Reverse discrimination

[razer17]

Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A boss should always hire the most qualified applicant, not hire a girl/black/gay just to bring up some quota's.

And by the way, if your boss admitted it and everyone knows this is the case, I do believe the guy that didn't get the job might be able to sue, in Britain he might, anyway.

 

[Belaam]

Possibly. I'd have a few more questions. For instance, would they have to pay the guy with more experience more? That could have been a factor. Or, frankly, might you make other aspects easier - ie help with the company's image? Theoretically have an easier time relating to female clients, etc.

I am a English teacher. That doesn't necessarily help me if I am looking to teach at a high school, but it does help at a middle school because fewer male teachers want to teach younger grades, but schools are looking for more male role models. If I were a male elementary school teacher, I could almost have my pick of schools for that reason.

So other factors like that could be involved.

The guy may have had more experience, but maybe you help the company in other ways.

 

[scorptatious]

The way I see things, there really isn't such thing as "reverse discrimination". If you are not given a job because you are of a certain gender or ethnicity, it's still discrimination.

 

[Mikeyfell]

That doesn't sound like reverse discrimination at all.
It sounds a lot like discrimination though.

Like I'm a white male who's broke and doesn't play football. So I can't go to college.
That's not reverse discrimination, it's just discrimination. There are laws against it but people just say "It's your turn to pay for something someone who looked like you before you were born did." It's just racism. Not reverse racism.

 

[oktalist]

Sucks if your co-workers think you don't deserve the job. Time to prove them wrong, if that is the case.

But just to be clear, both of you still work for the company, right? So the company keeps both of you on staff, and the one with less experience is going to gain more experience than the one who already has more experience would've gained. So the total increase in experience is going to be more, so there's a good business argument for choosing the less experienced one, as long as they are a quick learner.

Actually, in this specific case, I do think it is acceptable to make a choice based partly on gender, because you being a woman in a team of mostly men is a positive attribute, and could improve the group dynamic in a deeper way than mere experience. Just as a man in a team of mostly women might. Still, it might be illegal.

 

[Zadok17582]

Discrimination always works in favour of some, which means it must work to the detriment of others. "Positive"/"inverse" discrimination (or "affirmative action") is therefore simply discrimination against a non-traditional demographic.

In the example given by OP, the company might admit, "we discriminate in favour of females". Now, how is that at all different to saying, "we discriminate against males"? As far as I see the only difference is spin.

What I don't understand is how this sort of thing is considered acceptable if discrimination *against* a specific demographic is (as I'm fairly sure) illegal? Some demographics are mutually exclusive (eg male excludes female; black excludes white, hispanic, "Asian" (of the hundreds of races that actually comprises, though I frequently see that term used as a catch-all). So at best you're actually discriminating against a *greater* proportion of people than before?

Seems to me it's only "bad" if the favoured demographic(s) comprises less than [x]% of a population? Or is it a case of the demographic must have ([y] years) experience of commonplace negative discrimination (at minimum severity factor [z]) before it is allowed to receive positive discrimination?

TL;DR:
Discrimination = discrimination = discrimination.

 

[drisky]

Unfortunately they can get sued for a lack of diversity, and female IT workers are rare, they took the chance to higher a female employee when they had one qualified to do the job. If its any consolation people also hire the less experienced because they expect less pay, so factors other than gender can go into hiring a less experienced person.

 

[illas]

It never is okay. An employee should only be hire based on their qualifications an nothing else.

Firstly, this. Picking you despite the other candidate being better is patronizing to you - and damages feminism and equal rights/opportunities, primarily because...

How ironic such things are, since it probably sets back the progress of women and belittles them more than it does harm to anything else.

One example is that this results in more unqualified women doing jobs poorly. Leading people to associate women with incapability and not being fit for proper jobs or able to acquire jobs by proper means.

If you are both equally qualified, then positive discrimination is a different matter, since a diverse workplace is significantly more productive. In this case however, it sounds as the man you were competing with was superior to you, which makes it... well... wrong.

Your new boss telling you this is the equally terrible; since it undermines you as a person, your talent (regardless of others being better), and the whole job selection process. Furthermore, it seems like you are adequately qualified for the job but are feeling inferior/under pressure despite having done nothing wrong.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sucks if your co-workers think you don't deserve the job. Time to prove them wrong, if that is the case.

But just to be clear, both of you still work for the company, right? So the company keeps both of you on staff, and the one with less experience is going to gain more experience than the one who already has more experience would've gained. So the total increase in experience is going to be more, so there's a good business argument for choosing the less experienced one, as long as they are a quick learner.

Actually, in this specific case, I do think it is acceptable to make a choice based partly on gender, because you being a woman in a team of mostly men is a positive attribute, and could improve the group dynamic in a deeper way than mere experience. Just as a man in a team of mostly women might. Still, it might be illegal.

Completely agree. Not to mention IT like any job that requires innovation more so than improvement experience is not necessarily a good thing.

It's also worth noting that you have to eventually address the fact that minorities by and large in this country WERE used by the majority and then cut loose without remotely equal tools and expected to get equal results. Then when they didn't people act shocked about it. Now at this point it's gotten to such a point where it doesn't really matter about the minorities because the wealth's all in the hands of so few people that it's more about class than race but hey those are dirty words in America because we've built up a myth about how wealth is created.

 

[jboking]

Your boss was right to hire you. Affirmative action works because it gives (mild) preference to groups of people who haven't had the opportunity before.

Your boss was EXTREMELY unprofessional to tell you his decision making process.

Would you say the same about the male elementary teacher who is hired over his female counterparts on the basis that he is male? That honestly happens all the time.

I agree though, super unprofessional on your bosses part to expose that you got hired basically to fill a quota.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Shit, I'd pack my things and walk out of there right then and there. It is the year 2011, anyone still doing such things deserves to be tarred and feathered and then have their ass handed to them in court. That's extremely offensive against both men (you're expendable and we value you less) and women (your skills count for nothing).

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

It never is okay. An employee should only be hire based on their qualifications an nothing else.

I'd like to think mannerisms help a bit too.

OP: I don't really blame the company since they only did it to not be accused of discrimination. The choice was to either discriminate you or be discriminated themselves for not being diverse.
Also, it's not like you were some blonde secretary who's ONLY good aspect is being a girl. You still had all the qualifications of getting the job.

It is the year 2011, anyone still doing such things deserves to be tarred and feathered and then have their ass handed to them in court..

That's just it. If they DIDN'T hire her they might have actually had their asses sent to court and get sued for being discriminate. What the boss should have done is not mention this to anyone, that way noone would feel like they got discriminated against. If anyone asks why he didn't hire the guy with more experience, he could have just said that the dude was an asshole or something.

 

[Alrocsmash]

Theres no such thing as reverse discrimination, just discrimination.

This. Reverse discrimination does not, has not, and will never, exist.

 

[Princess Rose]

Your boss was right to hire you. Affirmative action works because it gives (mild) preference to groups of people who haven't had the opportunity before.

Would you say the same about the male elementary teacher who is hired over his female counterparts on the basis that he is male? That honestly happens all the time.

If Men had been long discriminated against in the terms of being hired as elementary teachers, then yes.

Honestly, I know nothing about teacher hiring beneath the High School level. Therefore, I can't judged if such a hiring would be helpful or not.

 

[illas]

...because you being a woman in a team of mostly men is a positive attribute, and could improve the group dynamic in a deeper way than mere experience.

Correct, to an extent. Diverse workforces are significantly more productive. However, legally if one candidate is superior to the other he/she has sufficient grounds for legal action in light of the OP detailing that her boss admitted gender discrimination (even if it is not following the usual male> female inflection).

...Just as a man in a team of mostly women might.

Indeed, kindergartens/children's schools (where in the UK, 96% of teachers are female) are currently desperate to employ men and will give them massively preferential treatment, to the extent that they will employ an unqualified man over a degree-educated woman.

"What goes around, comes around", etc. etc.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

NEVAR.

It should always be based majorly on qualifications and partly on things like personality, disposition, etc. Gender, race, etc. should never enter the equation.

Well, that puts younger employee's at a severe disadvantage, doesn't it.

 

[Agayek]

Do you think it's acceptable to use gender or race to determine who will get a job between two persons roughly equal otherwise ?

In your case, it's not right that it happened. This is basically the worst possible outcome of the affirmative action movement. Someone better qualified for the job got passed because they weren't "diverse" enough.

That said, if two people really are equal in the job (roughly equivalent experience, each has complimentary skills, etc), then I don't see a big problem with picking the "minority" one. It's not very nice, and I would say it's demeaning to the one you hire (what with the implication that they can't get the job any other way), but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[lacktheknack]

NEVAR.

It should always be based majorly on qualifications and partly on things like personality, disposition, etc. Gender, race, etc. should never enter the equation.

Well, that puts younger employee's at a severe disadvantage, doesn't it.

Because they weren't in the first place?

Thankfully, younger adults dominate the job-searching pool, so it shouldn't be a major issue.

 

[Mortons4ck]

You got the job.

Just go with it.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Theres no such thing as reverse discrimination, just discrimination.

This. Reverse discrimination does not, has not, and will never, exist.

It's "reverse discrimination" in the sense that rather than not getting the job because of her sex/race/whatever, she did get the job because of her sex/race/whatever. So yes, there is a proper usage for that term.

I know what you're referring to though, that discrimination against whites or males is somehow "reverse discrimination," and in this sense you're right, that's just plain discrimination.