Is this descrimination legal?

BillJones

BrassicWoman wrote: »

poor ickle disadvantaged white men, you have it so hard....

I don't, know, but neither does the indian woman behind me at work, whose family seem to be worth something approaching billions.

Privilege is not shown in skin colour or gender.

mattcanary

cazziebo wrote: »

???

The stats quoted are for the creative industries; the advert is from a charity looking at increasing diversity of the workforce in these creative industries.

This suggests that the recruitment processes - whether that's advertising, sourcing, selecting - are favouring white candidates. White people already have an advantage- the statistics prove this. All Creative Access is doing is giving people from disadvantaged groups some work experience (NOT A JOB) which seeks to redress the balance.

However, I sense it's not logical argument that's needed here. Some people have to get over their prejudices and sense of entitlement.

It could just as easily be the fact that more people from ethnic minorities are from poorer backgrounds, rather than the fact that they are from ethnic backgrounds that means they are less likely to be represented in the recording industry. White people from poor backgrounds are in all likelihood just as unlikely (if not more so) to be working in the industry.


It could also be because they are less likely to wish to work in this industry, as a group. Just as men are less likely to want to be a florist, or women to be a mechanic (although I think this is less likely in thiss industry to be honest)

an9i77

I can see the argument from both sides of the fence but I still think it's wrong. There are plenty of disadvantaged white people - hell, there are plenty of disadvantaged people full stop, who would love to work in the creative industries. I don't think you can start saying only this group can have an internship based on skin colour. Either skin colour is irrelevant or it's not irrelevant. Also this is just going to give racism rant fodder to the EDL/BNP/whatever they are called now types.

Bantex_2

I would be interested to know what the ethnic mix of the employees at this organisation is. I would suspect it does not represent the nation as a whole.

Fluff15

mattcanary wrote: »

It could just as easily be the fact that more people from ethnic minorities are from poorer backgrounds, rather than the fact that they are from ethnic backgrounds that means they are less likely to be represented in the recording industry. White people from poor backgrounds are in all likelihood just as unlikely (if not more so) to be working in the industry.


It could also be because they are less likely to wish to work in this industry, as a group. Just as men are less likely to want to be a florist, or women to be a mechanic (although I think this is less likely in thiss industry to be honest)

Actually, it's across all sectors. People from ethnic backgrounds aren't even getting their foot in the door because of their name:

A damning report by the Department for Work and Pensions sheds some light on the subject. It shows that people with white names are 74 per cent more likely to get called for an interview following a job application than candidates with an ethnic minority name, despite the two candidates having exactly the same qualifications. Their report, “A test for racial discrimination in recruitment practice in British cities”, involved submitting job applications from fictional white and ethnic minority applicants with equivalent qualifications for advertised vacancies across Britain in order to determine the extent of racial discrimination in the labour market.

Source.

adouglasmhor

Bantex wrote: »

Does seem odd that an openly anti white organisation can operate legally.

I am white and Asian, I could have applied for something like this when I was younger.

Bantex_2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I am white and Asian, I could have applied for something like this when I was younger.

Can you be white and minority ethnic?
All seems a bit of a minefield

lukerichardson40

Would it be right to say that there is now a disproportionate divide between white and ethnic medical students? This research is 10 years old, but I cant see the trend changing (correct me if I am wrong)-

"The percentage of UK medical graduates who are non-white has increased substantially from about 2% in 1974 and will approach 30% by 2005. White men now comprise little more than a quarter of all UK medical students. White and non-white UK graduates make similar choices of specialty."

Source - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516656/

So, assuming the date is accurate, would it be right to advertise for white male student doctors 'to level the playingfield'? I dont think so.

lukerichardson40

EDIT - I will add the conclusion of the report, in full -

Specialist medical practice in the NHS has been heavily dependent on doctors who have trained abroad, particularly in specialties where posts have been hard to fill. By contrast, UK trained doctors from ethnic minorities are not over-represented in the less popular specialties. Ethnic minorities are well represented in UK medical school intakes; and white men, but not white women, are now substantially under-represented.

Bantex_2

I have noticed that the majority of dentists now seem to be of Asian or Chinese heritage. Should we now start excluding these groups from certain organisations that represent the profession?