Diversity quota.

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.

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

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'.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

hollysteers

A recent advertisement for a position at my local symphony hall stated roughly that “In the interests of diversity, applicants of ethnicity are particularly welcomed”
Is this allowed and would I (if young enough and eligible) be turned down whatever my qualifications and experience?

Welcoming applications does not mean they won't be fair. Think about it logically, why would any business owner or manager actively try to not employ the best candidate for the job? The only reason I can see, after a 40 year career in HR, is people who don't recognise their own bias, so white men favouring white men, privately educated people favouring people on the old boy network.

I grew up in a notorious area, a slum, vice area, drug area. When I was working in police admin a senior officer was talking about an investigation into a crime in my original area and he said, "they should build a wall round it and drop a bomb and clear the lot out." I told him that was where I grew up, he looked stunned and said, "But you seem normal." Well yes many normal people came from that slum and some who had far outdone the privileged from other parts of the city, a boy in the year above me ended up in the House of Lords, a girl a couple of years younger than me featured in a magazine article about successful women as she was a top surgeon. That well spoken, well educated senior officer didn't even recognise his own prejudice.

Kate1949

This has been happening for years. I retired 15 years ago from the Civil Service. It was happening there. I believe it happens in most organisations.

It's just as bad now: we have to do a compulsory course every year about diversity that has a test at the end you have to pass and you could be in trouble if you fail to take this course. It's a load of box ticking nonsense that most of us think is a waste of time, but we have to do it or else. Also the PCS union is just as bad.

In the various fields included broadly speaking the "Arts" it may be important to have women and people from different backgrounds in post - to get the breadth of "voices" in our society. You only have to listen to for example BBC R4 "Front Row" to appreciate this.

hollysteers

A recent advertisement for a position at my local symphony hall stated roughly that “In the interests of diversity, applicants of ethnicity are particularly welcomed”
Is this allowed and would I (if young enough and eligible) be turned down whatever my qualifications and experience?

Yes, it is allowed to state you welcome applications from people who are underrepresented in your work place but every application should be assessed on how closely it matches the person specification. In some organisations it is considered good practice to remove anything which identifies gender, race, etc so the short listing is done "blind".

Interestingly, although so far, the posts have always been given to the best candidate, via the best application letter, the best performance in interview tasks and the best interview the excitement among some governors, with which male candidates applying for key stage one jobs is interesting.

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.

"“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.