Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

It's all in the name and names are not bound by ethnicity.

I didn't say bound, but you did link names to ethnicities.

This is what you said.

That doesn't show racial bias. It shows name bias. I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people. Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.

"Hawaiin sounding names", "Russian names", your words. If it is a Russian name, is it because some names are more common among people of Russian background. If you discriminate* based on Russian sounding names, odds are more Russians will be affected by this discrimination.


*To make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.

 

[Maxperson]

Incorrect. Let us look at the definition from the UN I've shown a few times - emphasis is mine:

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Note that - has the purpose or effect. You don't mean to specifically consciously intend it, but if the result has more negative impact on a specific racial, ethnic, or national group, then the thing you're doing is racist.

And, if the policy in question comes from a thought process of, "I hate the names they give black kids these days, so I won't hire people with those names," one does have to wonder if it is really just the names that are at issue. Unconscious bias is a real thing.

Plus, generally speaking, not hiring a person because you don't like their name is pretty darned dumb. Sorry. Personal opinion, that.

The bolded is not what I am doing, though. Do I dislike many of the names given to black kids? Yes. Do I like many of the names given to black kids? Yes. Do I dislike many of the names given to white kids? Yes. Do I like many names given to white kids? Yes.

The result is a wash. I wouldn't call back a Tanisha or Shaniqua, but I also would not call back an Edward or a Benjamin. I exclude by name and not race.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hence the wording "and effect".

Let me out this as plainly as possible: not calling "Tanishas" and "Shaniquas" back is going to have a disparate impact on the hiring odds of black women vs all other candidates, and is a slam-dunk case of discrimination under US law. Ditto the same bias against "Hawaiian" and "Russian" sounding names- that will be found to be impermissible discrimination against potential hires on the basis of ethnicity or national origin.

And the fact that you also discriminate against "Edwards" or "Benjamins" will probably not be a factor considered in your favor. At the very least, it won't help you all that much. It will be seen as a quirky factoid on top of your pattern of discrimination.

Seriously. If you are currently or at some future point in a position to hire/fire in the USA, you might want to consult an employment law specialist. The hundreds of dollars you spend may well save you thousands if not millions in legal fees and judgements.

 

[Maxperson]

But the effect would be that all races would be evenly represented in my organization. Kinda hard to be discriminating when all races are evenly hired.

There would also be no discernible pattern to what I do. "He hired a black Rhonda and a black Labron, but no black Shaniqua or Jaivon your honor! He must be discriminating against black people!" That wouldn't fly. There would be no slam dunk case.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even if LiberalDarlingCorporateAngelCo proved that it hired a statistically demographically representative cross-section of personnel, it would still lose any case in which their interview process mirrored the one you stated. A "Shaniquas Need Not Apply" policy is going to be ruled improper discrimination. The judge's gavel would come down so fast on this case you'd hear 2 bangs; the one from the strike preceded by a sonic boom.

Every step of your hire/fire process has to be fair & non-discriminatory, and this isn't. I can't put it plainer than that.

As Wednesday's lecturer put it, ask yourself these questions when considering an employment policy:

1) how would a Judge see it?
2) how would a prosecuting attorney see it?
3) how would a jury see it?

Hint: you don't want a negative response for any of those questions.

From Lawyers.com:

Employers commit discrimination when they make a decision based on a protected category instead of individual merit. This applies throughout the entire employment relationship. Examples when employers can’t discriminate include:

Hiring
Firing
Recruiting
Promoting
Pay raises
Training

Not interviewing based on names runs afoul of recruiting regulations.

 

[Maxperson]

Danny, I'm not going to be stating that Tanishas and Shaniquas need not apply. Nor would there be anything out of the ordinary at the interviews. There are hundreds of applicants for most jobs and no way for anyone to know which ones get called in or why. All they could look at was the racial make-up of who I hire and that would be racially even and non-biased.

 

[Kramodlog]

What I get from this exchange is that discrimination is ok as long as you hide it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, I'm not going to be stating that Tanishas and Shaniquas need not apply. Nor would there be anything out of the ordinary at the interviews. There are hundreds of applicants for most jobs and no way for anyone to know which ones get called in or why. All they could look at was the racial make-up of who I hire and that would be racially even and non-biased.

You still don't get it: it doesn't matter if you state the policy if a prima facie case for the pattern's existence can be made. Because you're the employer, and all of the relevant records would be in your possession, once the allegation is made, the burden of proof will be on you.

The prosecutor's first step will be an investigation of all applicants for positions in your business. Let's assume that you don't keep records of who you do and don't interview after positions have been filled. You're not in the clear, though: if he believes the allegations are credible, the prosecutor's next step will be to place public notices in newspapers and on TV to see if anyone else will come forward. There WILL be press coverage.

And when they look at the candidates called back for interviews, the pattern of no Shaniquas, Vladimirs, and Kamakawiwo'oles will damn you, even though it is not overtly stated.

Hell- forget the penalties if you're convicted- just the allegations hitting the news will damage your business long before any actual fines are levied.

Say LiberalDarlingCorporateAngelCo is operating in a city where Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics and blacks each comprise 25% of the population. Even if 1/4 of their hires come from each group, they're going to get busted if their interview demographics are skewed in favor or against any of the ethnicities.

 

[Cor Azer]

What I get from this exchange is that discrimination is ok as long as you hide it.

I really hope I'm wrong, but it reads like an evolved version of 'Some of my best friends are...'

 

[Kramodlog]

I really hope I'm wrong, but it reads like an evolved version of 'Some of my best friends are...'

I've known Max for a while. He has many black friends!