I never said it did. I am literally using the language of the hiring firms - "candidates with disabilities"/ "disabled candidates". If you guys want to go out of your way to be offended despite clearly understanding the spirit of what I'm trying to suggest that's on you
I don't really need to consult any studies to know that there can be a multitude of reasons for why a hiring outcome can be 10 white: 1 black: 1 asian. And that racism should not be the first instance response
I don't really understand equality vs equity quotas. At the end of the day, you're still handicapping high merit candidates based on immutable characteristics
Ok, but that's just shifting the base level. So ok you can get past the first stage based on merit, but the next steps like guaranteed interviews for disabled candidates is a form of discrimination. What we're really arguing here is whether discrimination at ANY stage of the process is...
I think it's pretty condescending of you to try and suggest that without knowing my success during this cycle. I don't understand why people like you have to get up and arms and defensive when we're trying to have a decent conversation. Just in case you didn't know, I'm a minority student so I...
Normal candidate: meets x base requirement and not guaranteed an interview
Disabled candidate: meets x base requirement and is guaranteed an interview
This is still discrimination that is not based on merit because at the end of day, the chances of one progressing to the next stage is dependent...
Ok I can discuss this with you.
1. Quotas are the byproduct of equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity and only end in disaster because of various competency, preference reasons etc.
Uh I'm not too sure about the rest I may be wrong but I though we were discussing hiring fairness. Am...
But that's still prejudice.
Normal candidate: meets x base requirement and not guaranteed an interview
Disabled candidate: meets x base requirement and is guaranteed an interview
I can't exactly remember those firms now but if you go to the next application cycle for VSes, this disclaimer for their disability support scheme will literally be on one of the first 3 pages of their application
We are talking in terms of the hiring process of firms. I never asked for a single definition - all I am asking is that you provide me with a concrete definition. Because if we continue to say that it exists on a completely arbitrary basis it makes it very easy to abuse the doctrine of fair...
"However, the law in the United Kingdom does allow for membership in a protected and disadvantaged group to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented in a given area and if the candidates are of equal merit (in which case membership in a disadvantaged group can...
But how does it do this? I know firms who have progressed applicants to the interview stage purely because they have a disability, for example. That to me is literally being prejudicial towards certain candidates not based on merit, but based on immutable characteristics.
No long-standing dictionary definition of racism has ever accounted for a power dynamic. That introduction has been made by radical leftists who try to excuse racism towards certain races. But even if we don't consider that let's use a bit of common sense here. Regardless of whether we call it...
I honestly think in the specific instance of law firm job applications nobody is actually that under advantaged - if anything affirmative action makes it easier for minorities to get in
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.