''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

... Lack of black managers shouldn't be a issue either, as long there is fair opportunities for all based on merit. Which these people need to prove, because outcome result doesn't prove there isn't fair opportunities for everyone.

Equal opportunities doesn't necessary translate to equal outcome, for all walks of life, people should understand that.

They haven't equal opportunities.

We’re defining a management job as a club in one of the top five divisions in England, or a big-five league or international side in Europe.
Since 1990, just five black ex-England players have gone into management, under the definition listed above.

Every of these english leagues has 24 teams, except Premier League, which has 20. Totally 116 teams.

In these 116 teams, only 5 black footballmanagers since 1990 in 29 years, although one of 4 footballer is black or bame.

0,86 % black manager of 116 managers in total. In 29 years, although soccer teams have a high annual manager fluctuation.

It’s relevant that a 2009 study found that job applicants with a “white-sounding” name like Andrew Clarke were 74 per cent more likely to get an interview than those with “black-sounding” names like Anthony Olukayode.

Yeah sound like pretty equal opportunities for me.

What's next? Blacks are less successfull because they are lazy, not motivated or skilled enough, less intelligent subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens, which is better in physical working than in thinking or because they worship evil Islam?

[Cope]

They haven't equal opportunities.

WeÂ’re defining a management job as a club in one of the top five divisions in England, or a big-five league or international side in Europe.
Since 1990, just five black ex-England players have gone into management, under the definition listed above.

Every of these english leagues has 24 teams, except Premier League, which has 20. Totally 116 teams.

In these 116 teams, only 5 black footballmanagers since 1990 in 29 years, although one of 4 footballer is black or bame.

0,86 % black manager of 116 managers in total. In 29 years, although soccer teams have a high annual manager fluctuation.

It’s relevant that a 2009 study found that job applicants with a “white-sounding” name like Andrew Clarke were 74 per cent more likely to get an interview than those with “black-sounding” names like Anthony Olukayode.

Yeah sound like pretty equal opportunities for me.

What's next? Blacks are less successfull because they are lazy, not motivated or skilled enough, less intelligent subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens, which is better in physical working than in thinking or because they worship evil Islam?

Not that this should need stating, but "five black ex-England players" entering Football League management since 1990 isn't the same as the Football League only having "5 black football managers since 1990". The number of players capped by the English national team is tiny, with the number of non-white players being smaller still. From this already minuscule group, only a minority will go into Football League management. In other words, your conclusion is based on a fallacy.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Nice try, but the whole article is obviously about team management (WeÂ’re defining a management job as a club in one of the top five divisions in England), not about management of the football league.

Another epic fail, this time in reading comprehension.

[mongrel]

Only half of all the managers in the the Premier League, Championship and League's One and Two are English.

The Premier League isn't in the EFL , I thought that was made clear


As for the rest, assuming that Scots , Welsh and Northern Irish are Brits for all intents and purposes, and the Irish don't count as foreign, that leaves:


Daniel Stendel
Marcelo Bielsa
Thomas Frank
Jan Siewert
José Manuel Gome
David Artell
Gabriele Cioffi

Which is nowhere near half. Did you just try to spin your way through a thread?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eague_managers

Lmao at Mongrel and Clodia scoring own goals in repetition on this one.

Epic fail!

Premature gloating. When entering a battle of wits, one doesn't come unarmed.

You realise the Rooney rule is racial discrimination right?

The employer is no obliged to give the beneficiary a job, so not really. Discrimination is having a closed shop, unwittingly or otherwise.

[Basil II the B.S]

Lmao at Clodia seriously arguing that blacks are excluded from ing football for racial reasons. It's one of the careers where they do better.

[Cope]

Nice try, but the whole article is obviously about team management (WeÂ’re defining a management job as a club in one of the top five divisions in England), not about management of the football league.

Another epic fail, this time in reading comprehension.

When I say "Football League management" I'm referring to club management within the Football League, not management of the league itself. Since no refutation with regards to the statistics is forthcoming, I'll assume that you don't have one.

The Premier League isn't in the EFL , I thought that was made clear

I did not claim that it was. The Premier League was raised to demonstrate that diversity within English football is clearly both possible and probable without institutionalizing the preferential treatment of applicants based on their heritage.

As for the rest, assuming that Scots , Welsh and Northern Irish are Brits for all intents and purposes, and the Irish don't count as foreign, that leaves

Daniel Stendel
Marcelo Bielsa
Thomas Frank
Jan Siewert
José Manuel Gome
David Artell
Gabriele Cioffi

Which is nowhere near half. Did you just try to spin your way through a thread?

You are the one who raised the issue of "Englishness", not me; I don't know many Welsh, Scottish or Irish people who appreciate being called English.

[sumskilz]

It’s relevant that a 2009 study found that job applicants with a “white-sounding” name like Andrew Clarke were 74 per cent more likely to get an interview than those with “black-sounding” names like Anthony Olukayode.

For the sake of controlling the study, all these fictional applicants had identical qualifications (education and employment history). I'm fairly confident that fictional job applicants with East-Asian sounding names would have done better than those with white-sounding names, and that those with black-sounding names would have done better than those with white sounding names if the fictional black applicants were made obviously more qualified than the fictional white applicants.

It's fairly clear that this tendency is rooted in evolutionary psychology, and that the reason people make choices this way in the absence of sufficient evidence, is because most stereotypes are reasonably accurate at the group level (which sucks if you're subject to a negative group stereotype that you don't personally fit).

From the Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination:

Accuracy of Ethnic and Racial Stereotypes

Table 10.1 summarizes the results of all studies assessing the accuracy of racial and ethnic stereotypes that met our criteria for inclusion. We review the most noteworthy of their results here. First, consensual stereotype discrepancies are a mix of accurate and inaccurate beliefs. Nonetheless, most judgments were either accurate or near misses. Only a minority were more than 20% off.

Second, people’s consensual stereotype discrepancies for between group differences are consistently more accurate than are their consensual stereotype discrepancies for characteristics within groups. For example, in the Ryan (1996) study, Whites’ consensual stereotypes regarding Whites and regarding African Americans each were accurate only 5 of 17 times (10 of 34, total). However, their judgments of differences between Whites and African Americans were accurate 9 times out of 17. A similar pattern occurred in the McCauley and Stitt (1978) study (see Table 10.1).

Third, these results provide little support for the idea that stereotypes typically exaggerate real differences. Exaggeration occurred, but it occurred no more often than did underestimation, with one exception. The only study to assess the accuracy of personal discrepancies found that a plurality of people was accurate, and that there was a slightly greater tendency to exaggerate real differences than to underestimate real differences (Ashton & Esses, 1999, summarized in Table 10.1).

Fourth, the extent to which people’s stereotypes corresponded with reality was strikingly high. Consensual stereotype accuracy correlations ranged from .53 to .93. Personal stereotype accuracy correlations were somewhat lower, but still quite high by any standard, ranging from .36 to .69.

For the most part however, people use information about the individual (rather than stereotypes) to judge people when that information is available:

People should primarily use individuating information, when it is available, rather than stereotypes when judging others. Do they? This area of research has been highly controversial, with many researchers emphasizing the power of stereotypes to bias judgments (Devine, 1995; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jones, 1986; Jost & Kruglanski, 2002) and others emphasizing the relatively modest influence of stereotypes and the relatively large role of individuating information (Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996; Kunda & Thagard, 1996).

Fortunately, literally hundreds of studies have now been performed that address this issue, and, even more fortunately, multiple meta-analyses have been performed summarizing their results. Table 10.3 presents the results from meta-analyses of studies assessing stereotype bias in many contexts. It shows that the effects of stereotypes on person judgments, averaged over hundreds of experiments, range from 0 to .25. The simple arithmetic mean of the effect sizes is .10, which is an overestimate, because the meta-analyses with more studies yielded systematically lower effect sizes (r =–.43 between effect size and number of studies). The few naturalistic studies of the role of stereotypes in biasing person perception have yielded similarly small effects (e.g., Clarke & Campbell, 1955; Jussim et al., 1996; Madon et al., 1998).

How small is an effect of r = .10? It is small according to J. Cohen’s (1988) heuristic categorization of effect sizes. It is among the smallest effects found in social psychology (Richard et al., 2003). An overall effect of .10 means that expectancies substantially influence social perceptions about 5% of the time (as per Rosenthal’s [1991] binomial effect size display). This means that stereotypes do not influence perceptions 95% of the time.

In general, therefore, based on more than 300 experimental studies and a smaller number of naturalistic studies, stereotypes have only very modest influences on person perception. Of course, there is always the possibility that researchers have not searched in the right places or in the right way for powerful stereotype biases in person perception. At minimum, however, the burden of proof (for the existence of widespread, powerful stereotype biases in person perception) has shifted to those emphasizing such powerful biases.

The existence of small stereotype effects, however, does not necessarily mean that people do generally rely heavily on individuating information. However, the empirical evidence shows, in fact, that they do. The one meta-analysis that has addressed this issue found that the effect of individuating information on person perception was among the largest effects found in social psychology, r =.71 (Kunda & Thagard, 1996). In other words, people seem to be generally doing the right thing—relying on individuating information far more than stereotypes.

So the method by which the study that used white-sounding and black-sounding names was controlled created an unnatural circumstance that maximized the use of racial stereotypes to their highest possible effect. The study was designed so the potential employers had absolutely no individuating information about the applicants except a strong clue about their race.

Now imagine the effect of positive discrimination on this study. Say the white applicant and the black applicant had identical qualifications, but you as the potential employer believed with some good reason that it was likely that the black applicant didn't have to work as hard or have as high of academic scores to have gotten those same jobs and degrees. Maybe the UK did have positive discrimination prior to 2009, and it too had already affected stereotypes. I don't know. What I see though, is that this type of "cure" may be worse long term for both those it discriminates against and those it discriminates in favor of.

In the specific case of football managers, I doubt stereotype beliefs play any role, due to the fact that all candidates would be well-known beforehand.

[Toho]

Now imagine the effect of positive discrimination on this study. Say the white applicant and the black applicant had identical qualifications, but you as the potential employer believed with some good reason that it was likely that the black applicant didn't have to work as hard or have as high of academic scores to have gotten those same jobs and degrees. Maybe the UK did have positive discrimination prior to 2009, and it too had already affected stereotypes. I don't know. What I see though, is that this type of "cure" may be worse long term for both those it discriminates against and those it discriminates in favor of.

The interview process looks over a lot of stuff.

You got diversity, attractiveness but not too attractive. Education, demeanour, charisma and probably accents as well.
People thinking everyone is just chosen based on their very nice CV is delusional.

[sumskilz]

The interview process looks over a lot of stuff.

You got diversity, attractiveness but not too attractive. Education, demeanour, charisma and probably accents as well.
People thinking everyone is just chosen based on their very nice CV is delusional.

The interview process no doubt reduces the effect of stereotype bias significantly, probably to near zero. Although the term "diversity hire", whether it's being accurately applied to an individual or not, does carry some stigma.

The study using white and black sounding names only involved CVs, and was assessing whether or not the fictional applicants were offered interviews in the first place.

[Knight of Heaven]

They haven't equal opportunities.

We’re defining a management job as a club in one of the top five divisions in England, or a big-five league or international side in Europe.
Since 1990, just five black ex-England players have gone into management, under the definition listed above.

Again that doesn't prove there isn't equal opportunities for black managers. See my previous post, i explained it before.

It’s relevant that a 2009 study found that job applicants with a “white-sounding” name like Andrew Clarke were 74 per cent more likely to get an interview than those with “black-sounding” names like Anthony Olukayode.

Yeah sound like pretty equal opportunities for me.

What's next? Blacks are less successfull because they are lazy, not motivated or skilled enough, less intelligent subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens, which is better in physical working than in thinking or because they worship evil Islam?

Ridiculous poisonous assertion.

You need to explain to me how that study reached that conclusion. You need to prove that black men are being actively discriminated for manager positions in premier league. How many black men with that kind of name applied for those positions over the years, and how Manny British (white sounding name) managers applied. If you dont provide context you cant prove anything. Just because there is a lack of Black managers around.
Also helps get to know a bit about the sport. African countries usually are not the bit powers in football competitions ( even though there have been great players from there), it makes sense that the market seeks people where football is big and their teams successful historically, as well their managers. That might be a reason you see lots of Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch,French, Portuguese, and even some South american managers, like Argentina, Chile, Brazil etc. ( even more then English managers i might add).


Majority of managers in the premier league are not even English.
In 20 clubs of the premier league, i think only 6 are English, 7 if you count Brenden Rogers hes from Northern Ireland), with English sounding names.

The interview process no doubt reduces the effect of stereotype bias significantly, probably to near zero. Although the term "diversity hire", whether it's being accurately applied to an individual or not, does carry some stigma.

The study using white and black sounding names only involved CVs, and was assessing whether or not the fictional applicants were offered interviews in the first place.

The interview process looks over a lot of stuff.

You got diversity, attractiveness but not too attractive. Education, demeanour, charisma and probably accents as well.
People thinking everyone is just chosen based on their very nice CV is delusional.

Premier league manager hiring doesn't revolve around CVs, and i would say personal interviews are not really that decisive. At this level usually you just need a good agent, all the work is done between representatives.

In the specific case of football managers, I doubt stereotype beliefs play any role, due to the fact that all candidates would be well-known beforehand.

Indeed, usually managers are already credited, publicly or at least in the industry, also in today's day, is all done between agents and representatives, Interviews usually are a mere formality, ( most of the times are not really interviews, but just meet ups, to get to know the people you are working with and for etc.) Im having a hard time picturing Guardiola, or Mourinho, or (if we are talking about black managers), Frank Rijkaard and Thierry Henrry, with a CV in hand, in a personal interview talking about their former experience, and qualifications.

[Basil II the B.S]

An excellent example of how ''diversity and inclusion'' work.

[Knight of Heaven]

So a university in Netherlands Eindhoven Engineering university is banning men job applicants , in the name of diversity, and to fight the so called unconscious bias towards men.


This is Unbelievable.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/female-academics-job-applications-men-engineers

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/0...to-women-only/

[Basil II the B.S]

Yeah I noticed.
We just want ''equality of opportunities, that's why men can't apply for 6 months''. That's ''equal opportunities'' according to them.

And it's backed by the liberal Dutch government. The poison has arrived to continental Europe.

[Aexodus]

So a university in Netherlands Eindhoven Engineering university is banning men job applicants , in the name of diversity, and to fight the so called unconscious bias towards men.


This is Unbelievable.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/female-academics-job-applications-men-engineers

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/0...to-women-only/

That’s totally efffed. Surely that cannot be legal.

[Basil II the B.S]

''but Basil, you are too radical''.


JUST

[mongrel]

Is Holland part of the UK now?

[The spartan]

Nor does it show that men are suffering in the Netherlands. From what I can quickly bring up, unemployment in the Netherlands is 3.4%, so men are still finding jobs somehow despite all this "anti-man oppression" being heaped on them.

[Basil II the B.S]

The policy was just made so it's hard to notice any effect straight away. What a retarded argument dude. They made it yesterday and you say ''durr there's no effect on unemployment shut up shut up shut up''.

What the . This is why my hammering is relentless and justified. You never, ever denounce this kind of crap. This was a good occasion to say ''well ok that's not fair, they should scrap it''. Oh no, you dodge the issue and start talking about some other nonsense. Wanna blame toxic masculinity and white supremacist as per the usual liberal antics as well?

For the record, I fully advocate stripping citizenship to this people and deporting them to Saudi Arabia, South Africa or similar. They want to discriminate? Good, that taboo is down now.

[The spartan]

The policy was just made so it's hard to notice any effect straight away. What a retarded argument dude. They made it yesterday and you say ''durr there's no effect on unemployment shut up shut up shut up''.

See, I actually care about real problems in the world rather than problems you tell me are totally real, just trust you. I don't trust you, you lie all the time. So you better have some actual stats to prove points of male suffering rather than snarky tweets. This is like Right wingers here in America that have been saying immigrants have been ruining the economy for the past 10 years, take jobs, and lower wages. Yet here we are, 10 years later and unemployment for our citizens is really low, and median wages have gone up. You don't get to prove large sweeping concepts with snarky tweets.

[Aexodus]

The statistics are that for the next six months zero males will be applying for a job at Eindhoven. Because they’re male.