This is how some theist organizations operate?

Debate Room
101

This discussion is interesting, and I understand the frustration and bitterness with a situation that amounts to “reverse racism,” as I’ve suffered from it myself when I worked in EMS.

In the 1990’s, there was a general belief that it was impossible to “get hired” with the various fire departments unless one was a minority of some sort, as there were many, many lawsuits that resulted from racist hiring practices.

There was (at that time) a belief that uniformity was neccesary for EMS, as an excuse that was used to justify racist hiring practices was the idea that unconscious racism (on the part of an employee) might cause a white firefighter to abandon a black firefighter in a burning building during an emergency.

This view was defended by studies which show how white people who witness crimes automatically assume that black men are criminals and/or threatening. This same reasoning seems to apply to why black men get shot by police officers at much higher numbers than white criminals, or why black people get incarcerated at higher rates than white people for essentially the same crimes.

So, racist hiring practices in the emergency services actually “protect” black people (and yes, this is a bullshit excuse . . . but organizations actually seemed to believe this).

As for myself, I ask how do we define if someone is black?

If you see below, these two stunningly beautiful young women are fraternal twins born to a black mother and a white father.

image
image1500×1000 96.5 KB

Part of my belief in the EEOC has to consider the idea that minorities pay taxes, and–as tax payers–are entitled to the same resources as anyone else.

This means that there are times and situations when businesses, organizations, and the white majority will suffer adverse consequences because no solution is perfect. As an anology, chemotherapy may cure a cancer, but it also causes hair loss, nausea, and other horrible side effects.

These adverse consequences of diversity initiatives (such as reverse racism, which I personally suffered from) are better then the alternative. In the 1960’s and early 70’s, there were riots, firebombs, domestic terrorism, lynchings by the KKK, and so forth.

Does this mean that the system doesn’t need drastic improvement? No . . . absolutely not.

It’s just that the EEOC is an improvement over what was . . . even if it isn’t perfect.

Requiring a perfect answer to a problem before addressing the problem is unreasonable.

I have also benefitted from the EEOC. I have learning disabilities from being autistic, and I graduated nursing school because the the school had to give me accommodations.

I was the recipient of a lot of subtle nastiness from professors about my accommodations, as there was a general belief that I was to be excused from doing the same degree of academic work that was required of everyone else, when nothing was further from the truth.

An accommodation might involve me wearing dark glasses (because of autistic sensory issues) while indoors and under certain types of flourescent lights, or not having a lack of eye contact held against me in an interview.

The trade-off is that I bring other things to the table that generally don’t come from neurotypical people. My autistic photographic memory allows me to review paperwork very quickly and thoroughly when doing quality assurance, and/or to recall patients’ EKG material and lab results with perfect accuracy . . . which saves time and energy for the facility.

So I pull my weight, but I never would have had the chance to do this without the EEOC.

1 Like
102

(In the following, I’m not commenting from a U.S. perspective, but from a European perspective.) Yes, I’m all for equal opportunities, in the sense that it is there to (ideally) eliminate discrimination that manifests itself in several ways. But equal opportunities is not really what is up for debate here, but rather the sometimes bizarre consequences it brings. As @Cognostic points out, one problem is that the employment requirements risk being turned on its head - the primary “qualification” is the applicant’s skin colour/ethnic group/handicap, and only then actual job qualifications are considered. Which means that you can end up with a pool of candidates that are employable due to their outward characteristics, but that might not be actually qualified to do the job. At the same time, highly qualified people have to be rejected because their parents belong to the wrong ethnic group (it’s the same thing as “regular” racism, only reversed). If we look at the business economics in this, it makes absolutely no sense. I’d be all for a “moderate” equal opportunities regime, where you first sort out the applicants that are the best qualified (education, experience, etc.), and only after this filter, you can be required to select candidates from the different EE criteria (gender, ethnic background, disabilities, etc.) At least where I come from this approach is sometimes used. I know my own employer has used this approach successfully to bring more highly qualified women into a male dominated field.

But prejudiced dicks will be prejudiced dicks. No matter how you formulate EE laws and other employment laws, the horse cocks with insurmountable prejudices against differing skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, outward appearance, medical conditions, etc. are the real problem here. And they will not be convinced by EE requirements.

2 Likes
103

I agree with some of your points, but does this mean that we shouldn’t even try to fix racist and sexist hiring practices?

104

Fully agree. I also agree with stiff penalties for anyone engaged in racially biased hiring practices. It’s wrong for white people, it’s wrong for minorities, and it is wrong for the government. I disagree that the EEOC is an improvement.

The EEOC allows unqualified people to fail. It encourages the hiring of people without qualifications to get jobs that they can not deal with. Then these same people shout “Discrimination.” “Unfair!” “White Privilege!” When they were never good material for the job in the first place. They get the jobs and fail. Then they blame “The System.”

I am not asserting everyone is going to fail. I am not saying diversity is not a good thing. I am clearly saying this is a horrible solution. It does not work. It cures nothing. Discrimination is already illegal. EEOC is unnecessary. I don’t think it is an improvement but it is different. It is a change. I think people are different. I think people have changed. EEOC may have had a hand in that, but it has outlived its usefulness.

At lest we agree on this much.

I will agree on this as well.

You don’t realize it, but you just proved my point. I honestly fear cyber would ban me for a month were I to elaborate.

1 Like
105

I guess I’m not impartial.

I have often encountered bigoted hiring practices because of my autism, and the EEOC has helped with this.

Some examples:

  1. The mass shooter who killed 17 people in Parkland, Florida has high-functioning autism (formerly Asperger’s). So did the mass shooter who killed over 20 kids in Sandy Hook, and the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was believed to also have been autistic. So, this means that I shouldn’t be hired because my autism makes me dangerous.
  2. My body language and lack of eye contact make me seem deceptive, so I’m not to be trusted.
  3. I sometimes wear dark glasses indoors because of sensory issues, so I’m assumed to be a drug addict, as people who drink or do drugs are often sensitive to light. An interesting issue with this specific point is that an albino student was allowed to wear dark glasses, but I didn’t have a “legitimate medical need.” Only the threat of a lawsuit and mediation fixed this issue.
  4. About 85% of all autistic people are unemployed or under-employed because of issues like body language and sensory issues, despite having credentials and education.

See below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.benefitnews.com/news/how-to-create-equitable-workplace-experiences-for-autistic-talent&ved=2ahUKEwjt3q-i3MaGAxVj5MkDHR-ILawQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3gHWe9dOvtvMJQiwPKzXb_

An interesting stat about autism is that we tend to actually be more productive in the workplace than neurotypical people . . . and this resentment by our fellow coworkers gets us fired because we do our jobs well. See below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://medium.com/illumination/can-we-get-past-the-140-stat-for-autism-in-the-workplace-1fa42385eb88&ved=2ahUKEwjLk-jr3MaGAxUeLtAFHfdlBlAQFnoECDAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1eHrHsjSUv2BY0KOPOdO1w

So . . . the idea that the EEOC works like enabling an alcoholic is often (but not always) bullshit.

I have been fired for being productive at my job. I worked in a retail store when I was younger, and because I was so productive, management cut back the hours of other employees because there was less work for them to do.

This led to me getting fired when 10 employees got together and said–in unison–that they refused to work with me.

And it was all my fault because I did my job to the best of my abilities. I have never been able to ask an employer “How much should I scale back my productivity to make everyone happy?” which sounds stupid to me.

106

No. Read what I already wrote above:

In other words, in my opinion a “moderate EE” (priority 1: actual qualifications, priority 2: select under-represented groups, if any) gives less friction and would over time be more sustainable than “radical EE” (priority 1: select under-represented groups, priority 2: of the remaining people, select the best qualified(*), if any). Prejudiced horse cocks will most likely not conform to either version, or if they must, just employ their token [insert under-represented group].

The thing with “radical EE” is that you’re trying to solve all the problems at the same time using draconic measures, and at the same time you’re alienating those who need to be educated the most on the issues. Thus, softer measures might be more appropriate (lead the donkey with a carrot instead of whipping it with a stick).

(*) or, alternatively, select the least unqualified person.

1 Like
107

All the hot air about people outside the rich white cis male demographic being “inadequate” or “unqualified” rings somewhat hollow, in the light of the historical data informing us that such people frequently had to be better than roch white cis males, and overcome obstacles to achieve what they did that no rich white cis male has ever faced.

Indeed, we’ve yet to find out how much talent has been wasted by past iniquities in this vein, precisely because we’re still dealing with said iniquities, and swivel-eyed loons have now been emboldened by reich wing rhetoric and demagogues in various places, to try and destroy what progress has been made.

3 Likes
108

That rich upper class thinking and mind sets are an obstacle is a fact. And it’s a disgrace. But regarding the “radical EE” I referred to above: Back when I was at university, there was once a permanent academic position that was being posted. In an attempt to improve the female to male professor ratio, it was decided that if one or more females applied, the best qualified female would be hired, disregarding the qualifications of the males. This caused quite the stink in the academic circles, and highly qualified females who would otherwise have wanted to apply for the position refused, because they would not want to be known as “the professor whose only qualification was being a woman”. In short, “radical EE” can be severely counter productive.

Edit: this happened some decades ago, so I don’t remember the actual outcome and who was hired. But I do remember the debates.

1 Like
109

They were also all males. Which by that logic means that males shouldn’t be hired because their “maleness” make them dangerous.

2 Likes
110

Maybe their (governments) efforts to increase equality in the workplace, would be better aimed at making sure equal opportunities exist in training and education? Then over time the workforce, if they hire the best people, should mirror diversity in wider society.

Not as easy a fix as setting quotas for employers I grant you, but surely a more efficacious long term strategy, or am I missing something? The problem with systemic racism, is you cannot eradicate what people think, only how they act, and simply pointing to the end result as involving bias or racism, doesn’t necessarily identify exactly where that sexism or racism occurs, and thus insisting employers at the end of the process solve the problem is perhaps not the best answer, well not always anyway.

1 Like
111

I agree, and another thing that I think should be taken into consideration is that European cultures–in general–seem much more civilized than American culture, so I believe that your “moderate EE” would work better in your part of the world.

As an example of how barbaric and childish people in my country are, I have attached a news story about a nightmarish graduation ceremony at a school. Please see below:

Basically, a graduating student went to shake the school superintendant’s hand after getting her diploma, and her father rushed the stage in a panic and shoved the school administrator away from his daughter because he didn’t want her to touch him because he’s black.

I think your moderate EE would work better in our country if we weren’t barbarians.

112

Beat me to it, forgive me @Kevin_Levites, but what you implied there is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Is there any objective evidence that autism alone makes one more likely to commit violent crimes?

Another explanation is that people with autism can sometimes struggle to cope, and being misunderstood are treated very poorly, and become disillusioned and resentful, this could lead to violent thoughts in some cases.

Cause and effect, correlation is not causation.

2 Likes
113

I agree with all your points in this post 100%, and I obviously didn’t communicate well.

I meant that employers believe that autism causes violence, and that this is a part of why we are underemployed. I have been denied jobs because of a belief that I’m dangerous, and the EEOC has helped with this issue.

1 Like
114

Ah yes, fair point, and such misunderstanding and misinformation must undoubtedly make life even harder for people with autism.

Sorry to hear that, but hopefully attitudes are changing. Most of the jobs I’ve missed out on, are through rampant nepotism. It’s only looking back and speaking to people involved I see how all pervasive it has been, nepotism and cronyism (hiring friends and acquaintances). ironically I worked closely with and for a close friend and colleague, and suffered all manner of crap from jealous employees, mainly ironically from people who had little talent, or aptitude, and often a poor work ethic to boot. They nearly always gravitated towards being union reps, as this satisfied their thirst for power, the results were as sickening as they were catastrophic.

I was always very pro union as a young man, but I must say the last job I worked in, where less than a dozen of us entered an empty factory and built it up from scratch, watching how people behaved who came into a fully functioning factory with proper business and company structure, (an easy ride by comparison) made me sick to my stomach.

2 Likes
115

YEP! I have started my own business as well. The entitlement of some is confounding. When I applied for my current job, my boss asked me what I was worth and I told her. She told me she could not pay me that much and we agreed on a salary that was a bit less but with some hope for the future. It was a good job and I loved the location. I accepted. Three months later she told me I was worth the money I had originally requested. She said she would be slipping the extra into my bank account while keeping me on the books at the salary we contracted for. I’ve had two raises since then. I know how to get a job I was hired to do done. Something very rare in an employee. Perhaps you have to be a manager or owner to understand that. Perhaps it helps to have grown up poor and without a sense of entitlement. Perhaps it was filling my head with all that Zen bullshit? When you chop wood, chop wood. When you carry water, carry water. LOL I KNOW! It was watching Larry the Cable Guy as a kid… 'Get Errrr Done!"

2 Likes
116

The fun part being of course, that Uta Frith’s research into autistic spectrum conditions, led to an entirely different conclusion. Namely, that autistic people are natural democrats, and experience frustration and confusion when people are treated entirely differently in otherwise very similar circumstances. Her book on this subject makes for fascinating reading, including as it does the first full English translation of Hans Asperger’s landmark paper.

Indeed, to compensate for the impaired functioning of the facial nucleus in the brain stem, individuals on the spectrum have to press parts of the cerebral cortex into service, and one area that sees additional activity is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain known to be implicated in ethical decision making. It’s why individuals on the spectrum make bad liars, they have an above average predisposition to be honest. Not least because they experience particularly acute psychological trauma when lied about.

You can take a brief peek at the book in question here:

Well worth obtaining one’s own copy for future reference.

Also worth obtaining, is Dr Patricia Rodier’s Scientific American article on the underlying genetics, and the peer reviewed papers she published before her untimely death. An example of a woman who possessed stellar qualifications for her job I might add :slight_smile:

Rodier’s work is, in my view, a masterclass on the subject. Though her approach was at times highly idiosyncratic, it delivered the goods.

2 Likes
117

Lots of anecdotes being offered…:unamused:

1 Like
118

Here’s another. It’s often said that when a minority gets a job he/she has to prove they weren’t hired just to fill a quota. I have similar suspicions about rich white guys: Did they get into a good school because Daddy paid for a new building on campus, and did they get the job because Daddy plays golf with the CEO?

1 Like
119

Yeah, you can’t fix stupid, especially when it involves racism. What a piece of shit.

1 Like
120

I have just returned from a virtual visit to the EEOC commissions website where I have looked for a evidence for this assertion. Now I’m not claiming to have read every word but feel like I’ve covered it fairly well. No where have I found that the primary qualification is skin colour/ethnic group/handicap… age gender or anything else. Instead it says over and over that you can’t discriminate in a way that disadvantages those groups. Here is one section of the website, have a look and find what I missed. Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2 Likes