Coke goes Full Woke

LV426 said:
Right, but if one of those candidates who wasn't considered decides to sue the college for racial discrimination, they would have an easy case to prove if the college President went around the recommendations to do their own thing.

It would be very difficult for the college president to make the argument in court, under oath and threat of perjury. All the plaintiffs would need to do is question the President on why they went around the recommendations of the selection committee. And also, is the President hiring people? Wouldn't the hiring be done by someone else?

I can't see a world or instance where that end-around was done in good faith.

Discovery would be a bitch for the college. In fact, they would probably fire the President to avoid a courtroom altogether.
Click to expand...

The president chose an Hispanic male. The committee submitted three names. They were supposed to be unranked but they specifically ranked him at the bottom because of a poor academic record with a lot of C's in graduate classes. The president was very ambitious and wanted to increased the minority faculty.

On what grounds could other candidates sue? The committee considers many candidates but must narrow the list down to those to be interviewed and then a final candidate (or three in this case). There is no grounds to sue. A person's academic record might be less important than many other factors, so grades are not a basis for discrimination. If the president had chosen a white male there would still be no basis for the other two candidates to sue.

Affirmative action only works if the employer does not want to discriminate or wants to hire additional minorities (and then we don't need AA). But, if an employer (or committee, or department head) doesn't care about those things there is no basis for suing if the AA guidelines are followed.
 
Flash said:
The president chose an Hispanic male. The committee submitted three names. They were supposed to be unranked but they specifically ranked him at the bottom because of a poor academic record with a lot of C's in graduate classes. The president was very ambitious and wanted to increased the minority faculty.
Click to expand...

Then maybe the President should have gone back to the committee to say "do better".


On what grounds could other candidates sue? The committee considers many candidates but must narrow the list down to those to be interviewed and then a final candidate (or three in this case). There is no grounds to sue. A person's academic record might be less important than many other factors, so grades are not a basis for discrimination. If the president had chosen a white male there would still be no basis for the other two candidates to sue.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there are grounds to sue if the President knowingly went around the recommendations of the committee, but what you said was that the candidate was one the committee recommended.

So if that candidate wasn't strong, they should have gone out and sourced better candidates.

I mean, this isn't fuckin' rocket science. If you aren't getting the volume of qualified candidates, then you need to take a look at how you're sourcing that volume, because I believe most all of it derives from that.

It's hard to imagine that in a nation of over 150M workers, you couldn't source better candidates than the one with the bad grades. That doesn't sound to me like they took the applicant process very seriously.
 
Flash said:
Affirmative action only works if the employer does not want to discriminate or wants to hire additional minorities (and then we don't need AA). But, if an employer (or committee, or department head) doesn't care about those things there is no basis for suing if the AA guidelines are followed.
Click to expand...

I think that this is very easily addressed in the sourcing of candidates.

As far as I'm concerned, there are plenty of qualified applicants for every position from every race and gender, it's just a matter of connecting those people to the ones sourcing candidates.

There are plenty of organizations that can do that, it's just a matter of will by the employer.
 
LV426 said:
It's the "applicant pool" that is the issue here, specifically the sourcing of candidates for that pool.

From where you source those candidates matters, and being passive in the solicitation is how you end up with unbalanced applicants.

There are myriad ways to boost minority applicants, myriad organization to work with, myriad experts to go to...there just needs to be a desire to take it seriously.
Click to expand...

so we should scour the earth for every job before hiring a white man?

who pays these extra expenses? whites?
 
AProudLefty said:
Sure. You and I should always have the zeal for facts, not bullshit.

And how do you know that it's a total propaganda if you haven't seen it for yourself?
Click to expand...

I've seen enough. did you watch all of reefer madness before you smoked weeed? you probably did. now you hate devil jazz
 
LV426 said:
I think that this is very easily addressed in the sourcing of candidates.

As far as I'm concerned, there are plenty of qualified applicants for every position from every race and gender, it's just a matter of connecting those people to the ones sourcing candidates.

There are plenty of organizations that can do that, it's just a matter of will by the employer.
Click to expand...

It is also very expensive that many employers cannot afford because they then have to fly those people in for an interview and pay for their expenses. Putting an ad in a national publication if very expensive by itself. And, AA does not require an employer to take all those measures to hire somebody, especially a clerical employee.

There is also the issue of whether any of those candidates are willing to accept a job with that employer. There is a big surplus of English Ph.Ds seeking jobs but many of them will not leave NYC.
 
LV426 said:
Well, I think there are grounds to sue if the President knowingly went around the recommendations of the committee, but what you said was that the candidate was one the committee recommended.

So if that candidate wasn't strong, they should have gone out and sourced better candidates.

I mean, this isn't fuckin' rocket science. If you aren't getting the volume of qualified candidates, then you need to take a look at how you're sourcing that volume, because I believe most all of it derives from that.

It's hard to imagine that in a nation of over 150M workers, you couldn't source better candidates than the one with the bad grades. That doesn't sound to me like they took the applicant process very seriously.
Click to expand...

Right. And it still met all AA guidelines which was my point. If an employer does not care about hiring minority candidates nothing in AA changes that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
no. no. straw man. brain. lion. courage. no place like home. I was with you all along. footprints in the sand?
Click to expand...

LOL.

The thing with Auschwitz is that we already know all about it with all those footages, photos, interviews and history books. And Mein Kampf and Dr. Mengele's experiments are fully available for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top