BBC Announces £100m Institutional Racial Discrimination Measures in Bold Move Against Institutional Racial Discrimination

[alhoon]

Yeah, because a few more people of colour on your telly completely equates to centuries of institutional racism. They're obviously the same thing...

Nobody suggests it is.
What we say is that it is wrong even if it is not as bad as what the people of color are going through in the USA or South Asians in the UK.

Hence, you cannot fight racism with different racism.
Being a dick to white people is not the answer to racism even if it is not as bad as what the South Asians went through.


Let me give you another example: English Academia finds reasons to snub South European researchers. Many of them look at us through a different lens, as if we're frauds and where we cut through the rubbish they feel animosity that we are at their level when they feel we shouldn't be. Simply put, many English academics feel Southern Europeans should be less educated and less successful than them. It is not overt and they won't say it openly.
Obviously it doesn't even come close to what Indians or ex-colony personnel go through (the "brown people"). At least we're treated as 2nd-tier Europeans (along with Poles and ex-Soviet block people).
But it is there and we have to work twice as hard for the English to take us seriously, accept and fund our project proposals or evaluate our research papers.
A Spanish professor from Valencia that I know, was kinda told to his face that while they trust him because they know him, they don't trust his team because they are all from Spain (=lazy crooks) and that he should change some of them with English. As a note, that same professor is Vice Chair in an certain European action I will not mention while his CV is better than the German professor in Luxemburg that is the chair of that action.
And I also have examples from Italian people and Greek people that work\worked in the UK. They were treated with suspicion or contempt. |
Again, certainly not of the levels that former-colony personnel go through. But they did.

Anyway, Nobody I know from the Greek, Spanish or Italian academics in the UK ever suggested or thought it was a good idea to fight that by "locking seats" in unis for South Europeans because some of us were denied academic credibility for our work (papers that were rejected until we magically put the English person as first author, projects that were not funded, etc).

I did. He suggested that white people were being fired or were going to be. Nowhere in the article does it say this.

So once again...

I'll take 'Crap that I've made up to justify my pre-existing prejudices" for $100 thanks Alex...

While indeed Sar1n made that comment, the point he was making was that these quotas lead to people suffering injustice.
Sure, it won't be "fired because you don't have enough melanin", but it would be "the not-straight, not-white, not-male person takes the seat". Your genitals or the melanin content of your skin should not define whether you get the promotion one way or the other.


PS. In UK the main problem with racism is towards Central Asians and South Asians, not Black people. Very few English would look down at a black person born and raised in UK or a black person from USA. But someone from an Indian community? Well, that's different.

You can't pull jobs out of thin air. They're either fire white people and hire specifically minorities, or they'll scrap some positions and fund new ones specifically for minorities. Most likely combination of both.

What they're trying to achieve isn't even doable by preferential hiring of replacements, natural turnover isn't that huge. And even then, excluding or discriminating against race when hiring, no matter what race it is, is still racism.

Nope, they will promote based on race and gender.
Sar1n, you're kinda undermining your own position. They won't get out with an axe to hunt white men, they will discriminate against them in promotions and perhaps scrap a few positions. Also, turnout is not low in BBC. They will simply hand new documentaries and new shows mostly to women or minorities.


What this means and why it is bad:
Since turnover isn't huge and 55% of the leadership seats are men, in order to "fix this" in a few years, 9 out of 10 promotions will be women or minorities regardless of merit.
It's "Dude, you're a white man. Please accept you won't get a promotion for 7-8 years till we fill the quotas. Then you will have a less-unfair chance."
Less unfair because women are generally less interested in pursuing their career and take maternity leaves etc, so a man should have 2-3 years more experience to be considered "equal" to a woman.

[Sar1n]

Nope, they will promote based on race and gender.
Sar1n, you're kinda undermining your own position. They won't get out with an axe to hunt white men, they will discriminate against them in promotions and perhaps scrap a few positions. Also, turnout is not low in BBC. They will simply hand new documentaries and new shows mostly to women or minorities.


What this means and why it is bad:
Since turnover isn't huge and 55% of the leadership seats are men, in order to "fix this" in a few years, 9 out of 10 promotions will be women or minorities regardless of merit.
It's "Dude, you're a white man. Please accept you won't get a promotion for 7-8 years till we fill the quotas. Then you will have a less-unfair chance."
Less unfair because women are generally less interested in pursuing their career and take maternity leaves etc, so a man should have 2-3 years more experience to be considered "equal" to a woman.

You should read the article again. They said their goal is to shift almost 10% of positions toward women and BAME representation "by next year". No way they'll do it simply by promoting.

[alhoon]

You should read the article again. They said their goal is to shift almost 10% of positions toward women and BAME representation "by next year". No way they'll do it simply by promoting.

They say that. They don't mean that.
They are lying and virtue signaling.

They will fail their goal.

EDIT
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan...-get-rejected/

Read what is the 6th stated reason for a qualified applicant to get rejected:
" 6. The applicant is qualified, but they don't fit the profile that the hiring manager or an HR person had in mind for the new hire -- whether it's their age, their educational background, or some other irrelevant factor. "


It is bad when the requirement is "not brown" but it also bad when the requirement is "brown".

EDIT2
https://web.archive.org/web/20101120...6502203400.htm
In Tamil Nadu state in India, 3.5% of government jobs and academic seats are reserved for Christians.
So, the 6% of Christians can apply for those 3.5% seats AND the 31% of the seats that are open for everyone.

Now, let's say there's a position for say... an associate professor in a uni that has to hire a Christian to fill their quota... but can't find an assistant professor that is a Christian that is interested. After all, Christians are just 6% of the state and some may not be willing to go work in that area or Uni.
What happens in that case? Well, in some cases the position remains open because they can't find a Christian, while other qualified Hindu academics remain on the sidelines.

Do you find this fair? Yes, Christians have been marginalized in that area for centuries and they are very poor.
But leaving a position unfilled because you can't get the "right religion" for the quotas is wrong.

[Cyclops]

Yeah, here we start talking.
The issue for BBC to suggest those changes is not their desire to root out paedophile sympathizers. I am sure of that.
BBC doesn't move into this direction to "shake things up" in their board and managerial positions. They are simply put, virtue signaling to gain goodwill. This is a smoke & mirrors bullcrap that will shield the paedophiles not expose them.

Also, LGBT includes Paedophiles BTW. There is a shocking number of gay paedophiles. I don't want to accuse the Catholic Church but the victims of the few bad apples are often boys victimized by male priests (which is part of the reason you see so many men in the paedophiles).
Locking 8% as LGBT, you increase the number of potential paedophiles, you don't decrease it.

The question of what sexual orientation a rapist is is very complex. Rape can be about power and hurting people more than sexual enjoyment, and many paedos are opportunistic, they rape whatever is on offer (which may explain why so many Catholic priests rape so many boys,they tended to be in charge of boys) but its not cut and dried. I don't think its right to say LGBT are more likely to be rapists.

I hope you do realize that the issue we conservative have is NOT that there will be black people in the news. There already were black people in the news and nobody was offended or cared.
The issue we have is that in a country of 10% black\brown people, the channel would lock18% of the roles for black\brown people. That means that in order to virtue signal and appear woke to people like you, they disadvantage the white people.
When black person A with less qualifications than white person B gets the coveted promotion simply because of more melanin in his skin, then white person B will start feeling resentment

I agree quotas are clumsy and often counterproductive. As mentioned they are also being abused by giving lower roles to BAME people and coveted powerful roles to the usual suspects.

This initiative is of their own making. They are "sorting things out themselves".



The Equality Act does not oblige businesses/organizations to meet quotas. It prevents discrimination in the workplace and provides for race-based preferences in the hiring process. And as far as I'm concerned, all racial/gender quotas are superficial. Maybe if the BBC tried to diversify the views of their staff, rather than their pigmentation, we might end up with a broadcaster that actually represents the country. We've reached a point where breaking into this liberal hug-box will require gov't intervention (which I doubt will be forthcoming).

Yes we largely agree. I feel the quota is external forces at work as it looks like a clumsy bandaid solution and is often counterproductive. If you leave the current system to sort itself pout it usually just quietly keeps deliverying skewed outcomes. Its like how the US electoral system keeps delivering creepy oldies (usually men) with past ties to Epstein and Bill Clinton as candidates (both parties did it again this time around) .

Sadly in my country the Murdoch and Stokes cabals have got their way and have cut even more from the ABC's budget. I have to say the external forces exerting influence are sometimes worse than the corrupt incumbents in most institutions.

[Megasalexandros]

Who decided that western white countries should be diverse and went forward in order to legislate this?

We need to understand that there is a think tank behind this form of decisions and NOTHING is arbitrary and spontaneous, it is a carefully planned out scheme and it comes from the absolute top of the establishment. There is literally no major company that did not pledge allegiance to this anti european "diverse" master plan.

[AqD]

Wouldn't it also mean everyone can change gender or get a minority stepmother to boost chance of employment? The loopholes are endless

[alhoon]

Wouldn't it also mean everyone can change gender or get a minority stepmother to boost chance of employment? The loopholes are endless

Well, a student of mine that wanted to go to a highly prestigious Uni in England, registered as Bisexual (he is not, he is straight) just to increase his chances because 2% of the seats are for LGBT only.
The competition for that 2% is like a third of what it is for the rest of the seats. As such he stands much higher chances to be accepted on the Elizabeth-Warren tactic. It is actually his only chance to be accepted as his degrees are not good enough to enter without bypassing much of the competition.

[TheLeft]

Nobody suggests it is.
What we say is that it is wrong even if it is not as bad as what the people of color are going through in the USA or South Asians in the UK.

Hence, you cannot fight racism with different racism.
Being a dick to white people is not the answer to racism even if it is not as bad as what the South Asians went through.

Let me give you another example: English Academia finds reasons to snub South European researchers. Many of them look at us through a different lens, as if we're frauds and where we cut through the rubbish they feel animosity that we are at their level when they feel we shouldn't be. Simply put, many English academics feel Southern Europeans should be less educated and less successful than them. It is not overt and they won't say it openly.
Obviously it doesn't even come close to what Indians or ex-colony personnel go through (the "brown people"). At least we're treated as 2nd-tier Europeans (along with Poles and ex-Soviet block people).
But it is there and we have to work twice as hard for the English to take us seriously, accept and fund our project proposals or evaluate our research papers.
A Spanish professor from Valencia that I know, was kinda told to his face that while they trust him because they know him, they don't trust his team because they are all from Spain (=lazy crooks) and that he should change some of them with English. As a note, that same professor is Vice Chair in an certain European action I will not mention while his CV is better than the German professor in Luxemburg that is the chair of that action.
And I also have examples from Italian people and Greek people that work\worked in the UK. They were treated with suspicion or contempt. |
Again, certainly not of the levels that former-colony personnel go through. But they did.

Anyway, Nobody I know from the Greek, Spanish or Italian academics in the UK ever suggested or thought it was a good idea to fight that by "locking seats" in unis for South Europeans because some of us were denied academic credibility for our work (papers that were rejected until we magically put the English person as first author, projects that were not funded, etc).

While indeed Sar1n made that comment, the point he was making was that these quotas lead to people suffering injustice.
Sure, it won't be "fired because you don't have enough melanin", but it would be "the not-straight, not-white, not-male person takes the seat". Your genitals or the melanin content of your skin should not define whether you get the promotion one way or the other.


PS. In UK the main problem with racism is towards Central Asians and South Asians, not Black people. Very few English would look down at a black person born and raised in UK or a black person from USA. But someone from an Indian community? Well, that's different.

As a born and bred Londoner, I find your source-free anecdotal 'evidence' rather amusing. But sure, 'man who might have been here once or twice on holiday', please continue to tell me how British people think about race...

[alhoon]

As a born and bred Londoner, I find your source-free anecdotal 'evidence' rather amusing. But sure, 'man who might have been here once or twice on holiday', please continue to tell me how British people think about race...

Do you realize how many Greeks have gone to work in England or stayed in England for years? None of them ever suggested the English having problems with a black cashier or a black coworker, but most agree Indians, Vietnamese etc are looked down upon. Also, look at the incidents in English news media.
Long story short, everyone knows that, it's not a secret.

[Aexodus]

Another anecdote. Call it ‘lived experience’.

My grandfather has always said that while the Asians cause problems, the blacks don’t and have integrated.

There’s clearly a different perception towards black people than towards Asians among some British people.

[TheLeft]

Do you realize how many Greeks have gone to work in England or stayed in England for years? None of them ever suggested the English having problems with a black cashier or a black coworker, but most agree Indians, Vietnamese etc are looked down upon. Also, look at the incidents in English news media.
Long story short, everyone knows that, it's not a secret.

So unsubstantiated, unsourced and unverified accounts are now gospel because you're all Greek? How utterly bizarre...

You do know that the plural of anecdote isn't evidence?

Another anecdote. Call it ‘lived experience’.

My grandfather has always said that while the Asians cause problems, the blacks don’t and have integrated.

There’s clearly a different perception towards black people than towards Asians among some British people.

Claiming that an entire ethnic group, Asian people, cause (completely unspecified) problems? Riiight...

Sounds like your Grandfather was quite the racist, and for some reason you seem to value his bigoted view of the world. I'm not sure I'd be claiming him to be quite the wise and sage-like figure you seem to think he is...

[Aexodus]

It’s not a wise point of view, it’s a representative point of view.

[wanderwegger]

Besides the Northern Irish are a white monolith part being a profoundly racist statement demeaning to the great diversity of the Northern Irish, one of the friendliest and most decent peoples on this earth (especially to each other.

Question: As long as you don’t see color what’s the big deal on historical productions? A moor never led the Venetian armies but Shakespeare’s Tudor audience and millions after have no problem with it. Ciaran Hinds isn’t an Italian of the patrician Roman class but he was one hell of a Caesar. We let Brits play Germans and Americans play Brits. Not historically accurate but the shows go on. Unless it’s just race you have a problem with?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/enter...-arts-53135022



From now on, the BBC will have quotas to meet for non whites, women, and the disabled. This includes both on screen and off screen employees.

I’d like to start by outlining how this will affect Northern Irish productions. Will this make our shows no longer marketable to a national audience? If so, it is an insulting slap in the face to not just our film industry but taxpayers too. Spending 100 million pounds on this is a waste in an apparently bloated budget.

This will require the corporation to know the ethnicities of each and every one of its staff, which throws a wrench into the idea of blind hiring. I thought the point of blind hiring was to prevent discrimination.

This policy hires workers based on inherent qualities and not on merit, this is unfair to those who are told they can’t hold a camera because they have the wrong coloured hands.

For historical shows, it will be a farce. For practical reasons, it is self evident why diversity quotas for pre-modern Britain is problematic.

And finally, the headline image from the article is from a show that isn’t even BBC produced. The only reason it seems to be there is because the cast of ‘I May Destroy You’ is mostly black. Not very representative.

I for one, disagree with this for the reasons outlined above. If you disagree please leave your thoughts below.

This thread is about racial quotas vs blind hiring, and not the definition of racism. Note that until now I have not employed that word. Please leave your academic treatises on the nature of racism at the door.