That’s not what I am saying and it’s sad to me that you interpret my words to mean I intend to discriminate against you based on your race. Im not advocating any competition between races.
The point is that creating a “colorblind” world, without correcting the other indicators which strongly correlate with race, doesn’t lead to a a diverse outcome.
For instance, let’s say we institute a policy that to eliminate hiring bias, we will only look at the school you went to. We sort the applicants by top schools, and interview only the top achievers at each of the top schools. This selection process, while “colorblind”, will not necessarily result in a diverse population. I hope the reasons are obvious but if not I can explain why.
To correct this, we can institute a policy that says: not only will we look at the traditional top Ivies, but we will also consider top HBCUs.
Does this mean that whereas before you passed the filter, now you may be passed over for someone else who may be a minority? Yes.
Does this mean that person is less qualified than you? No. The best students at most schools can be just as good as or better than top Ivy students.
Does that mean you were passed over because of your skin color? No, it could mean the applicant pool was widened and you didn’t make the cut after more talent was considered.
None of this has to do with your skin color or really anyone’s. What it has to do with is eliminating systemic bias in the hiring process. As they say, to the privileged equality can feel like oppression, but that’s not what is happening. It was a privileged position for a long time that whites got priority consideration. Now they don’t and it feels to whites like oppression. Be that as it may, it’s still not racist.
Does this explanation put my comment into a better perspective for you?
Yes, it definitely puts it in a better perspective. Because your policy doesn't mention race at all. It bases itself on social settings, which is fine by me.
My apologies for misinterpreting you.
As a European, I think the biggest problem in US (not an expert so I might be wrong) is that your neighborhood taxes pay for the local school. That means that when you can afford to live in a good neighborhood, your kids can go to a good school. Unfortunately the other side is also true. When you live in a bad neighborhood, your kids go to a bad school.
That is a huge difference with European countries where schools are funded with national taxes. The difference in school quality is close to each other, and every kid gets to go to a proper school.
I think it would solve some of the problems if US would adopt this system.
The point is that creating a “colorblind” world, without correcting the other indicators which strongly correlate with race, doesn’t lead to a a diverse outcome.
For instance, let’s say we institute a policy that to eliminate hiring bias, we will only look at the school you went to. We sort the applicants by top schools, and interview only the top achievers at each of the top schools. This selection process, while “colorblind”, will not necessarily result in a diverse population. I hope the reasons are obvious but if not I can explain why.
To correct this, we can institute a policy that says: not only will we look at the traditional top Ivies, but we will also consider top HBCUs.
Does this mean that whereas before you passed the filter, now you may be passed over for someone else who may be a minority? Yes.
Does this mean that person is less qualified than you? No. The best students at most schools can be just as good as or better than top Ivy students.
Does that mean you were passed over because of your skin color? No, it could mean the applicant pool was widened and you didn’t make the cut after more talent was considered.
None of this has to do with your skin color or really anyone’s. What it has to do with is eliminating systemic bias in the hiring process. As they say, to the privileged equality can feel like oppression, but that’s not what is happening. It was a privileged position for a long time that whites got priority consideration. Now they don’t and it feels to whites like oppression. Be that as it may, it’s still not racist.
Does this explanation put my comment into a better perspective for you?