3 ms·
The law should simply say: do you observe any beliefs that make you treat a group of people in a favorable or unfavorable way, based on criteria other than acad
by 29athrowaway 4y ago
The law should simply say: do you observe any beliefs that make you treat a group of people in a favorable or unfavorable way, based on criteria other than academic or professional qualifications? If so, you should declare your conflict of interest at the beginning of each meeting and document and be excluded from professional decisions involving hiring, firing, promotions, etc.
Ideally, this should also apply to investors not only employers.
- tbrownaw 4y agoIs "according to my personal experience this person generally knows what they're talking about" a professional qualification, or are you thinking more like formal certs?
- hackerlight 4y agoReplace "academic and professional qualifications" with "competence-based merit", in order to avoid committing credentialism which can become yet another form of arbitrary clique-like discrimination.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xwdv 4y agoWhy should it apply to investors? It is no one’s business where an investor chooses to put their money, their goal is to make a return, not uphold some moral code.
- 29athrowaway 4y agoThen why have a different moral code for employers and investors?
- arise 4y agoThe person who claims they have no such beliefs is lying. When you remove the human element (including intuition, tacit knowledge, reading of social-behavioral cues, and subjective assessments of temperament and character), you're going to get absurdities that cost society way more than any conceivable benefit.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago>The person who claims they have no such beliefs is lying. prove it. Anyway, doesn't seem likely, there are first of all various medical and psychological conditions in which intuition, reading of social-behavioral cues, and subjective assessments of temperament and character are impacted, which would mean that some people with these conditions would not be prone to the beliefs that come from these states. Furthermore there are wide variances in humans as to how much one accepts tradition, authority, how much one searches out newness etc. given all these factors it strikes me as unlikely that every human would be susceptible to the beliefs that probably affect most of the population around them. I am however perfectly content to say the person who has no such beliefs is an outlier.
- arise 4y agoYou have four candidates who are all the same on paper--have the same qualifications, experience, etc--and will be serving as a critical liaison between your customers and the technical team. Which one do you hire? (1) The candidate with a face tattoo and ear gauges (holes) who was observed to "roll coal" when he left the interview in a lifted truck with entirely too many skulls and anarchist emblems. (2) The one with an extremely thick accent that is near unintelligible. [HR says he has a top TOEFL score and satisfies the "speaks English" requirement.] (3) The candidate who showed up a little late, a little underdressed, a little distracted--maybe demure--, and who just generally didn't seem to want the job. (4) The candidate who is enthusiastic, pleasant, good at small talk, and who uses the "do you have any questions for us?" part of the interview to ask surprisingly pertinent/proactive questions about the challenges your team is facing instead of focusing on benefits/pay etc. You might argue that many of the attributes I've mentioned are valid "professional qualifications". But remember, that term--under OPs law--will not be your notion of qualifications: it'll be a contorted mess of statue plus case law plus HR policies plus things you can clearly articulate in advance in the job criteria and prove to some jury against a plantiff with a sob story.