The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

How do you know perspective would not improve how these jobs are done?

Maybe they would ? Good point !

I'm open minded enough to see the merit in the topic.

Isn't that a good mindset to have? As opposed to abject fear of change

AndrewJRenko

fvp4 wrote: »

You work in the Irish civil service, right? Do you work with any non-whites, or even non-irish. If not do you believe we should discriminate against you for promotion, or even replace you?

I've worked with small numbers of non-white, non-Irish people in the public service, a couple of African people, a couple of Polish people, a couple of eastern European guys, one Asian guys, most at middle management or professional grades.

I've no difficulty with any evidence-based positive action programme to address historical imbalances in recruitment and competitions.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I mean, you just seemed to find it inconcevable that I was a woman based on my "perspective" just a few posts ago.

No , I didn't find it inconceivable. Don't put your thoughts of what I thought in my mouth thanks.

I was surprised you were. But thanks for the clarity. Appreciated. I do like to hear all perspectives.

It's one of the points I'm making here you see.

listermint

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've worked with small numbers of non-white, non-Irish people in the public service, a couple of African people, a couple of Polish people, a couple of eastern European guys, one Asian guys, most at middle management or professional grades.

I've no difficulty with any evidence-based positive action programme to address historical imbalances in recruitment and competitions.

More often than not it boosts change in practices rather than doing the same old tired way.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

Maybe they would ? Good point !

I'm open minded enough to see the merit in the topic.

Isn't that a good mindset to have? As opposed to abject fear of change

But not open minded enough to hire the best person for a job based on merit?

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

But not open minded enough to hire the best person for a job based on merit?

Once again I said merit can be gender , race or socio economic related.

Why are you so close minded to believe that merit should be limited to your preconceived notions of education and personality. Surely it's wider than that...

Maybe I'd be hiring better than you by opening up the criteria more...

AndrewJRenko

titan18 wrote: »

The female quotas on party nominations. People can argue that's needed or whatever but it does straight up rule out people being nominated even if they're a better politician or can offer more for nothing other than their gender. You have the female only academic posts too.

That's an evidence-based programme, based on fairly compelling international evidence that shows that such quotas work.

Do you think the historical 10-30% representation of women in political roles was down the meritocracy?

titan18 wrote: »

Do you think there isn't similar policies in place when it comes to ethnicity that is happening behind the scenes in companies?

You tell me. If you think it is happening 'behind the scenes', share details of where/when this is happening and what evidence you have scene.

titan18

listermint wrote: »

Once again I said merit can be gender , race or socio economic related.

Why are you so close minded to believe that merit should be limited to your preconceived notions of education and personality. Surely it's wider than that...

Maybe I'd be hiring better than your by opening up the criteria more...

No, merit is just straight up how well can you do the job. Theres no other meaning of it

larva

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ervia board members are non-executives, part-timers, all with other jobs;
https://www.ervia.ie/who-we-are/organisational-structure/

ABP board members are indeed full-time, a very rare exception to the rule. Doesn't exactly look like the middle-aged white men have been too victimised in that particular example.
https://www.pleanala.ie/en-IE/Meet-the-Board

You should read up a bit more on Ervia and its members you might learn a thing or two about commercial entities and their subsidiaries.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

Once again I said merit can be gender , race or socio economic related.

Why are you so close minded to believe that merit should be limited to your preconceived notions of education and personality. Surely it's wider than that...

Maybe I'd be hiring better than you by opening up the criteria more...

I never said it didn't, you assumed that's what I thought, try not to assume what others are thinking in future, maybe look at things from a different perspective!

larva

listermint wrote: »

No , I didn't find it inconceivable. Don't put your thoughts of what I thought in my mouth thanks.

I was surprised you were. But thanks for the clarity. Appreciated. I do like to hear all perspectives.

It's one of the points I'm making here you see.

You seem to be doing this to everyone else on here

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

I never said it didn't, you assumed that's what I thought, try not to assume what others are thinking in future, maybe look at things from a different perspective!

No you put it down in writing above. I responded to it. You seem to think the inclusion of these criteria is bad.

Why.

listermint

titan18 wrote: »

No, merit is just straight up how well can you do the job. Theres no other meaning of it

You've never hired anyone , have you...

Cordell

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe we can do both diversity and meritocracy, by changing the way we recruit candidates?

No, we can't.
We will have diversity organically if we value meritocracy above all else. That is, only if the diverse have enough merit to compete. Are you saying they don't?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that the historical imbalances that we've seen in, for example, civil service, senior academic posts, senior Garda roles are purely down to meritocracy?

If historical imbalances are caused by the lack of meritocracy then more meritocracy more better.

listermint

Cordell wrote: »

No, we can't.
We will have diversity organically if we value meritocracy above all else. That is, only if the diverse have enough merit to compete. Are you saying they don't?


If historical imbalances are caused by the lack of meritocracy then more meritocracy more better.

Is this the bootstraps theory that America so often espouses yet has the largest gap in social economic terms in the world..despite the countries abject wealth?

Work hard and you'll get what you dream..


Said to people working 3 jobs to survive.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

No you put it down in writing above. I responded to it. You seem to think the inclusion of these criteria is bad.

Why.

So you're fine with discrimination, as long as it's the right type of discrimination

suicide_circus

listermint wrote: »

Utopia ? You are the one who doesn't want change ... Your scared someone is coming for you and your son's jobs? So you think we are currently in a utopia and are afraid of change.


Why.

Ah yes because me and sonnyboy have created a cartel of white devils to keep the black man down. Get a grip.

I just dont want my son to suffer racial discrimation. I'm aware that many sons have suffered racial discrimination but adding to the sum total of racial discrimination in the universe in a misguided attempt to right wrongs which find their origins in the mists of time long before he was a twinkle in my eye is wrong wrong wrong.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that's a sensible arguement for doing nothing?

We're all going to die eventually, but your arguement could be used to block any healthcare because the utopia you seek will always elude you.

Hold on to your boots Andy, i'm not convinced that the media and entertainment industry in 21st century London is the hotbed of racism you think it is. As for the BBC being full of white people, well...yeah...it's northern Europe, this is where the white folk traditionally hail from. If not here, then where?

Is there room for improvement so that every organisation exactly matches the exact make up of society? Sure ok if you want to but call me old fashioned, i'm not convinced that resorting to overt racial discrimination is a morally defensible way of achieving it.

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

So you're fine with discrimination, as long as it's the right type of discrimination

I think everyone is discriminated against every day of the week in all forms from being attractive to get served at a bar first to people not sitting beside you on the bus because of your clothes.

What I don't believe in is fear that someone is threatening my very existence because I'm white. That's kinda bizarre. The fear factor in here is palpable..

titan18

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's an evidence-based programme, based on fairly compelling international evidence that shows that such quotas work.

Do you think the historical 10-30% representation of women in political roles was down the meritocracy?

No, it wasn't, it was down to women generally not being in the working world, and we're improving from that but that still shouldn't justify quotas for any role. It's not just for this, but I'd say same for teaching or nursing which are female dominated, but we don't need male quotas there. It's best person for the job and that's it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You tell me. If you think it is happening 'behind the scenes', share details of where/when this is happening and what evidence you have scene.

Show me evidence it doesn't happen then cos we can see that it happens in our closest neighbour and I'd be 100% positive it happens here but proving it (like the scenario of a minority being passed over cos of that) is pretty much impossible unless you know someone on the inside of a company. It's pretty much impossible to prove discrimination against a minority and that likely happens more often, same as it's impossible to prove the reverse (unless the company are dumb enough to say it in the interview stage)

AndrewJRenko

larva wrote: »

You should read up a bit more on Ervia and its members you might learn a thing or two about commercial entities and their subsidiaries.

Don't be coy now, You said that the board members of Ervia were full time roles. Which Ervia board members have full time roles?

If you're talking about exec members of subsidiary boards, they are recruited through standard recruitment processes and not through state board appointments process.

Cordell wrote: »

No, we can't.
We will have diversity organically if we value meritocracy above all else. That is, only if the diverse have enough merit to compete. Are you saying they don't?


If historical imbalances are caused by the lack of meritocracy then more meritocracy more better.

There's many decades of evidence that suggest you've got this wrong. Diversity just doesn't happen organically. Privilege is inherited. You can't be what you don't see. If you don't see other female academics around, you're far less likely to consider academia as a career option for a woman. If you don't see female politicians on the telly, you're far less likely to consider a political career as a woman.

Why do you think smart companies like Microsoft are changing their recruitment practices to attract people with autism?
https://www.windowscentral.com/how-microsoft-democratizing-inclusion-people-autism

AndrewJRenko

titan18 wrote: »

No, it wasn't, it was down to women generally not being in the working world, and we're improving from that but that still shouldn't justify quotas for any role. It's not just for this, but I'd say same for teaching or nursing which are female dominated, but we don't need male quotas there. It's best person for the job and that's it.

Women have been in working roles for decades now, and still senior academic posts are overwhelmingly male. Do you reckon women aren't as smart as men?

titan18 wrote: »

Show me evidence it doesn't happen then cos we can see that it happens in our closest neighbour and I'd be 100% positive it happens here but proving it (like the scenario of a minority being passed over cos of that) is pretty much impossible unless you know someone on the inside of a company. It's pretty much impossible to prove discrimination against a minority and that likely happens more often, same as it's impossible to prove the reverse (unless the company are dumb enough to say it in the interview stage)

Generally, rational discussion doesn't work by you throwing out invented claims and then asking other people to prove you wrong. If you're 100% positive of something, you must have some evidence. If you don't have evidence, you're not 100% positive, you're just choosing to get excited because you've read too many Daily Mail stories.

Cordell

Why do you think smart companies like Microsoft are changing their recruitment practices to attract people with autism?
https://www.windowscentral.com/how-m...-people-autism

They can miss out on some outstanding engineers if they ignore people on the spectrum, but they are not closing the door on people that aren't. Little big difference.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

No , I didn't find it inconceivable. Don't put your thoughts of what I thought in my mouth thanks.

I was surprised you were. But thanks for the clarity. Appreciated. I do like to hear all perspectives.

It's one of the points I'm making here you see.

I’m still not really getting it. Maybe you could help me out by telling me what it is you bring to you company by virtue of being a man that I could not by virtue of being a woman?

AndrewJRenko

Cordell wrote: »

They can miss out on some outstanding engineers if they ignore people on the spectrum, but they are not closing the door on people that aren't. Little big difference.

What doors have been closed for anyone?

Girly Gal wrote: »

So you're fine with discrimination, as long as it's the right type of discrimination

Are you fine with positive discrimination like Microsoft's autism hiring programme?

Are you fine with positive discrimination for female roles through political gender quotas?

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’m still not really getting it. Maybe you could help me out by telling me what it is you bring to you company by virtue of being a man that I could not by virtue of being a woman?

Well you would have different problem solving and or crises handling perspective. Or do you still think you're lived experience is the same as me? You never answered that the first time I asked

yascaoimhin

suicide_circus wrote: »

You really dont get it

I do get it, I understand your position.

You think the key to solving racism is ignoring race and racism and just acting like everything is fine.

No, I get it.

I just think you're wrong and speaking from a position of naivety.

Girly Gal

listermint wrote: »

I think everyone is discriminated against every day of the week in all forms from being attractive to get served at a bar first to people not sitting beside you on the bus because of your clothes.

What I don't believe in is fear that someone is threatening my very existence because I'm white. That's kinda bizarre. The fear factor in here is palpable..

Maybe that fear factor is palpable from your perspective, but, I can assure you I don't fear change, again I think you're projecting your thoughts on the subject onto others, maybe you need to change perspective!

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

Hold on to your boots Andy, i'm not convinced that the media and entertainment industry in 21st century London is the hotbed of racism you think it is. As for the BBC being full of white people, well...yeah...it's northern Europe, this is where the white folk traditionally hail from. If not here, then where?

Is there room for improvement so that every organisation exactly matches the exact make up of society? Sure ok if you want to but call me old fashioned, i'm not convinced that resorting to overt racial discrimination is a morally defensible way of achieving it.

This isn't the sole recruitment activity of the BBC this year. Lots of other jobs and programmes will be open to all applicants. This is one very small recruitment programme with a specific target audience.

That's not 'overt racial discrimination'. That is a positive action measure to address a historical imbalance.

listermint

Girly Gal wrote: »

Maybe that fear factor is palpable from your perspective, but, I can assure you I don't fear change, again I think you're projecting your thoughts on the subject onto others, maybe you need to change perspective!

No a poster already stated that the feared their son might get discriminated against for jobs . So the visceral reactions to attempts to encourage differing voices in the workplace seems to get people very animated and afraid of any change.

Maybe you need some actual perspective?

suicide_circus

yascaoimhin wrote: »

I do get it, I understand your position.

You think the key to solving racism is ignoring race and racism and just acting like everything is fine.

No, I get it.

I just think you're wrong and speaking from a position of naivety.

You want to talk about naivety? Youre not going to "solve" racism. You can however make racial discrimination unacceptable in society. But we've apparently rowed back on that one in the name of progress.