3 ms·
To do so would mean discriminating against the races you're not choosing. This is, by definition, racist. Also the mere fact that inequality exists is not evide
by manigandham 6y ago
To do so would mean discriminating against the races you're not choosing. This is, by definition, racist. Also the mere fact that inequality exists is not evidence of racism.
I find it very troubling to see that race is increasingly the primary selection criteria by people who want to progressively "eliminate" racism. It might be good-intentioned but it's ultimately incompatible and doomed to failure. The only solution is to go beyond such attributes and focus on actions and character instead.
- 8note 6y agoIf the inequality is along racial lines, it's tautological that racism exists. You don't need more evidence than that Sure, they should also get representation on the board from other races too. Can they do that without specifically looking for people from those races? Are they not already hiring board member without considering race? How's that gone? How do black people get consideration based on actions and character as board members, when said experience is gated by connections?
- manigandham 6y agoWhat do you mean by inequality? Employees not perfectly representing the population? At what level of geographic census does this matter? Any why did you choose racial lines? What about other factors like education which show far more significance? If a certain group indexes higher or lower in a profession, why is that a problem? Do you consider NBA and NFL teams to also have inequality? By your definition, you must.