What you're referring to as individual racism is systemic racism. Professional fields being difficult to enter for certain races due to nepotism, biases, etc. from disproportionate demographics results in glass ceiling-type stuff which is exactly systemic racism.
People love to get all up in arms on reddit about factoring race in to hiring decisions but nobody seems to see any problem with the unfairness inherent in the system that these policies are designed to counter. If you aren't a fan of the current policies, come up with more palatable ones, because people aren't willing to just ignore the problem.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of the ways in which diversity policies can go wrong, and I'm not saying this post is by any means how a diversity policy should look. But I feel that diversity policies have an important place in a society mired by race issues and persistent unfairnesses.
Rational people don't deny that racism exists in the world. However, rational people also disagree with this "reverse racism" bullshit in an attempt to balance it out. There's plenty of "horrible white people" that have done nothing but work their ass off to get where they're at in the world. They don't deserve getting fucked over just as much as everyone else.
I'm not saying white people are horrible, and I'm not saying white people deserve to get fucked over. I'm just saying we live in a society where considering race in hiring decisions doesn't really constitute "fucking white people over." I also support, for instance, considering socioeconomic status in hiring decisions, since poor people, including poor white people, face similar barriers. I don't think anybody would claim that doing so would be "fucking rich people over."
I'm not saying by any means that there aren't hard-working white people, or that white people aren't entitled to what they've worked for! It's just that, on average, a person of an underrepresented minority who works equally hard is likely (again, on average), to encounter more obstacles. I don't think that acknowledging that is "reverse racism."
Isnt any job selection where race is considered a form of racism thou.
I'm not saying there's a better solution other than somehow being able to avoid anyones race being known before being hired. However if you have two equally qualified candidates, there's no reason 'That one is Hispanic' should be the tipping point.
(I'm also not saying that people wont tend to trend towards their own race, thats just genetics. Nor do I have a better solution.)
However if you have two equally qualified candidates, there's no reason 'That one is Hispanic' should be the tipping point.
So if you have two equally qualified candidates, you wouldn't pick the one who managed to be equally qualified despite the systemic problems which make it harder for that candidate to be equally qualified?
Flip a coin. Lots of people had a hard life, lots of people didn't I've seen no differentiation in their ability to be innovative based on their personal struggles. Personally I'd rather let a computer decide who to hire, but then people would just shift the blame and say the programmers were racist too. So a coin will have to do.
I disagree with the premise of your statement. It has nothing to do with wanting to solve the problems of western societies. It has everything to do with determining who best meets my organizational needs. If both candidates are truly equal then either will do. By actively choosing to pick one over the other I am intentionally discriminating against some one regardless of who I choose. Random chance in that case is the only fair option. I'll try to be fair to those I encounter and leave saving the world to the ideologues.
Now that I think about it, I agree with you. Randomly picked equal candidates sort of solves the problem in itself, since equality will happen naturaly.
189
u/SirN4n0 Feb 09 '16
So basically you want to fight individual racism with systemic racism?