Is this racist

OK. But can we agree we want the best possible people in jobs? And that that principle should be at the root of our approach?
If so, can I ask you if you think simply leaving everything alone will result in this? That regardless of any advantage people start off with, it will all somehow come right in the end and the best people will end up in the best jobs?
Or, can you allow for the fact that having a head start can result in a person winning a race, even if they are not the fastest runner?

Seems to be a few of these threads popping up and the op disappearing.

representative of the population rather than being disproportionately dominated by white men.

This is just a different way of saying we want less white people and more non white people in jobs, less men and more women in jobs and we want to introduce policies to achieve this. I’m agreeing with you, that this is the aim of these policies. I’m just disagreeing that discriminating based on race and sex is in anyway a good idea.

I asked you if you can think of a reason why a company may not have felt the need to particularly encourage white applicants, but may have chosen to particularly encourage POC to apply. You stated you couldn't and I pointed out the thread explains why employers may particularly encourage POC.
The short answer being, they want their staff to be more representative of the population rather than being disproportionately dominated by white men.
You may not see a problem with white middle class men disproportionately holding the highest status most powerful positions in our society. Personally I think society has room for improvement and I'd like to see what people who aren't white middle class men can also bring to the table.

You are the one who asked me !?!

Lots of people on the thread have explained this. You may not agree with the reasons, but if you read the thread, you will certainly be able to think of them!

Please tell me how many white men have failed to secure roles solely due to these initiatives? Because if you want to persuade people this is harming white men, you need to show patterns that clearly prove white men have unlawfully lost out to less qualified women and/or people of colour in significant numbers.

Please tell me how many white men have failed to secure roles solely due to these initiatives? Because if you want to persuade people this is harming white men, you need to show patterns that clearly prove white men have unlawfully lost out to less qualified women and/or people of colour in significant numbers.

I can’t think of a reason to encourage any particular race to apply for a role or discourage any particular race to apply for a role

However I think its safe to say that if a white man fails to gain employment its vanishingly unlikely the reason will be because he is white or a man. Whatever he may prefer to tell himself.

Except that that exact thing has been happening in a number of organisations like the armed forces and city organisations - and that’s just the ones who have been caught out and it proven.

Can we be perfectly clear? Under UK law it is illegal to discriminate positively or negatively against a person on the grounds of any protected characteristic when selecting for a job role unless certain exemptions to the EA apply. If you think this is what the schemes involve, then you need to research them.
It would be naive to believe that the law removes all discrimination. It is after all very hard to prove. However I think its safe to say that if a white man fails to gain employment its vanishingly unlikely the reason will be because he is white or a man. Whatever he may prefer to tell himself.

What reason can you think of that would make it necessary to particularly encourage white people to apply for a role?

@AlasPoor, any chance of you addressing this post, which makes the point so well? Do you think this poster's son shouldn't have been given the extra support he got, given that in terms of innate talent he was manifestly the best? Do you accept that without the support, he would not be where he is now, benefiting his employer?

That's how these initiatives work when done properly.

These structures and frameworks enforce discrimination. I’m only in my 30s, but I don’t remember any adverts for positions saying something along the lines of ‘..we particularly encourage applications from white people’. I think you’re letting your personal bias’s get in the way of being objective about this.

Can we be perfectly clear? Under UK law it is illegal to discriminate positively or negatively against a person on the grounds of any protected characteristic when selecting for a job role unless certain exemptions to the EA apply. If you think this is what the schemes involve, then you need to research them.
It would be naive to believe that the law removes all discrimination. It is after all very hard to prove. However I think its safe to say that if a white man fails to gain employment its vanishingly unlikely the reason will be because he is white or a man. Whatever he may prefer to tell himself.

These structures and frameworks enforce discrimination. I’m only in my 30s, but I don’t remember any adverts for positions saying something along the lines of ‘..we particularly encourage applications from white people’. I think you’re letting your personal bias’s get in the way of being objective about this.

So, the flaw lies in the execution not the measure. As I said, educate and continue. If we simply gave up on everything just because there are problems to overcome we'd never see progress or achievement at all, would we?

I guess it depends on your definition of preferential treatment?

Is it equity that my ds has a wheelchair provided by the nhs, a BB and mobility car adapted, a space reserved in a convenient spot at his office and a lift key to get to different floors when everyone else has to park if and where they can and walk to wherever they need to be? Also flex to WFH when his muscles spasms are bad.

or is he being given preferential treatment?

Whatwver you call it he wouldn’t have been able to access the same work experience at the place he now works permanent during his training to be a software developer.

he wasn’t the one given the job because he’s disabled - he was given the job because he was the best coder on the course and that was discovered because he was given the opportunity to turn up with everyone else.

equality initiatives are (and should be) about removing barriers to give everyone in an equal playing field to achieve an outcome.

But that’s the thing. Why would it take 20 years for DEI to be put in place for this kind of disadvantage, when it was quickly put through for other groups? Is there a push back on it by one group, who don’t want others to share their privilege?

I really think you are just dismissing problems here.

It all sounds so simple to you but clearly it’s not that simple or easy to do well. There have been countless issues with overreach, mis-targeting and the ignoring of other disadvantaged groups.

My answer isn’t policies. It’s awareness and building structures and frameworks that reduce the impact and risk of discrimination

I didn’t need to. I spoke to the panel member and in one of those instances overrode him because she was the best candidate.

but your suggestion makes no sense. If there is no DEi why go to HR? What would they do?

I’ve been in a few interviews where one panel member has dismissed black or brown people due to their colour. In the last 10 years.

what should organisations do to stop those panel members if they have no EDi?