I reckon you let the media run away with your prejudices. But then again I would .
The article only relates to the first part of the speech, and gives no detail of what followed. Whether they considered national dress appropriate, or veils, or, and this is important as it's real life not media spin, whether the chaps could havve beards or moustaches. Andersen consulting, Arthur Andersen, and IBM always used to insist on pictures with every job application, and had a policy of no facial hair on anyone (girls too). There reasons were exactly the same as the afro comment, so is not in a anyway linked to institutional racism. similarly here recently, the veil question was not racial.
The article may have been totally accurate, and a person from the company may have just stood up, said 'No Fro' Bro's' (did you like that ? It was funny and imitating what I assume to be a white person which I shouldn't making an innapropriate comment designed to ingratiate but totally being fly for a white guy) and sat back down again. But the talk was on appropriate office attire and looks, and many big firms are very strict on this. The article is written to stir the racial element.
I thought the politcal hairstyle comment was bollocks obviously. 'Hello. I'd like a Widdecombe please. Got a meeting with the Sultan of Brunei at 2'
The media phrases we all get to use everyday, credit crunch, Y2K bug, knife crime in London, are mainly spun to make them sound worse than they are because that sells news. I can't imagine sitting in a big meeting with someone with an Afro, or a veil, or not wearing a suit, or smelling. Doesn't make me a racist though. It's just business snobbery.
I think there's a lot of people on here, out there, everywhere, that have been told they must apologise until they turn black them selves if they so much as formulate an inkling of a thought about a colour, then immediately sacrifice their first born to give the poor liddle ethnic minority a helping hand because they can't help themselvs. How patronising is that. It's like talking loudly at someone with a disability, even if it's that they're blind. Nobody shouts much about LGBT (sorry, wanky government acronym for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual) rights still except that nice Peter bloke who keeps lobbing eggs at the Bishop of Barthen Wells. And you can't be ageist in employment now. So look out for senile delinquents in Footlocker helping slowly, nonchalantly, and probably smelling a bit like wee.
If you go through a list of what the government would class as a list of all ethnic minorities (and please tell me you all try and invent your own - I'm Richmond Sunset. Just think of a Dulux chart, they'll write down anything) you'll see the attention to detail, the time and effort, the exhausting list. This makes everyone concentrate on colour and race, and leads to impressions of institutionalised racism. which again is a bit of a nobrain comment invented by the media (the individuals with power can be racist, but not the institution). Certainly with regards to employment, the job should always go to the person that can do the job the best. It's pure madness to give a job to a woman, or or a BME, over a white person that is better. That's straight up, pure, racism/sexism. I agree that it's fair to guarantee an interview to any disabled/person with special needs if they fit the criteria (that's within the public sector), but that does not guarantee them the job.
I can understand that social integration takes time, a lot of time, and I think America is streets ahead, but that's because they were forced to confront their slavery crimes (largely with slaves supplied by the English I'm afraid). Having confronted the problem, they all feel more at ease, in my opinion, and are moving away from the definitions of people by their race. Here in the UK we're under a different regime where people were invited into the country. Immigration has been a little higer coming in than going out (immigration, not asylum seeking) with a ratio of about 4:3 (old Cambridge Uni figures). Now there are lots of smaller communities trying to integrate, but having integration forced on them (you must do this, you musn't do that, you may cause offence) when left to their own devices they would fairly much thrive like America has (the world's greatest social experiment). The councils and government are really the people that form the basis of these race perceptions in everything they do. Hackney Council is a perfect example of what you would call institutionalised racism. They have a policy of guaranteeing work to companies that are owned by Black people (not Asian, White, Chinese, anyone), regardless of how many employees that company has from a Black background. Pure white hate some may say. The last very large census figures showed that in London the ethnic split is around 60% white, 16% Asian, 14% Black, and the rest of other origins. So largely the Asian community is ignored when developing these projects even though they are a larger minority, which again, is racist.
I don't believe for one second that people like Slim22 earlier, or any of the original posters, gave a moments thought to MrsThierryHenri being anything but white. And that in itself is racist. You've been told so many times to watch your step with regards to race, colour, beliefs etc, that if I told you white sheets had been banned because they may cause offence, you'd strip your beds immediately. Whites, Asians, Blacks, Far Eastern, Middle Eastern, wherever, they are equal. You may not, anymore, assume any of us are any colour, any race, any religion, any sex, anyone that is a LGBT. And if you do, and you base your answers on that assumption, you are exactly the sort of person all the enlightened people like me and MrsTH, Quint, etc are trying to educate. Just look at the person, don't believe everything you read, and don't give me a soapbox again, you''l be here all night.
Now I'm off to look for some pictures of John Shaft. Can you dig it ?