Job applications screening for privilege.

That's interesting. In what way can someone 'lose out' because of positive discrimination? That shouldn't happen if good practice (and Equal Opportunity laws) are adhered to.

The demographic data is separate and used for monitoring, not selection. There can be things like all female shortlists if the role requires it, or exemptions under the Equality Act if the role is working in a private home, or involving personal care*, or needs someone from a particular background (usually ethnic background) to do it.

I can't think of circumstances where someone could lose out, as they wouldn't meet the criteria for application if demographic information were taken into account. After the screening stage, interviews should always be on an equal footing, with everyone taken on merit (although there is always someone who won't accept that a woman, or a person of colour could get a job just because they were a better candidate ).

I know this isn't what you were getting at, but in many ways screening by qualifications is discriminating against people who would be unsuitable because they didn't have the relevant ones, but nobody gets upset about that.

*although self-id around so-called 'gender' shoots holes in that, of course.

As regards using the words -"lower class" - obviously if its used in a pejorative way then its not acceptable, but we still live in a society where there are great differences in social class - certainly more complex than before.

Doodledog

That's interesting. In what way can someone 'lose out' because of positive discrimination? That shouldn't happen if good practice (and Equal Opportunity laws) are adhered to.

The demographic data is separate and used for monitoring, not selection. There can be things like all female shortlists if the role requires it, or exemptions under the Equality Act if the role is working in a private home, or involving personal care*, or needs someone from a particular background (usually ethnic background) to do it.

I can't think of circumstances where someone could lose out, as they wouldn't meet the criteria for application if demographic information were taken into account. After the screening stage, interviews should always be on an equal footing, with everyone taken on merit (although there is always someone who won't accept that a woman, or a person of colour could get a job just because they were a better candidate ).

I know this isn't what you were getting at, but in many ways screening by qualifications is discriminating against people who would be unsuitable because they didn't have the relevant ones, but nobody gets upset about that.

*although self-id around so-called 'gender' shoots holes in that, of course.

I don't think I mentioned job applications in my post Doodledog you couldn't possibly be reading into it something I didn't say could you? Not all situations are job related you know and positive discrimination does happen in other areas.

When it comes down to it, all jobs should be granted on the basis of the best person for the job. Not because of nepotism, discrimination or anything else. Unfortunately though, HR are human and regardless of what is put in place, bias will probably still take place.

Many years ago one of my partners refused to consider an applicant for a training contract on the basis of her Christian name. I won’t mention it here, but let’s say it had Essex girl connotations.

I don't think I mentioned job applications in my post Doodledog you couldn't possibly be reading into it something I didn't say could you? Not all situations are job related you know and positive discrimination does happen in other areas.

Is there really any need for such a snide and unpleasant reply? The thread is about job-related monitoring of demographics, and I was just asking how it had worked in the situation you brought up, as in those circumstances there should be no question of someone 'losing out'. I can't think of other areas where positive discrimination would cause someone to lose out, but I'm sure you're right that they will exist.

If you post on a thread about job-related discrimination you can hardly be surprised if people assume that that is what you are talking about, can you?

growstuff my husband was admissions tutor many years ago at a Russell group university when the choices came to his actual school from the central office. It was very different then. At that point he had a fair amount of discretion in who was chosen (and had a colleague working with him who also discussed every candidate with him). They spent 100s of hours pouring over such things as references and personal statements.

Many years later, as part of the admissions team at another RG university, he had almost no leeway. It was agreed centrally what would be acceptable and varied year to year. In his time, in his subject (which is all he really knew about) central office dropped the requirement for a foreign language at GCSE and they allowed "disadvantaged" students to "drop a grade" - eg, not have an A grade in one of three A levels. This might mean an ABB instead of AAB or BBB instead of ABB.

I have asked him this morning, just out of interest and to his knowledge the sort of reduction you speak about happening these days (2 grades) seems much more. I expect it's a good thing but as so many Russell group universities now go to clearing anyway...

Doodledog

*I don't think I mentioned job applications in my post Doodledog you couldn't possibly be reading into it something I didn't say could you? Not all situations are job related you know and positive discrimination does happen in other areas.*

Is there really any need for such a snide and unpleasant reply? The thread is about job-related monitoring of demographics, and I was just asking how it had worked in the situation you brought up, as in those circumstances there should be no question of someone 'losing out'. I can't think of other areas where positive discrimination would cause someone to lose out, but I'm sure you're right that they will exist.

If you post on a thread about job-related discrimination you can hardly be surprised if people assume that that is what you are talking about, can you?

The thread had already widened out into other areas Doodledog, perhaps you hadn't noticed that. I thought assuming things and reading things into other people's posts was something you found unacceptable.
On a thread about positive discrimination I thought an example of a younger person understanding it and not being resentful might be appropriate.

I’m finding it hard to work out how anyone can be the victim of positive discrimination and thereby lose out on anything other than a job or university place. Perhaps Glorianny could explain.

Well suppose you have a company which produces say computer games and sources their products mostly through freelance providers. Their data shows that most of their contributors are white male, they therefore decide to use positive discrimination to ensure a more diverse base. It isn't illegal.

The thread had already widened out into other areas Doodledog, perhaps you hadn't noticed that. I thought assuming things and reading things into other people's posts was something you found unacceptable.
On a thread about positive discrimination I thought an example of a younger person understanding it and not being resentful might be appropriate.
There is no need for personal and unpleasant attacks.

Is that a real situation or purely hypothetical Glorianny?

Positive discrimination has been going on for many years, employers usually have a pretty good idea of the candidate that would fit in with their organization. I’m sure that for certain jobs you would not choose a privately educated applicant, for others they may be highly suitable. You often see “ no experience needed” read that as “we well train you the way we want”.

Of all the criteria employers look for in a candidate family background would be well down the list, in any case there are plenty of university educated parents that are not doing graduate work. Why ask these family questions?, my guess it’s employment agencies getting as much information as they can

Germanshepherdsmum

Is that a real situation or purely hypothetical Glorianny?

The details are hypothetical GSM, The situation is accurately described- "The names have been changed to protect the innocent" Da-de dat da

There are no details though. The 'accurately described situation' is that someone you are calling your son lost out because of positive discrimination. Or was it something or someone else?

As I thought it seemed a bit odd, and that it wouldn't apply to job applications (which you now say is because it wasn't about employment). I was just asking for clarification, not that you give details of exactly what happened and where.

It seems a very unlikely situation Glorianny. Surely such a company wants to provide its customers with the best experience it can, regardless of the author of the game? Is it really going to decide not to buy a really good game invented by a white man who went to Eton and instead buy one likely to be much less profitable invented by a black man who had fsm? Really?

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems a very unlikely situation Glorianny. Surely such a company wants to provide its customers with the best experience it can, regardless of the author of the game? Is it really going to decide not to buy a really good game invented by a white man who went to Eton and instead buy one likely to be much less profitable invented by a black man who had fsm? Really?

Wow GSM bit of prejudice showing there! Why would the white man's be "really good" and the black man's not equally good? In which case the company would take the black man's.

It's a situation which happened in publishing in the 1970s when Virago was established to publish women's writing. The only difference being that the lack of opportunity for diverse groups is recognised by many organisations so does not require a special company to work towards equality.

If you’re talking about positive discrimination in a particular scenario, I have given an example of it. No reason to choose the inferior product apart from the need to tick some boxes.

You could equally ask which would sell better, a great game by a black man who went to Eton or a mediocre one by a white man who went to a LA school on a sink estate, and if they are practicing positive discrimination, which of these two disadvantaged minority candidates should they choose?

Also how do they ascertain which of them is going to create the fantastic game which will keep the company trading and employing a large workforce, which the turkey that won't?

Agreed, GSM. It stands to reason that a company would source its products from whomever produced the games most likely to sell. If we were talking about a staff position, it might be different, as the gaming industry is notorious for not being diverse - but we have been told (very clearly and sarcastically) that we are not. If it is a procurement issue rather than a staffing one, then it would be most unlikely that a company would choose an inferior game over a better one. What would be the point?

As for the supposed 'prejudice' in your previous post, it is very obvious that you were speaking hypothetically, and suggesting that most discrimination would favour the Eton-educated white man, whilst positive discrimination (the subject of this part of the thread) would not.

Elegran

You could equally ask which would sell better, a great game by a black man who went to Eton or a mediocre one by a white man who went to a LA school on a sink estate, and if they are practicing positive discrimination, which of these two disadvantaged minority candidates should they choose?

Also how do they ascertain which of them is going to create the fantastic game which will keep the company trading and employing a large workforce, which the turkey that won't?

Indeed. Gaming companies are not notorious for putting inclusivity over profit .

Doodledog

Elegran

You could equally ask which would sell better, a great game by a black man who went to Eton or a mediocre one by a white man who went to a LA school on a sink estate, and if they are practicing positive discrimination, which of these two disadvantaged minority candidates should they choose?

Also how do they ascertain which of them is going to create the fantastic game which will keep the company trading and employing a large workforce, which the turkey that won't?

Indeed. Gaming companies are not notorious for putting inclusivity over profit .

But there is the possibility that if the company uses exclusively white producers they will fail to adequately match the requirements of their black customer base. More inclusivity could lead to expanding their market.

Elegran it isn't really a problem. If the company already has a greater number of Eton contributors and few local authority educated ones then that would need to be balanced against the percentages of black and white contributors. That's really what diversity is about.

I do wonder why there is the need to make out one game is so much better than the other. As with all such things the poorest are sifted out first. The positive discrimination only happens in the end stages.

Do black customers have different requirements for games? I have no idea but it seems doubtful.

Ah so now we've moved from the quality of the product to the identity of the consumer. Why not try addressing the real issue, do you or do you not approve of positive discrimination in order to create opportunities for under represented minority groups?
As I said before this happened with Virago which was established as a feminist publisher for women's writing, because women found difficulties in having work published. Was that right? And is it now OK that other organisations use positive discrimination to ensure more diversity?

The whataboutery is getting boring.

Gaming is one of those areas where younger white —nerdy— men are far more engaged than any other group, both as players and coders.

If more women, people of colour, older people or any other demographic group were interested they would be writing games and probably featuring in them, which might interest more of their group. It’s a bit chicken and egg. Anyway, that doesn’t explain why someone would lose out in that situation.

If the company wanted someone to write games with female protagonists who weren’t Lara Croft-style (ie seen through a male gaze), or black, or gay, and felt that coders needed ‘lived experience’ to do it, it would make sense to approach people from the requisite group, not open up field then reject people who don’t fit the bill. A situation where candidates go head to head seems unlikely, and anyway, would be an employment situation, which this (hypothetically) is not, is it?