On Thu, 06 May 2010 15:08:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It is - applied here in the US to decision making, we call it "reverse
>> discrimination" (which in some ways I think is kinda a stupid term,
>> because it's still discrimination, though I understand what's meant by
>> it).
> 
>   I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
> a right. Which I think is a bad idea in the long run. 

I agree with this. A better approach is to get rid of the reverse 
discrimination.

> Do enough "reverse
> discrimination" and you will only cause more animosity between people,
> as some people will feel that others are getting privileges, not to talk
> about the hypocrisy ("all people are equal and should have equal rights
> and privileges, but we are giving this group of people extra
> privileges").

Yep.  When I was in high school, I worked for a guy who was put in the 
position of having to work *by himself* until his staff was done with 
classes (this was a retail store setting).  He started at 8:00 in the 
morning and had to work straight through until about 4:00 when we showed 
up; he had to close the store (which was not seen as a good thing) to 
take lunch and to do the mandatory trip to the bank with the deposit.

Why?

Because his boss (the regional director) had told him the next staff he 
hired *must* be a minority of some sort - woman, racial minority, didn't 
matter, but he couldn't hire another white male.

Except that he was the *only* senior staff in the store - no assistant 
manager at all.  I was the senior sales clerk (so usually was "the boss" 
in the evenings).  No other sales staff.

Needless to say, he was found to be ineffective because nobody who met 
this arbitrary criteria set down by the sales director was applying for 
the jobs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message