Is this racist

[Whoiam]

I am seeing many posts about Charlie Kirk being racist. I also note that there are references to his stance on DEI.

I am interested, is this racist nowadays?

https://youtube.com/shorts/8HDYrISA1TY?si=m7vBABFnGn-6uqBy

YABU- yes
YANBU-no

Depends on whether it's an initiative operating in a sector where her ethnicity is under represented or not.

I didn't say that, did I? I just pointed out that Nurpia spoke on behalf of British Indians when there are many underrepresented groups. And it isn't just about ethnicity - it's also about socio-economic background. Whether a particular group should or shouldn't be included depends on the situation and one whether the workforce is reasonably representative of the population it's serving.

As for your point about the NHS:

• NHS England is being abolished
• When shortlisting, the people seeing the applications do not know whether or not the applicant is from an ethnic minority or not, because the process is blind. The only absolute criterion is that someone who is disabled and meets the criteria for the job must be interviewed.

I work in the NHS. I support recruitment regularly. This is how it works.

How does ‘under-representation’ get assessed? Genuine question.

Presumably there are complex calculations based on a combination of cultural factors, population, economic factors of all the relevant ethnic groups vs non ethnic group population plus other things like location and free will etc.

I wonder how well researched and analysed the targets and quotas are - they seemed a bit arbitrary in the RAF. Are they arbitrary in many other organisations too?

It would be interesting to know how much influence voices of said ethnic minorities have in the discussions. By the way POs have dismissed or ignored those voices in this thread, I’m guessing not much.

Assessing under representation is really not that complex, it's just a numbers game. So if white men in the UK make up 41% of the population, they should by rights hold around 41% of the positions in sectors where equitable representation is important, like government, the judiciary, law enforcement etc.
Other sectors may target under represented groups with reference to representation of the community served/customer base. So a care company might have a quota to employ 60% men, because 60% of the people requiring care are men and want same sex carers, and in their existing workforce only 10% are men.
I think its really important to remember that these measures aren't about supporting minority groups as some sort of act of charity. There are good reasons why increasing representation is good for society and businesses.

So after two days of arguing, we’re now in agreement that it’s about apportioning employment opportunities based on race?

Inuit nurses are never going to get a look in at the NHS are they?

Being a man, as per my example isn't a race, is it?

No but white men, as per your example, are white.

My example was deliberately chosen to demonstrate that these measure are not always about race (at least here in the UK). They are about striving for equal representation and opportunity to any under represented group. In my example the under represented group happened to be men.
In a recent opportunity offered by the civil service, the targeted group was people from disadvantaged backgrounds (race/sex irrelevant).
You seem obsessed with making this about white people losing out to POC, when in fact its simply about under represented groups, whoever they are, being encouraged and supported to participate. Sonetimes because its fair, sometimes because it makes business sense (the male carers) sometimes because savvy employers want to attract talent from groups they may have missed out on.
No one is handing out jobs to POC based on their race.

@5128gap Would this be a fair summary ‘allocating employment opportunities based on immutable characteristics such as race and sex’?

‘opportunity offered by the civil service, the targeted group was people from disadvantaged backgrounds (race/sex irrelevant)’

That was based on what your parents jobs were when you were 14. Equally irrational nonsense

Employment opportunities should not be allocated on anything other than merit. Equality of outcome based on quotas is utter nonsense, it’s discriminatory and leads to lower standards.

I can’t believe people spend tax money on dreaming up these schemes. They have to go. Another nail in Labour’s coffin.

Please tell me which airlines are recruiting pilots bases on a written exam rather than the more typical pilots license + minimum I think 1500 hours of flying time.

I do hope the "next government " bans pilots with just theoretical knowledge as well as "DEI".

Allocating of employment opportunities based on sex or race is illegal in the UK under the equality act (introduced under a Labour government).

We’ve gone full circle now. 😃

I will offer you a bit of advice though, if you’re involved in this sort of grifting to make a living I’d try widen my skill set a bit over the next two years. I’ve got a feeling DEI officers are going to disappear faster than tube drivers.✌

Really? You believe pilots just take one written exam? they don’t have to log a certain number of flying hours, fly simulators, study?

one written exam and there you go folks, here’s the keys to your shiny new 747?

the full quote is

“If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

What do you mean ‘really’ yes really, it’s under investigation.
I didn’t once say that’s all they do did I, I’m simply stating my point that if you are right for the job you wouldn’t feel the need to cheat. Simple.

So he didn’t call someone a moronic black woman then. Thanks. It was a hypothetical question, would it make you feel better if he said ‘if I was dealing with a moronic Asian person’

Thats rather a broad brush though snd really doesn’t answer my question. You’re saying that more then 41% white men shouldn’t be in certain jobs, not how we determine which groups SHOULD be in the remaining 59% of jobs.

Are you suggesting that anyone isn’t a white male would do? Should it be specific ethnic minorities? That obviously expects that all ethnic minorities are similarly disadvantaged which is obviously not the case. How do you differentiate between different ethnic minorities, different education levels, cultural preferences and plain free will? Should it be calculated across a whole sector?

In which case how does that translate to individual organisations/teams/positions available - what about personal preference? Anecdotally certain groups frequently go for science based or medical jobs for example.

Devising quotas that don’t unfairly disadvantage other groups is clearly extremely complex and as we’ve seen, many major organisations including the NHS, MI5/6 and GCHQ and the RAF have failed. And they are just the ones who’ve been caught out.

And what about the wishes of the ethnic groups? How many members have to say they don’t want help and they find it racist and patronising before that is listened to?

I don’t think it means one race is more capable than the other but one due to generations of advantage is in stronger position than the other.

I don't know how it works in every sector. I'm a lay person on MN with a broad idea of the principles, not a detailed insight into the diversity policies of every employer. There's some guidance on the ACAS website though, and a section on positive action which probably forms the basis for policies.
If you wanted to know the detail of a particular employers approach you'd have to research it. If it was a government or public body you could request details.
I can offer my opinion on your question about the wishes of people from different ethnic groups, which is that people are individuals and not a hive mind. So no one on here can possibly speak for everyone in their 'group'.
Generally the policies emerge from consultation with communities and the patterns of responses. Obviously some people from the group won't agree. But as the training schemes and so on aren't compulsory, they can simply not participate.
I mean, there are women who think we don't need employment rights and society is stronger when a woman's place is in the home. But we wouldn't use that as the basis to withdraw the opportunity to work from all women, would we?

Not sure if the person you're quoting has misremembered but this rings a bell re: the air traffic control scandal. It was not a pilot exam but a "first phase" biographical questionnaire that was developed in order to increase diversity. An employee of the FAA emailed members of the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees with answers.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring

Would recommend reading this rundown (written by a liberal who is also critical of the way the right is targeting "DEI" initiatives - it's a very fair and compassionate write-up.) The introduction of the biographical questionnaire was one of a few initiatives that eliminated many qualified individuals from entering training and led to a huge staffing shortage.

Don't know about anywhere else but I've had 20 years management experience in the NHS and I'm not sure how I could discriminate against anyone in shortlisting when the information you get removes any mention of name or ethnicity. As the shortlisting manager you do not know. There are schemes for guaranteed interviews for veterans and people with disabilities but only if they meet the criteria. No such scheme exists for race. In interviews you score against the person spec, you couldn't score extra for race and there are no race bases tie breakers.

EDI in recruitment, as I've said, is about removing barriers not creating new ones.

This. I'm mixed race (white British and Indian through I look white) and most of my British Indian friends and family, including those in very well paid roles, experience multiple racially motivated issues a year. No one persons experience should define that of a group.

What do you define as racially motivated issues?

I think this is part of the problem. Many people have this idealistic idea of the objectivity, consideration for fairness for all s and actually effective action that go into these schemes. As far as I can see, that is largely vastly over estimated and just ends up creating new inequalities that need addressing.

That may be a feature rather than a bug intended to keep the DEI industry in work forever.

And if an NHS organisation is doing things differently, they aren't following protocol and should be pulled up on that. But the antis on here won't believe the reality of NHS recruitment practice.

This is where I really struggle with the motivations of DEI. It is effectively punishing people living and working now for the actions of an entirely different set of people living in a different world that resides in the past.

It has developed into a form of ‘white-bashing’ or for the proponents, self flagellation, which, when our armed forces and other major institutions feel at liberty to unlawfully discriminate against white males, most of whom are young and have zero culpability for inequalities of the past is a problem. No wonder so many are turning to Reform.

NHS recruitment is anonymous - the hiring managers don’t even get the candidate’s name - the entire thing is standardised and anonymised, so everyone who gets an interview gets on merit, just the same as every other candidate. This has been the case for the entire decade of my NHS experience.