How is this not racism/illegal?

[hawks4life]

Just curious. Are you against it in general? Ok wth it only if it supports a minority or what's the logic ? Is it ok because it's not breaking a law? I'm really just curious of your perspective. Not trolling.

[ISHGoat]

Except that I did answer which means you still have yet to make a point in your history off posting.

Debating with leftist SJWs is a lose-lose battle since they do not process facts and logic.

There is a reason why STEMs make good money in life and usually are not caught up in whatever facebook advocacy group is trending, yet the liberal arts students fall for that shit every time.

[gigantes]

So this is technically racist as well?

you mean the BET thing?

technically yes, but we're getting to the point where "racism" is an almost meaningless word at that point.

what damage is being done by something like that? that's what these things usually come down to for me because i have practical concerns, not shit-posting, political-point-making concerns like the Trumpets.

also, who here took notice of the community outreach being done? that kind of tells you a lot about their motives. was that part missed, or what...?


going out to late lunch. BBL.
(and by that i mean "big black lover" of course)

[hawks4life]

you mean the BET thing?

technically yes, but we're getting to the point where "racism" is an almost meaningless word at that point.

what damage is being done by something like that? that's what these things usually come down to for me because i have practical concerns, not shit-posting, political-point-making concerns like the Trumpets.

also, who here took notice of the community outreach being done? that kind of tells you a lot about their motives. was that part missed, or what...?


going out to late lunch. BBL.
(and by that i mean "big black lover" of course)

I applaud them for giving back to the community. But doing 1 right doesn't make up for another wrong. The issue here is the hiring practices of this company. The owner seems like he wants to improve the community. He's just going about not in a racist way which is the issue. The double standard that he is ok doing it but turn the tables and a white owner would be the center point for every media outlet.

Do you not see how allowing this treatment to one race but not the others furthers the divide between the people.

[ISHGoat]

you mean the BET thing?

technically yes, but we're getting to the point where "racism" is an almost meaningless word at that point.

what damage is being done by something like that? that's what these things usually come down to for me because i have practical concerns, not shit-posting, political-point-making concerns like the Trumpets.

also, who here took notice of the community outreach being done? that kind of tells you a lot about their motives. was that part missed, or what...?


going out to late lunch. BBL.
(and by that i mean "big black lover" of course)

The damage done is solely towards their own organization. They're simply not hiring based on who is most qualified, and their bottom line will suffer for it, unless being black is actually a competitive advantage, for example: their target market is predominantly black. Natural selection and competition will always restore things to the way they should be, unless governments offer bail outs and "incentives".

[Real Men Wear Green]

Techbically? Not breaking a law.. at least that I know of.

Just curious. Are you against it in general? Ok wth it only if it supports a minority or what's the logic ? Is it ok because it's not breaking a law? I'm really just curious of your perspective. Not trolling.

I'm ok with it in this instance. They aren't out there saying that black people are inherently better at the job or preaching hate against other races. Rather they act in the way that they are because black people have so few jobs in their field and they are trying to provide opportunity to correct that.

[hawks4life]

I'm ok with it in this instance. They aren't out there saying that black people are inherently better at the job or preaching hate against other races. Rather they act in the way that they are because black people have so few jobs in their field and they are trying to provide opportunity to correct that.

Thanks for the perspective. So if a white guy did it, saying whites aren't better, just giving them the opportunity then you would be ok with it as well. I disagree with it, but that is at least consistent.

[BigNBAfan]

I'm ok with it in this instance. They aren't out there saying that black people are inherently better at the job or preaching hate against other races. Rather they act in the way that they are because black people have so few jobs in their field and they are trying to provide opportunity to correct that.

What difference does it make if its directly vs indirectly leading to the same thing? Hiring blacks over whites due to race alone?

This is straight forward discrimination

Now lets see what the US equal opportunity commission says
(Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm)

Race/Color Discrimination

Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.

Race/color discrimination also can involve treating someone unfavorably because the person is married to (or associated with) a person of a certain race or color.

Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are the same race or color.

Race/Color Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

[Real Men Wear Green]

What difference does it make if its directly vs indirectly leading to the same thing? Hiring blacks over whites due to race alone?

I was asked if I have a problem with it. Well, I would have a problem with it if I felt like their motivation was a hatred of other races. I don't have an issue with them giving a leg up to other black people in an effort to bring their fellow blacks up with everyone else. White people have been helping other whites forever and Asians have done that as well. It's not the best thing that everything is so racial but I see where they're coming from.

[1manfastbreak]

I feel like this is getting taken out of context.

The article clearly says that they try to hire blacks, and that a majority of those who work at the firm are black.

Go into any wealth management firm and I bet you that a majority of the people who work there are white.

And from a business standpoint, what they are doing is pretty smart. If their goal is to manage the wealth of affluent blacks, then why not have a primarily black work force?

[gigantes]

I applaud them for giving back to the community. But doing 1 right doesn't make up for another wrong. The issue here is the hiring practices of this company. The owner seems like he wants to improve the community. He's just going about not in a racist way which is the issue. The double standard that he is ok doing it but turn the tables and a white owner would be the center point for every media outlet.

Do you not see how allowing this treatment to one race but not the others furthers the divide between the people.

yeah well, that all fails to mention the fact that black americans have had a pretty shitty time of it historically at the hands of civilised america. that's called "context."

if the black americans in question were descended from just another immigration wave, then yeah... i'm sure i'd have more of a problem with the BET thing. but no, this is a people who still have problems getting a fair shake in the hiring process in the wake of jim crow laws being in place as recently as 50 years ago. because sometimes 50 years isn't very long when it comes to that kind of thing.

you mentioned "double standard" i believe...?

The damage done is solely towards their own organization. They're simply not hiring based on who is most qualified, and their bottom line will suffer for it, unless being black is actually a competitive advantage, for example: their target market is predominantly black. Natural selection and competition will always restore things to the way they should be, unless governments offer bail outs and "incentives".

agreed. in a situation like this, i'd prefer to just let the situation sort itself out. if they continue to have a lot of success with a mostly-black staff, then more power to them. if they shoot themselves in the foot, then it was of their own doing.

problem...?

[gigantes]

so am i understanding the playbook correctly?


[list]accuse others of racism[/list]
[list]fail to show any law being broken[/list]
[list]fail to show that other ethnicities can't get jobs at the org in question, i.e. racism[/list]
[list]fail to understand the context that likely led to this situation[/list]
[list]run away and start who knows how many new accusations[/list]
[list]come off like the actual racist in the end[/list]

[BigNBAfan]

so am i understanding the playbook correctly?


[list]accuse others of racism[/list]
[list]fail to show any law being broken[/list]
[list]fail to show that other ethnicities can't get jobs at the org in question, i.e. racism[/list]
[list]fail to understand the context that likely led to this situation[/list]
[list]run away and start who knows how many new accusations[/list]
[list]come off like the actual racist in the end[/list]

Post 23 moron

[Cleverness]

Making a hiring decision based on race or age is illegal, even if it's done to make a work environment more diverse

By Lily Garcia
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, January 7, 2010; 12:00 AM
Hi, Lily. I work for a public organization. I love my job and my boss and the CEO. I have also served on several hiring committees. I have been told point blank by various levels of leadership that we have to hire non-white candidates. I was also told that we have to hire somebody younger than 42. Aren't these directives illegal? The last candidate that we hired was white and 42+ years old. I agree that we want a diverse workforce. How do we achieve that without engaging in illegal discrimination? Thank you.

It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make hiring decisions based upon race. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, meanwhile, it is illegal to discriminate against job applicants who are age 40 or older. Many state and local laws contain similar prohibitions.

One notable exception to these rules is the bona fide occupational qualification (or BFOQ). There may be circumstances under which the legitimate requirements of a job have the effect of excluding older applicants. Physically demanding jobs that require a certain level of strength or stamina are one example. Employers may also sometimes explicitly seek or exclude candidates based on such criteria as race. For instance, a theater company may have a casting call that is open only to black males based upon the role the incumbent will be hired to play. To protect an employer from liability for discrimination, BFOQs must be a matter of business necessity and not mere pretext.

A general desire for race or age diversity in the workplace does not constitute a BFOQ. Unless your employer has a specific defensible business need to give preference in the hiring process to people who are non-white and/or under a certain age, the practice is probably illegal.

The value of promoting workplace diversity should by now be uncontroversial. It makes good business sense to cultivate a workforce that reflects and, therefore, understands your target market. Plus, diverse groups consistently surpass homogenous ones in their capacity to problem-solve efficiently and creatively. Most obviously, it is morally right to adopt hiring practices that give all people a fair chance based upon their professional qualifications rather than irrelevant personal characteristics.

What your employer seeks to achieve is both smart and good. The problem lies in the execution. In the myopic pursuit of one or two specific types of diversity, your organization will tend to exclude many others and, as you have experienced, delegitimize a noble effort.

But what, exactly, constitutes diversity? Take a street poll and you will find that many people view diversity as a question of race, or perhaps gender. Yet, when it comes to the recruitment objectives of an enlightened employer, a narrow view of diversity is not realistic or helpful. I prefer the definition articulated by President Barack Obama in his Notre Dame speech: "diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief." We each comprise a multitude of experiences and life choices that, together with such overt characteristics as our skin tone and gender, define who we are and how we are perceived. Yet, we each remain complex in our potential contributions to an enterprise.

The most successful diversity initiatives focus not on hiring people who fit a particular profile, but rather on building a pipeline of diverse applicants while strengthening the employee retention rate. Building a pipeline involves reaching out beyond traditional or mainstream recruitment channels to communities that might not normally hear about your available jobs. You may choose to attend lesser known recruitment fairs in smaller markets, for example, or advertise your jobs through the minority media. Some organizations even establish mentoring, internship and other educational programs that introduce diverse youth to their profession or industry long before they might be eligible for actual employment. If you have a strong diverse pipeline, then you will, in the normal course of selecting the most highly qualified applicants, end up with employees of diverse backgrounds.

Then the question becomes how to retain the talent you have worked so hard to attract. Some organizations do this with employee development programs, support networks and benefit programs that recognize and honor the diversity of their workforce. You may establish affinity groups that offer networking resources to employees with particular concerns and interests (e.g., single parents and employees coping with a disability). You may pair new hires with more seasoned workers who can help to orient them to the organization and plan for advancement. You may audit the effectiveness of your training, succession planning and other employee development programs to ensure that they are effective and inclusive.

As it turns out, the employment practices that tend to attract and retain diverse employees are also those which keep your workforce happy and productive in general. Rather than engaging in the counterproductive exercise of targeting people based upon their age or race, your organization would be best served by adopting a recruitment strategy focused on capturing the interest of people beyond the mainstream while ensuring that your workplace is welcoming and supportive of all.

[97 bulls]

Just curious. Are you against it in general? Ok wth it only if it supports a minority or what's the logic ? Is it ok because it's not breaking a law? I'm really just curious of your perspective. Not trolling.

I'm not against it. Even when a white person does it. But then don't complain about blacks not working. Seeing as how the white race is the majority.

I applaud what these businesses owners are doing.