A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?
Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58073] Sun, 26 July 2009 22:12 Go to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



I don't mean "we here" I mean the global "we".

I believe most strongly in Human Rights. I believe in the equality of all races, and in that equality I recognise that there are differences based upon tradition, or on upbringing, or on need.

I would not, for example, chose even an experienced white Australian over an experienced Aborignal if I needed a guide in the Australian Outback. I trust the person who has had to learn the bush and bushcraft out of need and tradition over any white fella. And that is true and practical prejudice.

So equality is also unequal. There will be other examples, I simply picked the most striking one that I could find.

Why don't we value folk for their skills and competences instead of seeking to level the human race for some political ethic? Isn't this a gross overcompensation?



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58083 is a reply to message #58073] Mon, 27 July 2009 00:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



"Why don't we value folk for their skills and competences instead of seeking to level the human race for some political ethic?"

It's a hard question Timmy. My mind works funny, but the first thing that I thought of when I considered your question was an article I read about early man. Apparently they found evidence of healing bones in some caveman skeletons. The fractures were of such a nature that the man would have required a great deal of care from other people to survive. Perhaps much of what is sometimes seen as an attempt to level the human race is fall-out of attempts to care for the needy.

Different skills and competencies are more valuable in different circumstances. Sometimes we might think that a person gets much more than he contributes. But I think it is the great genius of humanity that civilized society cares for the unfortunate. Perhaps this care assures that these individuals are fit and present when the need for their "gifts" arise. So I don't know that it is an attempt to level the human race for a political effect, so much as an attempt to rationally realize that each human being has abilities and potentialities that can be of infinite value to the world at large. We certainly don't want to lose the likes of a MLK or a Mohandas Gandhi for the lack of social nets.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58087 is a reply to message #58083] Mon, 27 July 2009 07:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



It's not really "social nets" that I was thinking about, nor the care within one tribe of its ill, but it makes an interesting point.

I'm not thinking either that "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Nor am I thinking that the Australian Aborigine is only good for bushcraft so needs no education nor social welfare.

Pinpointing what I am thinking about is far harder, the more so since clarity of thought on the subject can easily be swamped by a bucket of politically correct cold water (which you have not thrown).

It's not racist to prize the Eskimo (no, all Inuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Inuit) for the uniqueness of those who can survive by hunting and trapping in what looks like a wasteland. It's not racist to predict that Olympic long distance running events will be won be folk from the east of Africa, nor, assuming it is true (and I have no idea how to check) that black races are less buoyant and are unlikely to prosper in swimming events.

I think we have, rightly, considered that yelling "go home, darkie" is wholly unacceptable, the more so since our lands are home, but we take it ridiculously far when we refuse to accept facts and seek to mould the other races into White Man's Ways.

I'm back to the Australian Aborigne's very different need from the white Ozzie's of awareness of place, location and geography. Yet we seek to categorise them with Eysenck-like IQ tests (which they generally are poor at because they have never had any need of such skills). But we could not do what comes naturally to them in a month of Sundays, but we appear to despise them for not measuring up to our standards.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58091 is a reply to message #58087] Mon, 27 July 2009 15:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Blacks are said to have more pores to aereate the skin, which enables them to hold up in hot climates better than non-blacks, but also makes them more susceptible to cold. A lot of American indians worked on the high girders of new skyscrapers, because they seem to have little fear of heights. People indigenous to high altitudes tend to make better Olympic runners, because they develop greater lung capacity at the higher altitude, with the thinner air. The British Empire held the Gurka in high regard as fierce fighters and guards. The Watusi are abnormally tall, while the Pygmy is abnormally short. Desert nomads seem to have extremely sharp vision. This is the stuff of Anthropology. Is that the sort of thing you mean? If so, then I would agree that different tribes of humans have developed different specialized abilities. And yes, by today's standards, it would seem rather gauche to point out these differences, even though many of them are based in scientific fact. But I think we do that bit of leveling just to make people feel accepted. Although the differences might be used to make political hay. For instance, I could envision a white South African official justifying the abnormal amount of blacks in the gold mines by citing their unique characteristic which enables them to withstand the inordinate heat in these exceptionally deep mines. I don't know that any such claim was ever made though. I would have to say that I don't see political leveling as too much of a problem in this area. Except, perhaps, by trying to make everybody feel equal, we fail to celebrate the unique capabilities of the different tribes.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58104 is a reply to message #58073] Tue, 28 July 2009 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tBP is currently offline  tBP

Likes it here
Location: England
Registered: February 2004
Messages: 242




Can I give the party political answer?

Because everybody says Equality, and everybody wants Equality, but when everyone says Equality, they mean different things...

Now me, and say, Harriet Harman, we both believe in Equality, and we would both acknowledge that we both strive, in our own ways, to make the world a more equal place. But I'd accuse her of creating inequality by forcing a fixed measure of equality on everyone, and she'd accuse me of talking the talk, but not taking action that fixes the problem


Thats because she talks about Equality of result, whereas I talk about Equality of opportunity. In Harriet's world, everyone is equal when women earn the same as men and where black people make up 11% of the population, and therefore also make up 11% of the workforce in every office.

Yes, thats a form of equality, but its not one I'd agree with.

Equality of opportunity is where a woman has an equal chance of getting a job as a man, and so on. If all the directors at a company are white men, that should be for no other reason than the fact that the best applicant for each post was a white man. So long as the post is awarded solely on merit, I don't care if every judge in the House of Lords is white and every director at BP is a disabled black woman, so long as we have the best people for the job and genuine competition for it.

Of course, me way is harder to enforce and monitor, its easy to say equality has been achieved when we have quotas and targets that can be measured. But then, I don't believe in taking the easy way out. I also don't ever want to be a place where the only reason I've got the job is because I'm gay and the company was short on its minority quota.




BTW, Hi, long time no post. I was clicking through some old bookmarks and was surprised and also happy to see this place still around, and many of the same people still here. I had to think long and hard to even remember my password for the forum. I guess its been a good 3 or 4 years since I last posted here, probably when I was still at uni.

Aden xx



Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58105 is a reply to message #58104] Tue, 28 July 2009 21:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear Black Prince, surely your badge should be Edward's three feathers and you have 'set' instead of 'sed' in your signature.

And, yes I agree it is foolish to pass over the best person for a job in order to get a sample that matches the population.

But there is quite a lot to be said for having some gay African bishops! Even if they are not the best possible bishops. (Not that I am a believer).

And the fact that there aren't any (admitted) gay bishops in the CofE is pretty good evidence that there is prejudice in that institution (especially as there is an unduly large proportion of priests who are gay)- and how else would one ever find out?

The trouble about your way is that it makes it very hard to root out prejudice and correct it. I agree the other way isn't any good either and I don't have a solution. And wouldn't you be liable to choose as a colleague someone you thought you would like to work with? Sometimes that is a valid criterion for selecting people. And yet it clearly is incompatible with the sort of equality you do support.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58106 is a reply to message #58073] Wed, 29 July 2009 00:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



The problem is when you overgeneralise.

If you pick a black fella over a white fella as a guide in the outback, without knowing that the black fella grew up in inner Sydney and the white fella grew up in the bush you're falling prey to prejudice of a sort that isn't helpful or useful.

I agree that generalisations are useful- I mean it's useful to assume that if you are living in Japan most slanty-eye people are Japanese and speak limited English but most round-eyes are western and speak English fluently. The problem is not the generalisations but rather when we don't renegotiate our prejudices on the basis of new evidence or in the absence of any evidence.

I find it much more useful to judge a person on their background or even social class than I find it useful to judge them on their race. A white lawyer and a black lawyer have more in common than a black lawyer and a black dole bludger (welfare leech). The black dole bludger has more in common with the white dole bludger.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Australian aboriginals  [message #58107 is a reply to message #58087] Wed, 29 July 2009 01:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I think I see and mostly agree with your point, timmy.

But I also think that tradition should be far more fluid than it is. In my mind there is little that makes an aboriginal better or worse than a white man at classical IQ tests or at knowledge of nature. Such things are learnt and come from tradition and culture. Culture can be learned or lost in about 1.5 generations- I see plenty of immigrants that are perfectly culturally Australian usually by the second, but sometimes the third generation.

Also following your train of thought too far runs the risk of saying that it's "okay" for aboriginals to have their own way of life- with rape of teenage girls being excused by "traditional law" or by a lack of literacy being seen as "aboriginals focusing on their traditions". Such things are not okay and more importantly shouldn't be forced on aboriginals.

You also need to remember that while there are rural aboriginal communities in regional Australia (which often have the worst problems in terms of life-expectancy) most aboriginals are still urban. A typical Sydney aboriginal often runs into the same problems as a typical Sydney white bogan (I believe the British equivalent of bogan is "chav").

What happens in Australia is the government sets up "homesteads" in the rural communities, though trying to force traditional aboriginal ideas on the people that live there. In these homesteads private ownership of property isn't allow because aboriginals traditionally believed in communal ownership and the schools are ghettos of poor learning partially because rather than focus on a standard English curriculum the kids are taught their own traditional languages that only a few hundred people speak. And written literacy is ignored.

People have strengths and weaknesses. While some generalisations can be made, anyone regardless of race can have a particular strength of weakness, so we need to look at the individuals and allow them to make their own choices. Aboriginals should be free to choose between a traditional lifestyle or a modern lifestyle, incorporating the bits of both as they see fit. Personally I think the wholesale importation of British culture and tradition to Australia was absolutely dumb- even white people have a lot to learn from traditional aboriginal ideas- especially regarding agriculture and land management. What I hate most of all, though is policies that discriminate on the basis of race over situation. The aboriginal homesteads that treat aboriginals as requiring special attention. The government intervention in the Northern Territory that saw extra restrictions put on porn and alcohol aboriginals in particular communities, despite child abuse being a problem that's also widespread in low-income white communities. The extra money aboriginal students get for studying compared to me as a white student.

Racist government policies and over-sensitive political correctness do nothing but exacerbate negative racial prejudice and racial tension. The problem in Australia is that neither side of politics wants to treat aboriginals like adults and equal citizens. The right wants to treat them like naughty children that need to be punished and the left just wants to treat them like children, incapable of making their own choices and requiring special assistance to do the things that "normal" people can do.

Sorry if this is ranty, I just get so frustrated by the situation in Australia. I hate political correctness with a passion, but so often people against political correctness are just hiding their own racism. I don't think you are timmy, your heart seems to be in-line with mine. I just felt a bit frustrated by your example which is close to home. I hate racial politics because to me politics shouldn't need to legislate on the basis of race, ever... Positively or negatively.

It feels like in politics you are either for the racial minority or against the racial minority. Why can't I just be neutral towards them and want policies that are targeted at people as a whole, regardless of race?

[Updated on: Wed, 29 July 2009 01:20]




Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58108 is a reply to message #58104] Wed, 29 July 2009 01:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I totally agree with government's focus being on "equality of opportunity" but I also believe in equality of outcome.

So often people mix up ideas regarding the role of government with ideas regarding social outcomes.

Personally I hate the religious indoctrination of children. I think religious schools and in a lot of ways, abhorrent, especially when they teach creationism alongside evolution. However I've never want to ban religious schools.

Or on affirmative action, I actually don't mind individual companies trying to promote particular social outcomes through affirmative action. What I do mind is government setting laws to do such. I'd never want to stop a company or organisation from having an affirmative action policy- I'd just not want to enforce it either.

Personally if I were an employer I think I would discriminate in favour of other gay guys and give other gay guys an easier time. I think it's important to promote the normalcy of homosexuality and similarly I think more mainstream integration of other races can be encouraged by affirmative action.

But in my opinion the best social change is organic and ground-up. I'm a big believer in "spontaneous order and I believe that democratic government will usually be 2 steps behind the majority of society. All government does is hinder the process of organic growth and change and entrench discrimination and harmful or outdated outlooks and policies.

Most people see solutions in government. I only see problems. Problems may exist in society, too. But those same problems are best fixed by individual action and individual responsibility. Individual action doesn't seem very rewarding, but mass individual action results in collective action. Top-down approaches to coordinating people are akin to trying to guess the lotto numbers. Intelligent people don't always know best, trial and error is always more effective than trying to make an educated guess.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Australian aboriginals  [message #58114 is a reply to message #58107] Wed, 29 July 2009 20:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



The danger in choosing an example is that the extra baggage that the example has can be dragged into the discussion. They were an example only.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58124 is a reply to message #58108] Thu, 30 July 2009 01:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johnleeb is currently offline  johnleeb

Toe is in the water
Location: USA
Registered: January 2009
Messages: 44



And I have stated many times in the past to my friends that if I were running a company and the government and religious groups were all up in arms about not allowing gay people to have equal rights, that I would fire all the straight people and claim that I had the right to do so because there is no law banning discrimination based on orientation. Sort of "they do it, why can't we?"
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58129 is a reply to message #58124] Thu, 30 July 2009 18:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Well surely some gay bars would prefer to only hire gay staff. And surely this should be acceptable.

I'd have to say though, that I think private companies having their own standards should always be acceptable. Like if a Christian factory owner only wants to hire Christians of his particular sect he should be able to. I think in a capitalist society limiting his potential labour pool so severely will actually hurt him, but if he wants to associate with people that have shared values he should definitely be able to.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Australian aboriginals  [message #58130 is a reply to message #58114] Thu, 30 July 2009 18:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I got a bit carried away about the specifics of the example chosen. But I think it does highlight the danger of generalisations of the sort you made.

I can't think of a single generalisation that holds in 100% of cases. So while it may be acceptable to hold a general view- I think it's of critical importance to always accept exceptions and to also look out for exceptions. Stating a general fact is easy to do- finding the exceptions can often be more difficult.

If you are hiring a tour guide and want to base your decision on a generalisation maybe that could be a trigger for you to go "wait a minute" and think about other alternatives that might actually work out better.

I definitely think that there's too much racial sensitivity, to the point where generalisations are seen as offensive. I don't think generalisations should be seen as offensive, I just don't think they should be seen as totally accurate or the basis for judging someone's character. (I don't think you said you should judge a person's character by their race, either).



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Australian aboriginals  [message #58137 is a reply to message #58130] Thu, 30 July 2009 19:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



It was not a generalisation. It was an example of a skill that I would choose to use from a particular racial type. There is a difference.

It was a tight example, ignoring all other factors that I do not perceive as relevant to the decision. And "tour guide"? No. A guide, a proper guide, for an unspecified purpose.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Australian aboriginals  [message #58148 is a reply to message #58137] Fri, 31 July 2009 18:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



So would you choose an inner-city aboriginal over a white guy that had grown up in the bush?

In my opinion knowledge skills aren't related to race, but more to culture and background. Anyone can "know" a particular piece of information if they have been exposed to it. I think racial strengths and weaknesses are more about capacity (blacks have a higher physical capacity to run, asians have a higher flexibility level).

I don't think your example is a good one of where race should be relevant. Culture is more important.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Australian aboriginals  [message #58150 is a reply to message #58148] Fri, 31 July 2009 19:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



Do try harder not to be ridiculous with your arguments.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58162 is a reply to message #58108] Sun, 02 August 2009 10:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tBP is currently offline  tBP

Likes it here
Location: England
Registered: February 2004
Messages: 242




acam, the badge is my own personal one... Aden the Black Prince rather than Edward... his successor in title perhaps? lol


As far as religion goes, I don't think a government can reasonably legislate as to what a religion can or cannot do in terms of recruitment and membership. If they want to be outmoded old fashioned and ultra conservative, thats really down to them and its not for the government to change that. When they find that they have no new members, 95% of their congregation over the age of 65 and the majority of the population consider the religion to be an outmoded relic with no relevance to modern society, they'll realise the error of their ways, or collapse...

Yes, my way is harder to enforce... but I think its worth the effort. I'd rather have genuine equality than easily enforceable quotas that pretend to create equality but actually don't. Harriet said yesterday 1 of the 2 top jobs in the labour party should always be held by a woman. I'm sure there are some labour MPs who would agree with me right now that a/ the top two jobs in the labour party should be held by the two best MPs in the party, and everything else is irrelevant and b/ neither of those jobs should ever be held by Harriet Harman. I'm all for equality, I just oppose the use of equality legislation to undertake social engineering.

I also hate affirmative action or positive discrimination. The phrase affirmitive action is just a politically correct way of saying we're going to discriminate. We say that discrimination against people is bad, so to counter it, we're going to discriminate against people, most notably white straight young men. Thats wrong. Either discrimination is bad and wrong or its not. But if we're going to oppose discrimination, and I think we should, then we oppose all discrimination. Meritocracy FTW!

I'm gay, but I'm not defined by my sexuality and I don't want to ever be the office's token gay. I'm a smart, intelligent guy and I want to achieve promotion through my talent being recognised, not because there aren't enough queers in senior management...

The UK has a Positive About Disability employment campaign, legal under the Disability Discrimination Act. It basically says on recruitment forms that any applicant who is disabled and meets the minimum requirement gets shortlisted for interview. In my opinion, that is wrong. Assuming we're shortlisting 10 people for interview, the 10 best applicants should be chosen, regardless of disability, orientation, gender, age, religion, ethnicity or anything else. None of those are relevant to the majority of jobs, so they should not be a factor in recruitment for the majority of jobs.

Now some roles have to be exempt from that. Age discrimination is relevant for some jobs such as licensed work where you have to be 18 or over. Carers for female patients need to be female and vice versa. Some jobs objectively have to be exempt. But for the rest of it, it shouldn't matter.



Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58167 is a reply to message #58162] Sun, 02 August 2009 15:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Well, in principle I agree with you. I think Harriet is just silly to say one of the top two should always be a woman. And I agree that it would be foolish not to put the best available people on the short list.

But I'm unhappy to leave it like that. People and organisations can say they always choose the best people for the job but in practice they may discriminate unfairly and there's no way to hold them to account.

I have no solution. You say it's difficult. I agree. I'm not sure whether carers for female patients need to be female nor male, male or gay, gay for that matter. I wouldn't refuse to be seen to by a woman doctor or nurse. But I guess patients in general ought to be allowed the choice - or at least to exclude what they would be embarrassed by.

I suppose the truth is that I am impatient and realise that the disadvantage of prejudice is so small that it will take centuries for prejudiced companies to go out of business and by then all the staff will have changed and maybe they won't be prejudiced any more.

I'd like to see change sooner - and so I support Stonewall and some other organisations that seem to me to be accelerating change.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58170 is a reply to message #58162] Sun, 02 August 2009 21:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



Ah! Harridan Harman.

Hugs
N



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58171 is a reply to message #58104] Mon, 03 August 2009 06:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fingolfin is currently offline  Fingolfin

Likes it here
Location: Slovakia
Registered: August 2008
Messages: 265



For me, there are only two equalities...
a, equality of opportunity - everyone may gain education according to their skills and talents
b, equality in front of law/court - same Justitia's scales for everyone

...none of them works 100 %.

Marek



It is better to switch on a small light than to curse the darkness.
- Vincent Šikula, Slovak writer
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58173 is a reply to message #58167] Mon, 03 August 2009 09:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tBP is currently offline  tBP

Likes it here
Location: England
Registered: February 2004
Messages: 242




The best I can come up with is a transparent recruitment process, in which all the objective measures from the interview are recorded and the subjective assessment by the interviewer is recorded. This can then be made available to all candidates if they choose so that they can see what they didn't get it and why someone else did.

In my line of work, promotion is based on assessment centres. Every job has competency ratings in the various competencies such as team work and problem solving. At the assessment centre, you undertake various tasks designed to test the key competencies relating to the job you apply for, and then in interview, the questions are geared toward an answer that demonstrates a particular competency.

When I didn't get the last promotion, I asked for feedback and the interviewer talked me through all the tasks, identifying how I scored. There were 5 people on the shortlist and two positions available. I made effectively 2 mistakes. One in a group exercise and one interview question that I already knew I'd screwed up. The two people who got the job both made one mistake each. *Shrugs* I was good, very good, but they were both better.


I think many women, if they're going to have to have a care assistant to help them go to the toilet or wash them, would prefer a female assistant. Likewise, intimate searches by police and prison staff have to be conducted by officers of the same sex as the person being searched.



Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
Re: Racial prejudice - do we overcompensate?  [message #58176 is a reply to message #58173] Mon, 03 August 2009 12:13 Go to previous message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Yes. Perhaps such a transparent recruitment process could be imposed by law. I think it is very rare - the only places I've come across it is in recruiting teachers. But even so there are flaws in that process. Political correctness prevents the interview panel from asking about religion or politics or patnership status or .. ... And anyone who says that these things are not relevant to how a teacher works is living in cloud cuckoo land.

On the occasions when I've not got a job I applied for I've never been honestly told why (IMHO). Except that I was usually told the person who got the job was better than me on paper or in the interview.

And yes, of course many people would prefer a care assistant of the same sex - but usually to avoid any sexual overtones - in my case it would be to get them!

Love,
Anthony
Previous Topic: Good Luck to THe Brighton Pride Contingent
Next Topic: Back from Brighton
Goto Forum: