To be totally APPALLED by how Robinson referred to Henry Nowak in his “speech” in Southampton on Tuesday?

[Whereismyjoiedevivre]

I’ve just seen a clip of this in a Guardian article on the main agitators in Southampton on Tuesday.
TR refers to Henry Nowak in this way: “White privilege?! Does Henry swear word beginning with F Nowak look as if he had white privilege when he was lying on the floor?”
He then smirks as he looks down, clearly proud of himself for delivering such an eloquent speech [sarcasm].
I’m beyond disgusted by how the name of this beautiful young man, who has lost his life in the most brutal way, was used in such a disrespectful way in order to rouse a rabble and boost TR’s ego.
AIBU to say that over the last two days TR, NF and their ilk are really showing us who they are and what motivates them?

It’s unpleasant but entirely predictable.

The US left and centre spent the last 15 years re-legitimising, stoking and rewarding racial grievance culture and our UK establishment clapped along with it all.

How could they not see this coming.

And now a task force that has been championed by Andy Burnham wants to make things worse:

Businesses that hire and promote young ethnic-minority people should be rewarded with greater access to government funding, a task force backed by Andy Burnham has urged.
The Growth and Skills Levy should be used to “incentivise employers to improve recruitment, retention, and progression outcomes for black, Asian, and mixed heritage young people”, said a report from the Race Equity in Employment Task Force.
However, the Conservatives said the proposals risked “introducing unfairness in the name of equality”

Completely ignoring that different ethnic and class groups have different challenges and ignoring one large group in need of support because of the colour of their skin. Racism writ large.

www.aol.com/articles/reward-bosses-hire-ethnic-minorities-070000000.html

Yes, this is a terrible idea. Having worked in the public sector I've seen ethnic minorities being promoted despite being incompetent. It causes havoc and the quality of work goes down.

It's not actually fair on those managers either as they end up getting bullied by the lower grades that they are supposed to be managing. I have seen this happen. Crazy situation.

Have you never seen incompetent white people promoted?

I haven't seen white people promoted to management where the people promoting them KNOW they're incompetent and they have a track record of incompetence. The public sector has a mindset to show that it has a diverse workforce including having ethnic minorities in senior positions. This new proposal would further incentivise this situation.

I'm all for having a diverse workforce. Having ethnic minorities in senior positions? Great. But let it be by merit.

I think the same about having women in management, should be merit only and I'm against the idea of having half the Cabinet being women (put forward by Labour MPs obviously looking for plum jobs).

I appreciate there are barriers that exist but this sort of thing doesn't actually help.

There was certainly a time when promoting people because they were white was a thing. To the extent it still happens, it's bad: unjust and produces worse leadership. Switching the labels around and carrying on is just as objectionable.

Also there are very many very talented non-white people (many non-white groups outperform whites on many measures). That is brilliant: the more talent we as a country can harness the better. Taking those groups and trying to turn them into a public sector client class by paying extra compensation to businesses willing to take them on is demeaning.

How do you think so many white people come to be in jobs they are not competent for? I'm imagining for example, you probably think our mainly white government is incompetent? That you see inefficiency, waste and poor management in public sector environments, which are disproportionately headed by white people? Because, if so, you'd probably need to acknowledge that our supposed 'meritocracy' isn't working, allowing as it does so many poor and mediocre performers to be in roles they perform badly. Not sure how levelling the playing field so groups that are not white men can compete is going to be worse.

Parliamentary Labour Party is about 16% non-white, vs 16% for total pop. Cabinet is 13%, shadow cabinet 18%. Age-adjusted it's probably a slight numerical overrepresentation.

Would you suggest an additional compensation scheme to pay constituencies who elect non-white MPs? I think that would be demeaning. That is however the principle that this report seems to advocate for businesses.

No I wouldn't. I think its an incredibly blunt tool which doesn't address the root cause of the problem.
White middle class males are over represented in the most powerful and influential positions in our society.
I don't believe there is anything inate about being white and male that means this is the inevitable result of a meritocratic process.
I don't believe that the people in these positions demonstrate their especial worth by providing us with excellent performance.
So I do think that an overhaul of the system that keeps churning out white middle class male leaders does need a good hard look so we can see where it's going wrong.
There are various points this could be, from early disadvantage of other demographics, to jobs for the boys cultures, to recruitment processes where recruiters select in the own image using criteria that favours certain demographics, even where the criteria is not required for the role.
I don't think the answer is to hand out roles to any body who is a woman or not white who happens by. But nor do I think this happens.
I think there's a place between what people wrongly believe to be happening (as above) and throwing out EDI initiatives altogether. The principle is sound. We just need to make changes at the right points in the process.

Have you remembered that we are currently a majority white country?

I’m not sure why your idea of ‘meritocracy’ is so focused on the colour of someone’s skin.

The representation of women in Parliament is woeful. The representation of normal working people with normal jobs and life experience is poor. We need to get away from the career politicians who come up from student politics or the unions and have never experienced a non politics work environment. But we also have to get better at looking at the person most qualified for the job, not filling race or other arbitrary quotas.

Have you remembered what the word disproportionate means? Clue: any adjustment for different sizes of demographic has already been taken into account.
I'm not sure why when you read the words 'white male' in my post you were so focused on the white part that you missed the word male? I agree entirely that women are under represented in positions of power and influence. Hence white male, not white people.
I'm referencing skin colour because my post was part of a string of comments originating with a poster claiming that non white people had been recruited into jobs they were incapable of.
Why not ask that poster why they are so focused on the incompetence of people who don't have white skin, when, as per my point, we see incompetence across all demographics?
You and I will not agree when it comes to levelling up measures concerned with race and ethnicity. We see this very differently I think.

Except that as pp points out, it’s not disproportionate per the population.

You said:
How do you think so many white people come to be in jobs they are not competent for?

You are making a vast generalisation and apparently positing that it is an equivalent to incompetent people of colour being deliberately recruited because of the colour of their skin rather than just being a result of the law of averages and white people being the majority.

And the government is not an equivalent representation of the world of employment. Recruitment methods are very different but deliberately writing policies to favour people based purely on the colour of a persons skin and reducing standards of competence to ‘encourage’ ethnic minorities in is a) mind blowingly racist implying that they are not bright or capable enough, b) doesn’t get you the best person to carry out the job, c) lumps all ethnic minorities into one bunch whereas we know there are a myriad of variations of opportunity and background - why should the black guy educated at his parents expense at Eton get an extra £5000 bursary from a major corporation which a working class white guy can’t because of the colour of his skin?

And finally d) as we are seeing, far from this being conducive to a more harmonious society, pitting people against each other like that based on racial groupings is a recipe for bad feeling and dissent.

It’s not the fault of the people complaining, it’s the mindless virtue signalling from big corporates who don’t really care about people or social cohesion, they just to tick their arbitrary boxes and move on.

Some people quite openly admit that they think racism is ok as long as it’s against white people.

I think it would be highly disingenuous to refuse to admit that many white men are in jobs they are not competent to do. I used government as an example as I suspected it might resonate with the person I was responding to, given I imagine they believe the white men leading our country at present serve as examples.
If I was 'making a vast generalisation' I'd say ALL white men are incompetent. I didn't say this. Some do excellent jobs.
My point was that when PP encountered poc he considered incompetent, he blamed EDI. I asked, fairly I think, how did he think that incompetent white people got their jobs?
Because if we want to ensure recruitment results in the most competent people, we should surely look at the failings of our so called 'meritocracy' as well as those of EDI.

I think it would be highly disingenuous to refuse to admit that many white men are in jobs they are not competent to do

I didn’t say that. But there is no deliberate dumbing down or policies written in order to recruit or give them a professional or financial advantage whether needed or not specifically because of their skin colour.

If I was 'making a vast generalisation' I'd say ALL white men are incompetent. I didn't say this. Some do excellent jobs.

that many white men are in jobs they are not competent to do

So in your mind many white men are incompetent and some do an excellent job.

That seems rather generalised and biased against white men.

My point was that when PP encountered poc he considered incompetent, he blamed EDI. I asked, fairly I think, how did he think that incompetent white people got their jobs?

It is fair that you question the blaming of EDI for incompetent poc. This is one of the divisive outcomes of having such blunt instrument, race focused EDI policies. Some poc themselves find it deeply patronising and insulting to imply they are not good enough to get a job on their merits and must be given a leg up to help them (or lower competence standards).

Having these illogical race based policies immediately casts doubt on the qualification of everyone who might have benefited from an EDI boost, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly.

It does feel like some of these ideas are actually designed to create social tension and resentment - although I think the real cause is well meaning people talking themselves with little thought into a ridiculous position. They are certainly succeeding in creating tension on both sides.

What do you think are the failings of our ‘so called meritocracy’?

EDI should not be about 'dumbing down' recruitment. It should be about helping people earlier in the process to equalise their position (not make it superior!) to ensure they can compete without disadvantage in an equal process. Plus targeting recruitment (job ads) to groups who might otherwise not apply, to encourage them.
These are not unfair or controversial things.
They have become so partly because people misunderstand them and believe them to be a 'dumbing down'. Partly because there have been some high profile cases where EDI has been implemented lazily and in a tick box way and has ended up that way.
Neither of those are reasons to obsess over the unfairness of EDI while turning a blind eye to the deep flaws in a 'meritocracy' that keeps churning out white male leaders as disproportionate levels.

A meritocracy should result in the selection to roles of the best people to perform them.
Yet the most powerful, influential, high status and rewarding positions in our society are disproportionately occupied by white men.
Unless you believe that white men are innately more intelligent, harder working, more capable and generally superior to women and to men who are not white, then clearly our system is failing in its purpose, and is not a meritocracy at all, but a system skewed to advantage white men.

You mean like the Treasury removing numeracy testing to increase ‘diversity’ hires?

Apparently they removed its mathematical assessment in 2020 to remove a 'hurdle' for candidates from ethnic minorities.

There are several cases that have been lost in court and who knows how many mire discriminatory practices there are that just haven’t been caught out as it’s so hard to prove. The ‘EDI’ industry advocates for these sort of practices so there’s little reason for them not to be widespread.

You seem quite interested in having a functioning ‘meritocracy’ but what you are happy to accept or minimise is the very opposite of meritocracy.

Neither of those are reasons to obsess over the unfairness of EDI

So you’re happy to wave away deliberate unfairness as long as it benefits your chosen group?

Don't edit my sentences so I appear to be saying sonething you're comfortable arguing with.
You know very well the sentence you cropped is part of a longer one that challenges the obsession with the unfairness of EDI while ignoring the unfairness of a system that advantages white men. Because to do that is the very embodiment of waving away unfairness that benefits YOUR chosen group.
I actually don't have a chosen group. I'd like equity for all.