3 ms·
The thing is, your first example, the black candidate that was passed over for valid reasons wasn't racism. But when you extrapolate to say: "Therefore I won'
by demallien 16y ago
The thing is, your first example, the black candidate that was passed over for valid reasons wasn't racism. But when you extrapolate to say: "Therefore I won't hire minorities, because they cause extra hassles", you have just jumped straight into the racism pool.
You don't know that any individual is going to correspond to the racial stereotype that you have in your head. It is not fair to treat an individual on the basis of what you believe to be racial characteristics. For starters, your prejudice may be ill-informed, that is, it may not be true, but a result of faulty confirmation-bias on your part. This is extremely difficult to avoid without actually doing a scientific study. And secondly, even if your racial profile is 100% correct, you still can't use that to justify a hiring decision of a candidate, because the candidate is an individual, and may not correspond to the racial profile.
- TimLangley 16y agoPossibly ;-) Clearly condoning Racism/Sexism etc... in hiring can't ever be acceptable but there is a different perspective that could be applied here You could argue that the poster is mitigating risk - because he perceives that there are opportunities (rightly or wrongly) in hiring certain minorities / sexes and therefore he believes that he's acting in his company's best interests by proactively screening them out
- wccrawford 16y agoThat's the same thing as racism. Every racist ever has told himself that he's 'mitigating risk for the company' by not hiring minorities.
- petercooper 16y agoSo are insurance companies who charge more to males "sexist" or to younger drivers "ageist"? Undoubtedly, there are some racist idiots hiding behind the policy of mitigating risk, but I can't believe some don't have reasonably logical, if tasteless, motivations.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]