Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Universities discriminating against job applicants


WVK

Recommended Posts

A recent internal investigation into faculty hiring at the University of Washington reveals the exhaustive efforts that universities make to discriminate against white job applicants. After the university’s Department of Psychology identified a white candidate as best qualified for a tenure-track professor position in early 2023, the department’s Diversity Advisory Committee pressured the hiring committee to re-rank candidates in accordance with the methodology laid out in an internal handbook titled “Promising Practices for Increasing Equity in Faculty Searches” so that a black woman would receive the job instead. This handbook, obtained by the National Association of Scholars, spells out how to exclude candidates of undesirable races and ensure that candidates of preferred races get hired.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/racial-discrimination-at-the-university-of-washington

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL, but black people can't be racist.  That isn't how this works.  You can't sue us over this can you?  Oh, you can..? Oops.  Well who's woke now, huh?  Come at me with your microaggressions while I jack this car.

Edited by Alchopwn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the Jim Crow laws back then. Only a different race of people. Humanity doesn't learn but only repeat their mistakes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A University in the United States guilty of racial discrimination?  Say it ain't so 😭

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Universities discriminating against job applicants

What a curious world these people are building.  I wonder... when they've finished, will they survive it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, and-then said:

What a curious world these people are building.  I wonder... when they've finished, will they survive it?

No.  We will eventually be dominated by a culture that is proud of and believes in itself.  It is this essential mind set that I see being drained from our society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those fuzzy subjects people make me wonder.

I once interviewed for a job.  A friend of mine was on the interviewing committee.  Afterward he pulled me aside and said, "You're not going to get the job."  I asked why.  He said, "Because you are fully qualified, you don't speak English as a second language, you're not female and your name isn't Rodriguez.  It's an equal-opportunity job."

Another friend of mine got a job because they thought his Polish name sounded Indian and he was from an area with a large native American tribe.

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

No.  We will eventually be dominated by a culture that is proud of and believes in itself.  It is this essential mind set that I see being drained from our society. 

We are currently dominated by just such a culture.  But it's Caucasian.  Maybe we all need some pride and to believe in ourselves.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

We are currently dominated by just such a culture.  But it's Caucasian. 

 

As someone that looks at people not white and thinks "American" I don't agree.  I don't see any reason at all why every person born in the USA can not be proud of America.  Yeah, we're not perfect but what is?

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

As someone that looks at people not white and thinks "American" I don't agree.  I don't see any reason at all why every person born in the USA can not be proud of America.  Yeah, we're not perfect but what is?

Seems like you have pointed out the problem and the solution right there.  We had a chance to settle the challenges, injustices and problems of the last two generations. Now we sit back and watch or grumble into our oatmeal about how they are screwing up the world in which we were comfortable.  We can whine about Tucker's Replacement Theory, but every single generation since the dawn of humanity has been replaced by their children and grandchildren.  Even stone tools were once a brand new idea.

Every generation is replaced by a younger one that thinks they know better and makes new mistakes or the same old ones.  Even with the mistakes they are bound to make, they can own their screwups and be proud of America they make.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Seems like you have pointed out the problem and the solution right there.  We had a chance to settle the challenges, injustices and problems of the last two generations. Now we sit back and watch or grumble into our oatmeal about how they are screwing up the world in which we were comfortable.  We can whine about Tucker's Replacement Theory, but every single generation since the dawn of humanity has been replaced by their children and grandchildren.  Even stone tools were once a brand new idea.

Every generation is replaced by a younger one that thinks they know better and makes new mistakes or the same old ones.  Even with the mistakes they are bound to make, they can own their screwups and be proud of America they make.

Isn’t placing race and gender paramount rather than ability in education, government business a new idea?  The type of idea that will have us returning to those stone tools.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I aways wonder if Diversity makes us stronger, then why do mono-culture societies generally have higher standards of living, less crime, higher contentment rankings, and businesses that stomp US businesses (TSMC, Nividia)?

Nations in the EU, that have been absorbing migrants have seen higher social support spending, higher crime, lowered lifestyle, and lower life expectancy. 

I don't dislike migrants, or minorities, I think we'll need them in the coming decades to maintain minimum growth. But let's not make claims that are clearly just for PC reasons. Adding a black person, or Hispanic person, or a Muslim, to your team isn't automatically going to increase efficiency and productivity by 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WVK said:

A recent internal investigation into faculty hiring at the University of Washington reveals the exhaustive efforts that universities make to discriminate against white job applicants. After the university’s Department of Psychology identified a white candidate as best qualified for a tenure-track professor position in early 2023, the department’s Diversity Advisory Committee pressured the hiring committee to re-rank candidates in accordance with the methodology laid out in an internal handbook titled “Promising Practices for Increasing Equity in Faculty Searches” so that a black woman would receive the job instead. This handbook, obtained by the National Association of Scholars, spells out how to exclude candidates of undesirable races and ensure that candidates of preferred races get hired.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/racial-discrimination-at-the-university-of-washington

I've never liked the idea of picking employees by skin color. Which is what this is.

I know companies do this for PR reasons, as well as to qualify for specific government incentives.

I have a friend, who works in the high tech industry, who's group had what he called a Diversity Hire. They hired a black female with a non-applicable degree and gave her a cubical. She was invited to all the Engineering meetings at first, but was completely out of her depth. So they stopped inviting her to the meetings and gave her low level tasks to do. Which IMHO is wasteful of the position, and insulting to the new hire, and was done only for the reason to add a +1 to some Diversity spreadsheet on a CEOs laptop.

It's not actually correcting wrongs, it's hiring people to be just a number in a ledger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
42 minutes ago, WVK said:

Isn’t placing race and gender paramount rather than ability in education, government business a new idea?  The type of idea that will have us returning to those stone tools.

Definitely NOT.  It has been going on for two hundred years right here.  White males thought they were superior in intellect and emotional maturity and only they deserved to teach, serve in public office, preach, own businesses, have bank accounts and credit cards.

Women and the lesser races were not fit to take those responsibilities. 

White males being outraged at the injustice of being turned down for a job because of sex or skin color are joining the ranks of every female and non-white  that has ever been treated in the same way and felt the same sense of injustice and rage.   And now a new generation is making its own mistakes trying to live up to that high bar that everyone is created equal and deserves equal justice under the law.  We f** up and kept trying.  So will they.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I've never liked the idea of picking employees by skin color. Which is what this is.

I know companies do this for PR reasons, as well as to qualify for specific government incentives.

I have a friend, who works in the high tech industry, who's group had what he called a Diversity Hire. They hired a black female with a non-applicable degree and gave her a cubical. She was invited to all the Engineering meetings at first, but was completely out of her depth. So they stopped inviting her to the meetings and gave her low level tasks to do. Which IMHO is wasteful of the position, and insulting to the new hire, and was done only for the reason to add a +1 to some Diversity spreadsheet on a CEOs laptop.

It's not actually correcting wrongs, it's hiring people to be just a number in a ledger.

Quotas are not actually required by the government, but companies that don't bother to do their homework use it as an easy out.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Definitely NOT.  It has been going on for two hundred years right here.  White males thought they were superior in intellect and emotional maturity and only they deserved to teach, serve in public office, preach, own businesses, have bank accounts and credit cards.

Women and the lesser races were not fit to take those responsibilities. 

White males being outraged at the injustice of being turned down for a job because of sex or skin color are joining the ranks of every female and non-white  that has ever been treated in the same way and felt the same sense of injustice and rage.   And now a new generation is making its own mistakes trying to live up to that high bar that everyone is created equal and deserves equal justice under the law.  We f** up and kept trying.  So will they.

 

There’s a difference between equally qualified people being turned down because they were female or a minority and lmore qualified people being turned down because they are white or Asian .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WVK said:

There’s a difference between equally qualified people being turned down because they were female or a minority and lmore qualified people being turned down because they are white or Asian .

 

What about more qualified people being turned down because they were female or a minority?

I obviously disagree with what the university did here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Definitely NOT.  It has been going on for two hundred years right here.  White males thought they were superior in intellect and emotional maturity and only they deserved to teach, serve in public office, preach, own businesses, have bank accounts and credit cards.

Women and the lesser races were not fit to take those responsibilities. 

White males being outraged at the injustice of being turned down for a job because of sex or skin color are joining the ranks of every female and non-white  that has ever been treated in the same way and felt the same sense of injustice and rage.   And now a new generation is making its own mistakes trying to live up to that high bar that everyone is created equal and deserves equal justice under the law.  We f** up and kept trying.  So will they.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting that because discrimination happened in the past that justifies future discrimination because it's now being done in reverse. 

Reverse racism is still racism, is it not? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Tate refers to it as injustice, it seems unlikely he is trying to justify it. 

It seems more likely that someone is deliberately misinterpreting his words.

Sad, but many such cases.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Given that Tate refers to it as injustice, it seems unlikely he is trying to justify it. 

It seems more likely that someone is deliberately misinterpreting his words.

Sad, but many such cases.

I'm asking questions. Referring to something as an "injustice" in this context is often used as a way to minimise the situation - as in, "oh, now the white men are complaining about injustice, but when it benefited them they were silent". 

I'm not saying this IS what was intended, I'm pointing out that this is how it came across and I asked a question to clarify, and on that note I hope it does (clarify, I mean) :tu: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm asking questions. Referring to something as an "injustice" in this context is often used as a way to minimise the situation - as in, "oh, now the white men are complaining about injustice, but when it benefited them they were silent".

I don't see pointing out the convenient timing of outrage as minimizing the present situation. If discrimination on the basis of race / gender is bad now, which we obviously both agree it is, it was bad beforehand as well. 

Tate seems to be pointing out, as the old saw goes, it helps to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Just look at how this case has gotten everybody completely in agreement as regards how bad discrimination is!

15 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not saying this IS what was intended, I'm pointing out that this is how it came across and I asked a question to clarify, and on that note I hope it does (clarify, I mean) :tu: 

You've certainly clarified your original question to something completely different now.

You should probably finish the clarification soon, otherwise it might look as if goalposts are being adjusted.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

It sounds like you are suggesting that because discrimination happened in the past that justifies future discrimination because it's now being done in reverse. 

Reverse racism is still racism, is it not? 

Hi PA.  No I will not suggest that reverse racism is OK. I think this is a good topic to be talked about and an area where we can certainly do better.

However the false outrage is a trifle hypocritical.  This is a problem that has been going on for two hundred years.  There has never, ever been an age when being the most highly qualified was the only consideration. 

Not only race and sex have been used to discriminate but also religion, social class, and national origin. The first Catholic wasn't elected to the US presidency for nearly 200 years after founding.  A Jewish candidate nominated in 1984 was asked to withdraw his name because of the Anti-Semitic publicity it was generating.  

I would prefer that the situation arc toward justice.  Its just BS to think that it is a new problem.   It may be novel for some white people that after 200 years  they find they are not automatically in front of the line, and it does not seem fair.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

 

Hi PA.  No I will not suggest that reverse racism is OK. I think this is a good topic to be talked about and an area where we can certainly do better.

However the false outrage is a trifle hypocritical.  This is a problem that has been going on for two hundred years.  There has never, ever been an age when being the most highly qualified was the only consideration. 

Not only race and sex have been used to discriminate but also religion, social class, and national origin. The first Catholic wasn't elected to the US presidency for nearly 200 years after founding.  A Jewish candidate nominated in 1984 was asked to withdraw his name because of the Anti-Semitic publicity it was generating.  

I would prefer that the situation arc toward justice.  Its just BS to think that it is a new problem.   It may be novel for some white people that after 200 years  they find they are not automatically in front of the line, and it does not seem fair.

 

 

Hi Tate, 

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate that. In broad terms I do agree with your assessment. Though I would argue that for the most part barriers have been mostly chipped away to the point that the vast majority of the gender pay gap can be explained by choice of career, level of experience, and the like. There's a lot we could discuss about this. I think we are at least on the same page (at least in part) that diversity quotas aren't necessarily the best option. You are right that we've historically had a lot of preferential treatment in the workforce, but a large portion of that has been removed, imo. The problem is that with Affirmative Action some policies are being introduced that attempt to enforce diversity where it doesn't exist and essentially over-correcting. What should be happening is removing structural barriers for groups (eg, women, blacks) rather than introducing policy barriers for men.  (edit: if you watch the video or look up Goldin [see below] her research suggests how some measures put in place to boost minority employment can actually cause more harm for many of the same reasons).

If you have time, look up the work of Claudia Goldin. I'm subscribed to a YouTube channel called Economics Explained, the creator recently posted a video about the 2023 Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science. Goldin won the award for looking at the role of women in the workforce, including the gender pay gap through history.  In any case, I found this video very unbiased and a good look into the matter. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the chat, I appreciate the candour. Ultimately this is a very complex issue, and complex issues sometimes don't have a simple solution. Maybe it will be the case that some form of discrimination will always exist. Certainly it will on a personal level (you'll never get billions of people to agree on everything), and so we can only do our best to ensure  that the system that is in place is as fair as possible. Or to put it in terms of this thread, the solution to past injustice is not to impose future injustice in reverse. 

Now we've just got to decide what "fair" means, and we've only got 8 billion people to consider while we do it... 

~ Regards,  PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2023 at 2:55 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Reverse racism is still racism, is it not? 

Seems like there is a percentage of the population that's decided that going Hammurabi (Eye for an eye) is OK if it's in pursuit of social justice.

Not OK for anything else, but OK  if THEY think it's OK. Kinda like with bullying. It's OK to bully/Karrin white people, but anyone else and it's a Federal lawsuit (14th Ammendment).

There's not a lot of these idiots, but they are LOUD online, and in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2023 at 12:00 AM, Paranoid Android said:

Though I would argue that for the most part barriers have been mostly chipped away to the point that the vast majority of the gender pay gap can be explained by choice of career, level of experience, and the like.

Well now that statement has even more significance than you might suspect.  The fact that we are examining pay differences with an analytical eye is still huge progress over the last two or three generations.  In the 80's when I went to school, it was the commonly expressed opinion that graduate school in technical fields was wasted on women because even if they did not quit to have babies, women were fundamentally inferior to men in intellect and emotional stability.  Their applications were not favored.  That barrier didn't get crossed until the 90's

Now that major barrier has been broken and now a few pay adjustments can be worked out. That seems like some good progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.