One drop dead gorgeous black chick and one average white chick go in for a job. The black chick gets it..?

Question

Is this affirmative action or discrimination against mediocrity?

Better yet, an obese white guy and a average sized white women go in for a job. The chick gets it. Is this AA or discrimination against fat people?

How will we ever know why we REALLY got the job?

Up y - how's things on your end?

Dear, I know people aren't hired SOLELY because of looks, but it plays a big role. There's research done on it which is why i'm baffled at all the focus on Aff. Action. What about age, sex, weight discrimination? No one's bitchin about that...

Assuming all the qualifications are relatively equal.

Trevor - You're one smart, well read, informed muthafucka, pardon my french. we should all hope to be as intelligent on day...

Propoganda is mad because he works at 7-11.

Answer 1

It would be nice if jobs were given to the candidate best suited to the job (i.e. qualifications and experience).

There is an in-built bias towards good looking people. I remember being told in school in about 1980 that every American president elected this century had also been the one considered to be the better looking. In radio broadcasts the public may favour one candidate based on policies alone but when the candidates are seen in person it's the better looking one that gets the votes.

In a similar scenario, candidates picked for a job by computer are often not the same as those picked at interview. The computer bases it's decision purely on ability whereas the interviewer is influenced by appearance as well. Obviously appearance is important as the impression given by the employee is a reflection on the company.

Over here (in the UK) there is a lot of 'positive discrimination' in order to employ the requisite number of people based on sex, religion, ethnicity, ability etc. Particularly in Government and Local Government - it often means an incompetent moron gets the job because they were needed to make up the numbers in order to avoid the organisation being accused or prosecuted for discrimination. The number of legal actions taken by rejected applicants claiming they were discriminated against doesn't help matters either.

It's so stupid in the UK that when writing an advert for a job you could be prosecuted for wanting someone with experience as this discriminates against people too young to have had experience.

In the most recent election (2005) the government drew up women only shortlists in order to get more women into government. The plan spectacularly backfired when an unknown independent candidate (Peter Law) stood in opposition and won with a huge majority. He wasn't campaigning against women but against political correctness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaenau_Gwent

At the end of the day some jobs are more suited to different types of people. It would be nice if jobs were allocated to the best candidate but this seems to be a thing of the past.

Answer 2

Are you saying the "average white chick" is mediocre??? If the "white chick" is, then the balck gal should get the job, regardless of her looks (as long as she's not less qualified then the white gal). I don't think it's discrimination against mediocrity if you are refusing to hire someone who is only mediocre. Although appearance shouldn't be a major factor, there are times when appearance is important, depending on the business. In those instances it is not discriminatory. When it comes down to it, your really won't even know why. That's just how it is. For legal reason it's become such an issue that the whole hiring experience has become pretty ingenuine. Our merits should be the only issue.

Answer 3

It's all about who they think would be better at getting the job done. Being professional, intelligent, determined, willing, experienced, qualified, and interested is what matters. If two people go in far the same position, they are going to choose the person who appears to be of more value to the business. If the person is gorgeous and is unclear of the expectations of the position and does not meet the qualifications, they are going to pick the other person who appears to be more interested and experienced no matter what they may look like.

Answer 4

Assume the best scenario. Unless something is obvious (i.e. an unexperienced woman gets the jo over an experienced man) you really have no idea what the reason the interviewer decided on the other person.

Try to imagine people are good first and only faulty in worse case scenario.

Answer 5

when I interviewed people for a job their skills were more important than looks. there is nothing worse than having a good looking individual who can not perform basic tasks as needed for the job. now if everything was equal on the job resume and both a lady and gentlemen were applying for the job I would make the determining factor on personality. if both were equal in all areas including personality would make a decision based on education.

Answer 6

Dear, no one is hired solely on their looks unless they are auditioning for a music video. Their qualifications are more important than how they look.

Answer 7

Qualifications!

Answer 8

You never will, unless the decision-maker tells you. I notice that there is no allusion to skills, education or experience in your question. I think most people who are invlved in paying employees look first for someone who can earn their paycheck, don't you?

Answer 9

Are they equally qualified? Then it may be the better looking girl being boosted over the top by her looks or maybe not.

Answer 10

You left out their qualifications. Surely that plays some role, no?