If all else is equal, is it OK to use a person's race or gender in consideration for hiring?

Question

I am not talking about changing criteria or anything else, but if you had a candidate for a job or school who was equal in every way to another student, do you think it is OK to use gender or race as the determining factor? Why or why not?

EOE= EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT. As I said, all else is equal.

cvq, I don;t believe that a conviction or an arrest was ever overturned because profiling was used...but many who are NOT guilty have sued for the harrassment. NO, the arrest couldn;t be overturned, if he saw them make a purchase. But it brings us to the point of the question...which is that whether or not it is legal, people do it. Racial profiling for the sake of racial profiling does nothing to stop crime. But using precedence that certain people in certain places is suspect is totally different, as it isnt race that made th cop follow, but rather a combination of race, neighborhood, possibly the type of car they were driving, etc...was what made him follow. Would he have followed them if they were there during the day? Probably not...nothing to do with being white. (at least not exclusively).

Answer 1

Of course it is!

You just can't run around telling anyone about the fact that you used that criteria in any way, shape, or form. Nice system we've constructed, isn't it? ;-)

Answer 2

Group, most of you didn't focus on the All things being equal, and you are assuming the asker would hire the "favored" rather than the "minority".

This is a scenario that seems very realistic. Rating criteria from presentation, to personal skills, to job ability two candidates could be completely equal when the totals are tallied, even on a weighed scale.

First, no it is not alright! All things being equal you better find some qualification that you had not considered, but you already ruled out changing criteria. Therefore you need to find a third candidate.

Second, for those crying "race" card and EEOC...what if the asker were to hire the black guy or the woman? Would that not still be racial discrimination? Or is okay, in this case to screw the white male?

Discrimination goes all ways. Affirmative action of any sort will absolutley result in discrimination at some point. All things being equal, your are on safer ground to flip a coin.

Answer 3

To some degree, I say yes. I can't say "no, never."

I think that basically a similar standard should be used in hiring, admissions, and law enforcement. It's a factor, a small one, but not nothing. Society is how it is, and I don't think we can pretend it's different. And if we're willing to do it - to CONSIDER race, ethnicity, sex, age, etc. - for the purpose of "achieving diversity," then many would argue that it is all the more important to do it to achieve the goal of preventing terrorist attacks.

But to that, many would reply that profiling "doesn't work" to stop terrorism, among other things. No, we can't just start and end the inquiry with race. COMMON SENSE seems to be in order - some "totality of the circumstances" test. The determining factor? I'm fudging and can't lay down a comprehensive rule to apply. A kid who has grades and test scores of "X" coming from a privileged background may not have "come as far" as one with the same credentials growing up in the ghetto. But is that race? Or economics? Some say that affirmative action has helped blacks who were already middle-class. But if the goal is "diversity," is income a factor? Or just race? Even Clinton said he opposed "bean-counting" - quotas.

Let me give an example. Say police see a car doing something somewhat suspicious. Given all the factors - the time of day (or night), the neighborhood, the actions, etc. the cop decised they are there to make a drug buy. He follows them and observes them buying drugs. But the DECIDING factor in his tailing them was that they were white and in a black neighborhood. He believed, from his knowledge of the neighborhood, that white kids are there at night for only one reason - to buy drugs. If the people in the car had been another color he wouldn't have followed them.

Would you void the arrest?

Oops, it's your question. Maybe you are asking because you saw mine. I've got many different and conflicting thoughts.

I have no firm, defensible answer. But I think that there are some occasions where "immutable characteristics" should be a factor to be considered.

That's my "if I were in charge" analysis. I'm not saying that present law agrees 100% with me.

PS Thanks for thoughts. We may agree on using it as ONE factor. Certainly no one is advocating going back to the internment days of WWII (as an extreme example).

I'm not sure if an arrest could be voided if race were deemed an impermissable factor. I think it could, under the proper circumstances. Even people who have committed crimes get the evidence tossed if it's obtained illegally. Maybe that's the phrase I should have used - the exidence is excluded. Although if ALL the evidence linking the person to the crime is excluded, it amounts to dismissing the case.

Interesting discussion!

PPS The 1998 movie "The Seige," with Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis, is a very interesting study of how we might act after attacks on American soil. It was sadly accurate in predicting what a 9/11-style attack might be like. Recommended viewing - politically relevant and a good movie! Annette Benning is pretty hot too. Oops, a bit off topic . . .

Answer 4

The job gender part of the question is: Yes. Some jobs are better suited for women than men, and vice versa. The school gender part of the question is: No. You can't possibly have 2 people who are exactly equal. If you did, then you need to add some more criteria.

The job race part of the question is: Yes. If the candidates are equal, human nature will kick in. There's going to be something that connects the interviewer with the interviewee. To pretend it doesn't exist is silly. The school race part of the question is: No. To continue to punish white males or reward a race, when both people were probably born in the 80's is stupid.

Answer 5

Applications should be taken by number and an agent hired to answer and ask any questions for you .
This removes the possibility that your race or looks would play into the decision process .
Now you should be able to hold open additions and try outs for sales people , Insurance agents ,and customer service people where looks count .
Ever wonder why some political candidates do not place their picture on campaign literature or signs .
Its cause they are not attractive is why . They hope you do not notice this and vote the good looking airhead into office .
Bush may not look all that good but a damn sight better then Kerry looked and thats what cost Kerry an election . .

Answer 6

i'm not American yet i think of the respond is the same regardless; sure, i think that each possible be entitled to the same civil liberties and rights regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation; those are issues that are in simple terms component of who we are and could not be helped. I trust unfastened well being look after all (like the NHS we've right here in Britain, which pay for via taxes) and that each citizen could be entitled to an excellent high quality of existence. the undeniable fact that racism nevertheless exists interior the western worldwide is gloomy and that i think of plenty has been finished over the final century to alter that physique of strategies, yet there continues to be an prolonged thank you to pass... you won't be able to alter the attitudes of the standard public in one day, yet some variety of criminal representation of the changing circumstances is a different commencing element.

Answer 7

No, race or gender should never be a factor. Not that this situation would ever come up. No two people are equally qualified. One will be better in one aspect and the other will be better at something else. If on paper they look the same (same GPA or eqivalent work experience) rest assured that in person they will be different. In that case you go with whoever had the best personality for the job. And personallity is not dependant on either race or gender.

Answer 8

If all ealse is equal it is almost impossible not to do so from a practical point of view, was it okay is the raeal issue as in a toss up one will alwys look back and wonder if they made the right decision. It also depends on the job, if say its selling ladies shoes, and a man and awoman are equally qualified, one might elect to hire the woman since the customers would be women.

Answer 9

If you believe in the principle of Liberty, then you would believe we should be able to choose an employee on any criteria whatsoever, eg colour of eyes and hair.

However, no one seems to value liberty these days, or even understand its principles.

Liberty means the freedom to act AGAINST received opinion, to do as one pleases even if offends people.

If we do not have that, then we do not have Liberty - something more far more important than being Politically Correct.

Do people even know that they are less free? The saddest thing is that most do not appear to have noticed, much less care.

Answer 10

No. Using race to chose a person for a job is racial discrimination against other races. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, do not judge a person by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Race should have no part in this.

Answer 11

I guess.. Chinese restaurants seem to do it. Also, if it's your company, do what you want. However, race and gender tend to be inadequate measures of an individuals capabilities.

Now, if a government discriminates based on race, then there's a problem. When a large corporation does it, it's a problem too, since the stockholders, who would be from many cultures, should all be represented.