we had a ridiculously overwhelming amount of male vs. female officers, so we hired a "gender-specific" class to address that demonstrated need (female officers are invaluable for searching females, interviewing rape victims, etc.).

So, I guess my final answer is.......maybe.

 

And if that’s the measurement used for hiring … it’s still discriminatory, demonstrating preferential treatment. Of course we are all inconsistent toward our own favoritisms. That is why those declaratory disclosures I mentioned earlier are fundamentally worthless IMO (little or no core truthfulness; but hey, it does sound good).

 

Policing might be unique as the needs of the profession would dictate that a proper police department is able to cater to the needs of the people they are charged with protecting. I'm not sure this would necassarily be true with for example someone applying for a bank teller's position. I suppose another thing we could do is just say to heck with it as far as pretending to be a non-racial society. There may never have been or will be a "post racial" world and if this is so, then would you consider discriminatory practices to be unethical or just part of "human nature"?

 

Agreed.

I think it can be both; someone who is excluded from consideration simply because they're white, black, Hispanic, etc., is obviously unethical, but it could also be human nature for some. I'll go ahead and point out the elephant in the living room; most people are more comfortable around people of their own race. I'm not saying that's a good thing or that it's right, but it's the inconvenient truth.

For example, I went out after work one night with a black co-worker to a nightclub, and it was like when the Delta house frat boys walked into the Dexter Lake Club in Animal House, because the only white face I saw was when I looked in a mirror. I'll admit I was uncomfortable as hell, and I could tell that many patrons were uncomfortable with my being there.

 

You must have a fantastic set of holidays in your home.

 

Well let's just put it like this, for Thanksgiving dinner I had ham, turkey, stuffing with cranberry sauce, a couple of different casserole dishes, then nachos, tamales, green chili potatoes, beans, more beans, then some more beans wrapped in a tortilla, chips and salsa, guacamole and chips, pumpkin pie, apple pie, tres leches cake, etc. You get the idea. St. Patrick's day is like a 2nd Christmas that you don't remember anything about, Cinco de Mayo is when the Hispanic portion of my family tries to out drink the Irish portion of my family (no clear winner yet). We don't celebrate any Brazilian holidays but we often have interesting guests in town including the former governor of the state of Para who visited for a month before my grandmother finally found a polite way to ask him to leave. The Brazilian food we do have isn't as exotic as you might think...certainly nothing compared to Mexican food. As for the Dutch stuff, no wooden shoes, no windmills and about the only Dutch thing I've ever ingested was ale. We are a colorful group...Portuguese, Spanish and various dialects of English are spoken within our walls and the only time I understand the Portuguese and Spanish is when I'm being yelled at...

So again that brings me to the point, we are so integrated now as a nation that the notion of race is largely divorced of true, meaningful cultural differences. It's not that we're all the same, it's that we are so different that there is no "normal" or "majority" thus discriminatory practices are based wholly on ignorance and assumption.

 

Isn't everything a little discriminatory? If you were a non-smoker would you date/marry a smoker? Is that a discriminatory decision?

 

That is true. Growing up as a majority-minority (white guy in a hispanic area of NJ) I can say there were not many "like me". 500 senior graduated from my high school and 13 were americans counting me.

 

Employees should be hire on merit. However, A minority group that has been discriminated again always performed as group below that of thier discriminators long after the discrimination has ceased. There was an interesting study done in Japan on a group that was discriminated again, Although there are no physical differences, this group performed below that of other Japanese in japan. There were no difference in performance between these two groups in america.
I think the jest was the effect on discrimination and prejudice last for a very long time.

The Link is an article from dr stanley fish, dean emeritus at FIU.

Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black - Magazine - The Atlantic