Is this employment policy at my work reasonable? **Title edited by MNHQ**

[MissRabbitsDayOff]

Name change. Long-term poster. This might sound goady but I'm just trying to see what people think about the following policy at my workplace.

At interviews, all candidates are given a score based on how well they do. In the rare event of a tie between a white person and a person from an ethnic minority background, the job will be offered to the person from the ethnic minority background to increase diversity.

YABU - The policy is unreasonable.
YANBU - The policy is not unreasonable.

"It should be the best person for the job. Every. Single. Time."

• Perhaps, but it's the best person purely on the basis of the interview or selection process really, is it not? And there are definitely many ways that privilege can help or hinder at that point. I can't help thinking that legitimizing 'the right fit' or a vague judgment on company culture lines is not doing anything at all to underpin a fair process depending on the company's aims. As with everything, if you do what you've always done (recruitment-wise) you will get what you've always got - which is unlikely to produce a workforce that roughly mirrors the divergence within society. You are likely to end up with a situation where people are sought out because 'they're diverse'...'we need more people like you and your skills and experiences are attractive' (subtext - 'and 'we' can't offer them as we are'), but once on the inside, then there is a not-so-subtle pressure from the prevailing culture to fit in and bend to 'the way 'we' are' instead.

I'd hope Diversity policies take that into account that BAME isn't a catch-all and nor should it be deemed so when there's so much denial around the 'B'.

From the examples I've seen they luckily don't just bung it all in one. It seems to be quite specific in the end so for example Black Carribbean heritage or South Asian heritage. I don't think firm could actually defend non specific BAME in a court unless all people covered are underrepresented. It seems to usually be aimed at just some.

But who knows because there is just 1 case on this and that was a total shitshow

Can I ask what happens if a tie is reached by two people of the same ethnic or race based group?

@tiredybear

As a white person, I am learning about my privilege and how this has given me so many more opportunities than a POC. Unfortunately, the world we live in is still full of inherent racism, so we, white people, need to suck it up and accept policies like these as they will help us get the future we ALL deserve.

This positive discrimination should also be the same for gender in certain industries too.

Absolutely this! 👏

It's controversial for sure, but a good policy in my view if diversity is a problem in your particular workplace.

If there's literally nothing to chose between two candidates, and the decision has be made on some basis, I can't see the problem with now discriminating in favour of ethnic minorities who have historically been shat on for decades.

My dad worked for the GLC for over 20 years until that maniac Thatcher took her sledgehammer to it in the mid 80s, and he told me that this was the policy then. Didn't seem to think there was anything particularly remarkable or problematic about it, although I suspect he'd rather have decided such things by making candidates do the Times crossword and see who finished first.

ChairmansReserve

I prefer writers - of which there are many - who haven't done Blackface, and further unkindness to Black people.

Your questioning my view on racism and thinking I owe you further explanation/proof reiterates what I said earlier in terms of racism against Black people being acceptable depending who's dealing it, and giving rise to quick defensiveness where it's highlighted.

That's it.

@DeeCeeCherry

You said you've read 'many good books on anti-semitism'. I don't believe you are telling the truth. Your post exemplifies many anti-semitic attitudes.

I am opposed to, and actively fight against, racism against Black people, Asian people, Gypsies/Roma, and all other minority groups. Unlike you, I don't exclude Jews from that.

Your posts speak for themselves and anyone reading the thread can make their own judgement.

@forinborin that makes sense - grad schemes are interesting because there isn’t a lot of distinction between candidates, so choice must be hard. I say that as a former grad scheme graduate , and also interviewer (was an early stage tho so we made offers to everyone who passed).

For other jobs - the theory is that interview comes down to 2 candidates, and white is selected due to unconscious bias.

However what REALLY happens is that out of thousands applying for generic job, non white application is ignored (just like the disabled poster on here).

It’d be interesting to see a full study of application and rates at each interview stage for different kinds of jobs. For roles which require specific experience this appears to be less but can still happen...

I've been the beneficiary of this, not due to race but due to being female. Almost 10 years ago, I applied for a job in an all male, all white team and got it. I was told that there was "only a fag paper between you and the next guy, you'd both do a good job but you're better for diversity".

That was not a good feeling at all. It did not help with the imposter syndrome or relationships with the rest of the team. I felt very much like the old saying "you have to be twice as good to earn half as much respect" applied.

@ScaredOfDinosaurs

I've been the beneficiary of this, not due to race but due to being female. Almost 10 years ago, I applied for a job in an all male, all white team and got it. I was told that there was "only a fag paper between you and the next guy, you'd both do a good job but you're better for diversity".

That was not a good feeling at all. It did not help with the imposter syndrome or relationships with the rest of the team. I felt very much like the old saying "you have to be twice as good to earn half as much respect" applied.

The issue here is not the positive action, but the inherent sexism of the company.

A company that respected women wouldn't demean you like that, they certainly wouldn't talk to a man like that. They put you on notice you're only there as a token female. What they'd really like is all white men.

@ScaredOfDinosaurs
Trying to force diversity with a token always fails.
Creating a diverse team involves ACTIVE line management . To create an inclusive team culture. This applies to whether it’s a white male team who only talk about sport, or team full of parents who only talk about kids.

Unfortunately most managers are so busy doing their day job that they just let team culture form itself. And the default is whatever the majority of team members are like.

Humans are tribal creatures by default - without any active intervention this is what it’ll always fall back to!

@TatianaBis I agree - that is exactly what it was. 10 years on, I
am still there and have been promoted twice since. Change is slow, but we now have around 20% female and around 10% non white staff. But even with the older team members I have seen attitudes start to shift. It can be exhausting at times.

One of the people who lost out originally- not the guy who was close, one who utterly failed the interview - is still angry and bitter, and believes that he has been discriminated against due to being a white male. A decade ago that attitude would have been normal in our team, now he is widely regarded as a muppet with a chip on his shoulder!

To answer the original OP, I don't think it is wrong to use race, sex, disability etc as a tiebreaker in teams with poor diversity. I do think it is bloody awful to actually tell the team this is why they were chosen, and therefore to allow the toxic shite of "she only got it because she's a woman / black / disabled" to take hold.