Diversity quota.

Visgir1

My chum, applied several times to get into Medical School as a mature student. She had the right qualification plus was already had a Clinical Science degree.
The year she got her place, is the year she ticked the LGBT box... She knew that swung it from the paperwork.
She is not LGBT, after she got in no one bothered with her, she qualified no problem.

Well done her, we will now have a doctor who is a self acknowledged liar. I hope she isn't my GP.

Wyllow3

"“In the interests of diversity, applicants of ethnicity are particularly welcomed”

Yes, its legal -

It's no more or less than stated, they would like to have more diversity in the arts, people are encouraged to apply.

I’d argue with that use of ‘ethnicity’ anyway.
What they mean, surely, is ‘applicants of diverse ethnic origins’.
Or very bluntly, ‘non-white’. But they’d never say that now.

Witzend

Wyllow3

"“In the interests of diversity, applicants of ethnicity are particularly welcomed”

Yes, its legal -

It's no more or less than stated, they would like to have more diversity in the arts, people are encouraged to apply.

I’d argue with that use of ‘ethnicity’ anyway.
What they mean, surely, is ‘applicants of diverse ethnic origins’.
Or very bluntly, ‘non-white’. But they’d never say that now.

Would "non white" ever have been OK - echoes of apartheid in SA and the Jimmy Crow laws in the USA.

I don't care if the cat is black, white or thinks it's a squirrel so long as it catches mice.

theworriedwell

Visgir1

My chum, applied several times to get into Medical School as a mature student. She had the right qualification plus was already had a Clinical Science degree.
The year she got her place, is the year she ticked the LGBT box... She knew that swung it from the paperwork.
She is not LGBT, after she got in no one bothered with her, she qualified no problem.

Well done her, we will now have a doctor who is a self acknowledged liar. I hope she isn't my GP.

I think the exact opposite, she is an extremely canny young woman who know her way round bureaucracy.

This skill set will come in handy when navigating the NHS bureaucrats.

GrannyGravy13

mae13

Wokery at it's stupid worst.
On the subject of woke-ishness, an item in The Guardian pointed out that Keir Starmer has banished a portrait of William Gladstone from No 10 due to supposed historical links to slavery.
Nothing like attempting to re-write history......

I do not think the current PM likes portraits of previous PMs, maybe they make him feel inferior?

Yes great people looking down on someone who is not worthy of their stare. Those people are our history , good and bad, we should own it. Getting rid of their portraits won't change anything.
Starmer is pathetic , weak and pliable. Not fit to stand in their shadow.

Talk about mountain out of a molehill! KS prefers to have other images than portraits in certain rooms. Sir Walter Raleigh and Elizabeth the 1st have apparently also moved. Is this really what counts as news these days?

And what has it got to do with diversity quotas?
💁

GrannyGravy13

theworriedwell

Visgir1

My chum, applied several times to get into Medical School as a mature student. She had the right qualification plus was already had a Clinical Science degree.
The year she got her place, is the year she ticked the LGBT box... She knew that swung it from the paperwork.
She is not LGBT, after she got in no one bothered with her, she qualified no problem.

Well done her, we will now have a doctor who is a self acknowledged liar. I hope she isn't my GP.

I think the exact opposite, she is an extremely canny young woman who know her way round bureaucracy.

This skill set will come in handy when navigating the NHS bureaucrats.

Ticking the correct boxes is essential

Ticking the correct boxes is essential

It’s not the business of any employer as to whether any employee is LBGT because it’s not relevant to any job (except if they’re advertising for a drag Queen.)

It may become the business of the employer if the employee is being bullied by someone at work because of their sexuality. In that case, the employer may need to be told and to take some form of action.

I refuse to fill in any of the questions about my sexuality no one’s bloody business

theworriedwell

Visgir1
My chum, applied several times to get into Medical School as a mature student. She had the right qualification plus was already had a Clinical Science degree.
The year she got her place, is the year she ticked the LGBT box... She knew that swung it from the paperwork.
She is not LGBT, after she got in no one bothered with her, she qualified no problem.

Well done her, we will now have a doctor who is a self acknowledged liar I hope she isn't my GP.

Actually, if it was just L&G I might agree with you theworriedwell.

Unfair is when someone who is L or G doesn’t get a job if they have the same qualifications.

Equally unfair is when someone who isn’t L or G doesn’t get a job if they have the same qualifications.

On the matter not wanting to be treated by a doctor who is a self acknowledged liar . . . adding BT letters means that those applicants are exactly that - self acknowledged liars
You can only be one sex. You can’t change sex.
Appointing them would bring us back to the question of Should a woman who has asked to be seen by female medical staff be expected to accept a male who feels like a woman that day?

Do you see that lie as OK?

At an introductory session for medical students recently they were all asked to say their names and their pronouns. Blimey. Surely, if anybody, prospective doctors need to know a person's biological persona and like, the rest of us, can tell at a glance what that is. What they 'feel' they might be is irrelevant.

Merseymog

My view has always been that such quotas are no substitute for selection on merit alone. The best person for the job irrespective of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religon should get the post.

Absolutely agree! And isn't it invasive questioning to determine minority aspects which applicants may wish to keep private?

My daughter's team at work now includes a woman who apparently is totally unsuitable for the work and whom others in the team did not want to employ.
She has some form of invisible disability and that appears to be why she was employed. The result is that the rest of the team are having to do her work and she is inventing uneccesary work for herself such as changing systems which already work perfectly well.

It is against the law to ask such questions at an interview so I am told.

I instinctively distrust people who say they got or didn't get the job based on quotas, or if not the people themselves, I distrust the premise that appointments are made in this way, whatever the people believe.

An organisation that has EDI questions on the application form is likely to be using them correctly (ie anonymised and separate from the selection process), so will have no idea whether Applicant X is black or white, gay or straight or whatever. In many cases schools and universities attended are separate too, so that all the interviewers get to see are the applicants who have fulfilled all the 'essential' criteria and as many of the 'desirable' ones as necessary to get them on the shortlist.

After that, it comes down to the interview, at which they should all be asked the same questions. Not foolproof of course, as skin colour, accent and even school tie can come into play, but just ticking a box on a form will not get someone the job, or even an interview unless they meet the criteria as advertised.

HR can go through the applications separately to see how many people from 'different' backgrounds applied, and consider tweaking their advertising/the wording of the essential criteria etc if they find that they are only getting applications from (eg) middle aged, middle class white men in an area with a diverse population.

Also, depending on the job and the area it would be crazy to insist on a quota. In a city there is likely to be a diverse population, so an ad for someone to work in a local authority probably should attract a range of people, but in a rural village, an ad for (eg) a secretary for a local primary school is likely to draw applications from local people who want something with school hours near their homes/children's schools, which is a very different demographic. If they had to hold out for applicants of specific ethnicities/sexuality/age/sex/so-called 'gender'/abilities etc they'd never be able to appoint.

How would someone know that they had lost out because of a quota? No recruiter would tell them that, as they'd have a case for discrimination. Sometimes it might be a way of people softening the blow, for themselves or others - 'oh you didn't get it because it went to a woman' is easier than 'you weren't good enough'.

She could have told the truth - i.e. that none had applied, or if they had, they did not reveal it.

When will all this rubbish end?
If candidates have reached final interview then surely the job should go to the person best qualified. It should be regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or gender. The world is kowtowing to this claptrap. Goodness knows where it will end.

Another here who thinks selection should be based on merit and definitely not sexual orientation. I wonder if it's actually legal to ask your daughter such a question and in any event how would she be expected to know?

Aveline

At an introductory session for medical students recently they were all asked to say their names and their pronouns. Blimey. Surely, if anybody, prospective doctors need to know a person's biological persona and like, the rest of us, can tell at a glance what that is. What they 'feel' they might be is irrelevant.

It's possible that a concern was that doctors in training need to understand the details of diversity since they have to help patients from all backgrounds. This includes an understanding a patient may not want to be treated by them as well as giving a patient the courtesy of addressing them as they choose.

I'm not sure how the person you mention got through the interview process, cc. Perhaps they performed OK at interview?
Very poor management and not at all in the spirit of diverse appointments if they clearly were not up to doing the work at all. It only puts peoples backs up against acceptance of diversity.

knspol

Another here who thinks selection should be based on merit and definitely not sexual orientation. I wonder if it's actually legal to ask your daughter such a question and in any event how would she be expected to know?

Just gone looking for information. Its definitely not legal to ask questions about what are described a "protected characteristics"

"Protected characteristics
Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, which means employers cannot discriminate against applicants based on it.

Illegal questions

Asking about sexual orientation is illegal and is considered a breach of discrimination legislation.

Other prohibited questions
Employers cannot ask about other protected characteristics, such as:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex

So I don't see how the O/P's daughter can know the answers!

This has been going on for years. Tick boxes. Impossible to get a job with local authorities unless you fulfill a diversity tick box or are applying for senior positions. Should be best person for the job.

How many times does it have to be said that the best person will get the job?

The EDI questions are for statistical purposes only, and are separate from the rest of the application forms.

It would not be legal to specify a black woman over 40, or a white man with a disability for a role (outside of some specific roles, such as wanting a female carer for a female patient, and even those waters are muddied because some transwomen insist on applying for roles that involve intimate care of women).

Some people can't accept that they (or their children) just weren't the best person for the job, or that a woman (or whatever) could possibly have beaten a man (or whomever) by just being better, so they tell people they lost out due to EDI reasons.

Wyllow3

I agree - ludicrous on a library form.
Different in terms of a census.

Change has not just come out of the ether to reach a point when we can simply say, "best person for the job" and assume that there will be no. discrimination:

It's been based on real past discrimination and a combination of laws, raising awareness, and some quite brave individuals who have brought about this change.

I shall never forget the mockery and hatred towards a gay man at work in the 1980's simply because he was gay. It came out accidentally - he had spent a life of hiding: I can also recall the struggles of women to get equal pay for equal work, also well within most of our lifetimes.

Worriedwell 's example of the young man convinced he had been discriminated against is an attitude that has by no means disappeared altogether.

If we have reached a point where the questions the O/P's DD was asked are no longer as pertinent, then time for change.

Same where I worked in the 90s social services, our Liverpudlian boss was a real B, he was a nasty bully, one our the new male care staff was gay- he started singing 🎶 sing if you’re glad to be gay🎶 by Tom Robinson at the top of his lungs poor lad was so embarrassed, I walked out in sheer disgust & reported him to head office, my bosses line manager said, I probably took offence because I was sensitive 😩It just would not happen today.

It's not just employees is it? have you noticed how careful the BBC is when selecting members of the public to appear in quizzes or other shows ?
You can guarantee that there will be someone disabled in some way, a mix of nationalities, and probably some from the LGBT community and trans community although they may not be quite so obvious. I wonder how many have lied about their sexual orientation just to get selected!!