To think being prejudiced against the privately educated is OK

[EastLondonObserver]

I have spent 25 years working in the advertising industry at some of the most highly regarded agencies in the world. Most of these have been dominated (in certain roles, at least) by the privately educated who gained their entry to the industry through having personal/family contacts in it, were subbed by rich parents while working in low-paid or free internships to gain experience and had that empty confidence private schools instil.

Perfectly capable graduates educated comprehensive schools didn't get much of a look in. However a few managed to break through, including myself.

Consequently, throughout my career I have actively rejected almost all privately educated graduates applying for entry level positions. This runs into hundreds of applicants. I have managed to do this without being called out. Sometimes I have rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative. These were corporate companies - it made no meaningful difference to me if they were mildly less successful as a consequence. The only exception was one graduate educated at Harrow and Bristol. I gave him the job as an experiment. He was average at best.

I did this in the name of social justice: re-distributing opportunities away from those with unearned privilege.

Have I been unreasonable? Has anyone else done the same?

I was a diversity hire in my first job post uni, a woman in a firm full of men. Forever grateful that they decided to try and make changes. Even though it was tough being the first female hire.

Loving all the but my child is the exception frothing.

The changes were company wide HR practise though?

Fine if a company brings in actions but if you can’t even tell your colleagues why you’ve thrown a CV in the bin due to prejudice - be it sex, age, looks or schooling then you’re likely being unethical.

No it was a tiny form of 20 with no HR.

Yes, I've built a small department in the law firm I'm a partner in. 75% of my team is female and 25% is BAME. All but one of the team are from state/WC backgrounds. The exception is my number two, who is from a very privileged privately-educated background that could probably be described as 'international jet set'; she is brilliant, and the right person for the job.

It's a competitive environment where talent and hard work matter, and I can't afford to make poor hiring decisions based on principles and nothing else. I've targets to hit, and if I don't. I'm ultimately out on my ass. I do find, based on experience, that people from more modest backgrounds are often more driven, have more natural talent, and ultimately achieve more than those who have had a leg up.

I would never chuck a CV in the bin because it showed someone was privately-educated. It could be against my interests and, without further investigation, may turn out simply to be unfair. But I can't get morally outraged at the OP doing the same, when so many seem happy to bin off state school kids in exactly the same way. I suspect the net of what she's doing, given her industry, is probably good.

Yes that's very unreasonable.

And gosh I feel bad for you having to go through life with such a chip on your shoulder.

Mind you, if my privately educated child was rejected by you I think that would be a blessing; I imagine someone who treats people so unfairly would not be a good manager/ leader.

They could just apply for a job at any other advertising firm. They'd be a shoo-in.

How about your child thriving as a result of their own efforts and hard work?

That’s great, it sounds you’re accountable for your decisions and they are working well for you.

I don’t agree fully though with the last line. I’m sure you could explain your actions to anyone who asked, but the op can not be above board in the same way. Plus I think they may have been on the receiving end and actually I do have loads of sympathy for that. I had zero connections and it was stressful getting on the initial ladder.

Great post thedancingbear. It sounds like you and your team have a good outlook and would be happily able to talk about your recruitment processes and strategy.

I am willing to admit that my personal experience means that I am just super tired of posh types, particularly men. In my small business, I'd probably interview such a man if he was good on paper, but I would be surprised if I ever hired one because the attitude is so annoying. About a year ago an opportunity came up that I couldn't take on. I happened to know that the DH of a friend was looking for work so I offered to introduce him to the potential client. I had a brief chat with the DH first to give him some background info. On that call, he was patronising and dismissive of me. And after he met with my potential client, he never even bothered to respond to me or thank me for the opportunity.

Unfortunately, I see this with men like him all the time.

My small petty OP-like thing I do is that sometimes I'll be looking for freelancers and when men like this approach me, I do not give them the work. This is true x1000 if they have a history of being dismissive of me when I was NOT in a position to give them work but perhaps needed something from them and/or if they send me emails/messages that don't bother to make any effort to actually sell themselves.

Interesting, posh women less so. They often have impeccable manners and who knows what they are thinking or saying when you're out of earshot, but in person they are much easier to deal with and they sell themselves well.

I guess we all have to live by our own values and beliefs. OP’s employer could also take objection to them making up their own rules as they go along though, I would find myself distrusting OP and therefore wouldn’t want them working for me.

TiredButDancing · Today 10:58

"@MarshaBradyo In the PR and Marketing/Comms agencies I've worked with/for, the top brass have tended to be posh toffs. Fact. And while there might be a more diverse group at the lower levels, it gets posher the higher you go. And even at director level, the posh ones tended to be the ones on the more high profile/profitable accounts. Every single time. They also tend to get promoted faster (or move into comms/PR/marketing from some other field at a higher level than someone from a different background who makes this move).

And of course, the reason is often because to get to the very top in these firms, you have to be able to bring in business. And they are the ones who have the connections. And that starts to be felt practically from day one when they join as account executives."

The poshest you are the better connections you have? you don't say! These kind of connections come with a lot more money and power than your average PS kid would ever get close to, so good luck with fighting that one.
Taking it out on those who may or may not have a privileged background, based on the name of their school is not laudable, abuse rarely makes the world a better place. I could have some modicum of respect for the OP's position if he could stand up and be counted for his policy, but the 5th column BS is what gets him off and what he confuses with having a social conscience.

Presumably all these who defend the OP are asking us to believe that people with no PS background don't build up and benefit from their own connections in the workplace? And that they wouldn't dream of using them to benefit their children?

We were laughing as a family in that several of us in our generation got to Oxbridge / top jobs purely on merit (zero connections/ state schools). Yet now we are there we are strictly forbidden from helping our own children / nephews and nieces (rightfully so). Yet the ruling elite upper classes have been getting away with doing just that for hundreds of years!

No, it isn't OK for you to be prejudiced against these people. Privilege is having a mum and dad that love you and each other and a happy family with enough money that you aren't starving/going without shoes etc.

It is certainly NOT going to boarding school where these days, you will be shoved from pillar to post in the care of any member of staff who has a spare microsecond from all the other duties foisted upon them. Particularly if one parent walked out and then the other died so the only option was boarding school with the proceeds of the estate (it's a real example - I'm sure you would think you were doing society a favour telling this girl to fuck off if she applied for a job with you, with your lazy assumptions).

Crack on with your misguided social warrior campaign if you must, whilst congratulating yourself on being a wonderful person . But you have not walked a mile in these people's shoes. And you should remember that a child generally is sent to the school that their parents chose.

Oh you're "forbidden", so that can't happen right?🙄

I don’t dislike them per se. Of course there are some I don’t get on with, and others I have worked with for years without incident. I just want to address the bias in their favour and that against state educated people.

Great comment. Any meaningful redistribution of power in society starts with someone deciding not to obey the existing rules. If enough people follow suit this can become the new rule.

Absolutely forbidden. Can’t happen and won’t happen.Which is as it should be.

I appreciate you commenting on the issue. However, I find your comments who is employed in the ad industry and why somewhat out of whack. You seem to be saying “there is no over-representation of the privately educated”. Instead you have suggested in “accounts” (that’s not the term used in the UK FYI) a person’s looks trump educational background.

Data-wise however, that simply isn’t true. The Ad Association conducts a census of the industry. Those attending private schools are 300-500% over-represented in the industry vs their share of the general population. And, in some agencies it’s far higher than that - I know because I compiled the data in some of those organisations.

Ok you don’t believe me due to ‘accounts’ and that I’ve found agencies image focussed. There you go different perspectives. I don’t actually mind what pp is doing in their law partnership and I’m sure they would happily tell anyone, but hidden prejudice is why HR policies and ethics exist.

Wherever you are in the agency hierarchy I wish you luck though.

‘OP If you were my employee and I found out your little game I would fire you instantly.’

sure, and how would any one prove it. oP would just argue that they chose the best candidate, or that the candidate stood out in some way.
just as I’m sure every white, posh bloke hiring another white posh bloke into a firm would make the same argument.
the upper echelons of many professions are stuffed to the gills with privately educated, privileged, often white, straight men who apparently ALL got there completely on merit.

In fact, if OPs ‘little game’ was found out they should probably. E rewarded for actually doing something to actually diversify the workforce.
and clearly something is working - these hires have apparently worked out. Or else OP wouldn’t be continuing to be allowed to hire people.

In fact, if OPs ‘little game’ was found out they should probably. E rewarded for actually doing something to actually diversify the workforce.
and clearly something is working - these hires have apparently worked out. Or else OP wouldn’t be continuing to be allowed to hire people.

The op herself stated that "Sometimes I have rejected them even when they clearly would have done a better job than a comprehensive school educated alternative."

So the company is performing less well than it would otherwise. I would not be happy if I found out, as her manager or CEO.

Yes, I probably would be fired. But I have enough accumulated now financially that it wouldn’t matter.

I started this thread with some doubts about what I have been doing. But the responses in both sides have convinced me to continue. And, I would urge others who agree - especially those that can afford to get fired if found out - to do the same.

In fact, someone getting fired for this and making a fuss might well make for a high profile story in the media and help create wider change….

Quite. I've been pondering throughout today whether the OP's actions are justified or not. I think they are. Imagine you have three possible worlds.

(i) No employers favour any group over any other
(ii) half of employers favour group A, the other half favour group B
(iii) Some employers favour group A, the other favour neither group over the other.

Which is the 'best' world? (i), clearly, but we're a million miles from that. I expect the OP, if she could, would click her fingers and make it so. But she can't.

So which of the other two is better? I would say that (ii) is better than (iii). There are individual injustices - it's not a perfect world - but overall, and everything else being equal, group A as a class gets the same chances as group B. Some people get shat on sometimes, but over a course of a lifetime, most people end up in a place somewhere near where they deserve - the good and bad experiences even out. I think this works however you cut it, and also before you factor in that group A is likely to have privilege in other ways - that premise is not needed.

And it seems obvious to me that a world in which the OP behaves as she does is closer to world (ii) than world (iii). There may be employment law question marks, but fuck it (and those apply in the reverse direction too). There are probably things that she could do that would be even better for her goals, but if the question is 'is the world better for the OP's actions' then the answer seems to be yes.

So, OP, imho, more power to your elbow - you're not perfect but not is anyone. And the world's a better place for you.