Robert Peston job ad - whites need not apply

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

So are you for or against the original advert?

Perfectly fine with it. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing the Beeb have identified that BAME are underrepresented in that particular field and they think this would be giving somebody a chance to gain experience in that field, so that they are more capable of applying for a permanent role if and when one comes along.

Rovinghawk said:

You say you want the playing field levelled ("positive" discrimination?) yet you don't want discrimination.

I see leveling the playing field as removing any unfair advantages that one group of candidates may have over another.

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

I see leveling the playing field as removing any unfair advantages that one group of candidates may have over another.

Fair enough. Presume I'm white- please clarify what unfair advantages I have.

[TTwiggy]

Rovinghawk said:

Countdown said:

I see leveling the playing field as removing any unfair advantages that one group of candidates may have over another.

Fair enough. Presume I'm white- please clarify what unfair advantages I have.

And round and round we go...

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

Countdown said:

I see leveling the playing field as removing any unfair advantages that one group of candidates may have over another.

Fair enough. Presume I'm white- please clarify what unfair advantages I have.

I'm not sure. Hypothetically I'm working in an industry where all the people who apply are from exactly the same background, and yet the community I serve is very diverse. What is there about my recruitment processes do you think that means only people from the same background are applying for jobs? Maybe, once I've had a look at this I can determine what is and isn't fair?

Or i could just assume that everything's fine......?

[otolith]

That BBC job requires a journalism qualification. If bright kids from BME communities are - for example - choosing to study medicine instead of journalism, I don't have a problem with them being over represented in hospitals and under-represented in the media.

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

I'm not sure. Hypothetically I'm working in an industry where all the people who apply are from exactly the same background, and yet the community I serve is very diverse. What is there about my recruitment processes do you think that means only people from the same background are applying for jobs? Maybe, once I've had a look at this I can determine what is and isn't fair?

Or i could just assume that everything's fine......?

A while back someone posted that different groups apply for different jobs based on expectations/aspirations. I can agree with the point he was making, whilst also agreeing with the comment that a similar attitude will prevail in whites on sink estates.

I don't see that discrimination will do anything to reduce a 'them & us' mentality.

To my very simple mind 'fair' is when everyone gets the chance to apply & the best candidate gets the job. No more, no less.

[2xChevrons]

otolith said:

That BBC job requires a journalism qualification. If bright kids from BME communities are - for example - choosing to study medicine instead of journalism, I don't have a problem with them being over represented in hospitals and under-represented in the media.

There is nothing wrong with that in itself (although it would be interesting and worthwhile to study why) so long as it was clear that this difference was not due to negative social or economic forces beyond the individuals' control - that BME kids were not being discouraged or excluded from persuing a career in media if they were otherwise able and willing to.

However my personal opinion is that if such forces were removed or negated you would not find such a trend.

Rovinghawk said:

A while back someone posted that different groups apply for different jobs based on expectations/aspirations. I can agree with the point he was making, whilst also agreeing with the comment that a similar attitude will prevail in whites on sink estates.

And part (only part, mind you) of that problem is that many people in those situations don't see it as remotely possible for people like them to acheive certain careers or lifestyles. They either just passively ingest the social norm that black kids from London estates (or white kids with Midlands accents from state schools, or whichever group you care to pick) don't go on to work in telly because they don't see 'the likes of them' represented. Some will have their life experiences teach them that even if they did try for such a goal a white-dominated field would shut them out. Others will have their aspirations squashed by the sheer number of obstacles in their way. Some, through a combination of skill, effort and luck, achieve their dream against the odds but they have expended more effort, and had better breaks of luck, to get there (or even to the stage of gaining the qualifications and getting an interview) than a middle-class, privately-educated white kid.

So if a field is over-majority white (just to stick to the racial aspect, although it applies to all social categories), it will often both deter minorities from trying to enter in the first place and discriminate against the ones that do (see the CV Name-switch study as an example). A media industry staffed and run at the creative and managerial level by Russell-group-educated, Home County-bred white folks may very well not produce content that is of interest or relevance to large parts of its audience, and may (overtly or subtly) shut down any such ideas because it's 'not the way we do things' or 'people [like me] won't be interested in that.' Getting a staff from diverse backgrounds (social, economic, ethnic, whatever) allows for more representative and relevant ideas, leading to products that resonate better with the population served. And then more kids growing up on sink estates will see the media speaking to their own experiences, and they may well decide that it's worth pursuing that as a career themselves.

But it helps to jump-start that process if you tilt the playing field ever-so-slightly in favour of those in the minority.

[otolith]

2xChevrons said:

otolith said:

That BBC job requires a journalism qualification. If bright kids from BME communities are - for example - choosing to study medicine instead of journalism, I don't have a problem with them being over represented in hospitals and under-represented in the media.

There is nothing wrong with that in itself (although it would be interesting and worthwhile to study why) so long as it was clear that this difference was not due to negative social or economic forces beyond the individuals' control - that BME kids were not being discouraged or excluded from persuing a career in media if they were otherwise able and willing to.

However my personal opinion is that if such forces were removed or negated you would not find such a trend.

I think that depends whether you consider cultural norms within a BME population to be factors which "discouraged or excluded from pursuing a career in media". And if so, whether you think it is desirable to challenge those cultural norms. Bluntly, do you want to try to stop families with, in particular, South Asian heritage, encouraging their kids to take degrees in reliable professions like medicine, pharmacy, etc and instead aim for jobs in the media?

[98elise]

TTwiggy said:

98elise said:

Medicine?

At what level of medicine?

Doctors.

A high proportion of Doctors I'm met seem to be Asian. Of course it could be isolated, however having spent a lot of time visiting elderly relatives in Hospital there was a high proportion of Asian doctors, and my GP's practice is all Asian.


Thinking about it my Dentist and my Lawyer are also both Asian!

[stitched]

2xChevrons said:

otolith said:

That BBC job requires a journalism qualification. If bright kids from BME communities are - for example - choosing to study medicine instead of journalism, I don't have a problem with them being over represented in hospitals and under-represented in the media.

There is nothing wrong with that in itself (although it would be interesting and worthwhile to study why) so long as it was clear that this difference was not due to negative social or economic forces beyond the individuals' control - that BME kids were not being discouraged or excluded from persuing a career in media if they were otherwise able and willing to.

However my personal opinion is that if such forces were removed or negated you would not find such a trend.

Rovinghawk said:

A while back someone posted that different groups apply for different jobs based on expectations/aspirations. I can agree with the point he was making, whilst also agreeing with the comment that a similar attitude will prevail in whites on sink estates.

And part (only part, mind you) of that problem is that many people in those situations don't see it as remotely possible for people like them to acheive certain careers or lifestyles. They either just passively ingest the social norm that black kids from London estates (or white kids with Midlands accents from state schools, or whichever group you care to pick) don't go on to work in telly because they don't see 'the likes of them' represented. Some will have their life experiences teach them that even if they did try for such a goal a white-dominated field would shut them out. Others will have their aspirations squashed by the sheer number of obstacles in their way. Some, through a combination of skill, effort and luck, achieve their dream against the odds but they have expended more effort, and had better breaks of luck, to get there (or even to the stage of gaining the qualifications and getting an interview) than a middle-class, privately-educated white kid.

So if a field is over-majority white (just to stick to the racial aspect, although it applies to all social categories), it will often both deter minorities from trying to enter in the first place and discriminate against the ones that do (see the CV Name-switch study as an example). A media industry staffed and run at the creative and managerial level by Russell-group-educated, Home County-bred white folks may very well not produce content that is of interest or relevance to large parts of its audience, and may (overtly or subtly) shut down any such ideas because it's 'not the way we do things' or 'people [like me] won't be interested in that.' Getting a staff from diverse backgrounds (social, economic, ethnic, whatever) allows for more representative and relevant ideas, leading to products that resonate better with the population served. And then more kids growing up on sink estates will see the media speaking to their own experiences, and they may well decide that it's worth pursuing that as a career themselves.

But it helps to jump-start that process if you tilt the playing field ever-so-slightly in favour of those in the minority.

And you are perfectly happy to say to the fully qualified white kid that they cannot have the job they have worked their arse off to get because their skin is the wrong colour?

[TTwiggy]

stitched said:

And you are perfectly happy to say to the fully qualified white kid that they cannot have the job they have worked their arse off to get because their skin is the wrong colour?

Encouraging and facilitating applications from one group does not have to negatively impact another.

[stitched]

TTwiggy said:

Encouraging and facilitating applications from one group does not have to negatively impact another.

Racially screening your candidates most certainly does affect those who are of another demographic, it denies opportunities to some based on their skin colour.
I have lived in racist areas, and refused to be racist. I've lived in tribal areas and worked hard against those prejudices.
So now in the country I was born in you expect me to ignore blatent racism?
Are you seriously defending racial screening in job interviews? Do you even realise the damage that would do?
There is plenty of homegrown racism we still have to address and all this does is push more fuel into the them and us proponents.

[Countdown]

98elise said:

Doctors.

A high proportion of Doctors I'm met seem to be Asian. Of course it could be isolated, however having spent a lot of time visiting elderly relatives in Hospital there was a high proportion of Asian doctors, and my GP's practice is all Asian.


Thinking about it my Dentist and my Lawyer are also both Asian!

It's a cultural thing. Every asian parent wants their kid to become a Doctor.

It's not because Employers (such as the NHS have a preference for asians), which means there isn't inherent discrimination within the system which needs addressing.

That's not the case in other organisations.

[2xChevrons]

otolith said:

I think that depends whether you consider cultural norms within a BME population to be factors which "discouraged or excluded from pursuing a career in media". And if so, whether you think it is desirable to challenge those cultural norms. Bluntly, do you want to try to stop families with, in particular, South Asian heritage, encouraging their kids to take degrees in reliable professions like medicine, pharmacy, etc and instead aim for jobs in the media?

I only have time to give a blunt answer to your blunt question:

No

Families have a right to raise their children how they want (within limits of course, but that doesn't include pushing your kid towards certain careers). Broader society, the education system, industries and businesses do not have the right to (largely unknowingly, and very rarely through individual malice) exclude minorities from certain careers and efforts should be made to cancel out those forces until they are removed altogether.

[Rovinghawk]

TTwiggy said:

Encouraging and facilitating applications from one group does not have to negatively impact another.

bks. This isn't about 'encouraging & facilitating', it's about specifically denying one racial group an opportunity- as such, this group is most definitely 'negatively impacted'.

[del mar]

Should the original article have said;

"We actively encourage applicants from a BAME background" ?

They are sending the message without taking any stance on race.

[stitched]

del mar said:

Should the original article have said;

"We actively encourage applicants from a BAME background" ?

They are sending the message without taking any stance on race.

Absolutely, I am all in favour of encouraging all applicants. Assisting through education etc.
Holding someones skin colour against them in a job application is just wrong.

[Randy Winkman]

Rovinghawk said:

TTwiggy said:

Encouraging and facilitating applications from one group does not have to negatively impact another.

bks. This isn't about 'encouraging & facilitating', it's about specifically denying one racial group an opportunity- as such, this group is most definitely 'negatively impacted'.

This is a genuinely open question - are there other routes into the profession and (perhaps) evidence that lots of white people are already taking advantage of those routes?

[Countdown]

stitched said:

del mar said:

Should the original article have said;

"We actively encourage applicants from a BAME background" ?

They are sending the message without taking any stance on race.

Absolutely, I am all in favour of encouraging all applicants. Assisting through education etc.
Holding someones skin colour against them in a job application is just wrong.

If you're assisting through education isn't that giving them an "unfair advantage"? What about free interview coaching or CV preparation guidance?

[otolith]

2xChevrons said:

otolith said:

I think that depends whether you consider cultural norms within a BME population to be factors which "discouraged or excluded from pursuing a career in media". And if so, whether you think it is desirable to challenge those cultural norms. Bluntly, do you want to try to stop families with, in particular, South Asian heritage, encouraging their kids to take degrees in reliable professions like medicine, pharmacy, etc and instead aim for jobs in the media?

I only have time to give a blunt answer to your blunt question:

No

Families have a right to raise their children how they want (within limits of course, but that doesn't include pushing your kid towards certain careers). Broader society, the education system, industries and businesses do not have the right to (largely unknowingly, and very rarely through individual malice) exclude minorities from certain careers and efforts should be made to cancel out those forces until they are removed altogether.

If you are inferring inequalities of opportunity from unequal outcomes, how are you going to know that the outcomes you are seeing are due to differential opportunities when they may be arising organically from the cultural differences you are willing to ignore?