OSH;1398511 wrote:I have applied at several jobs recently. I no longer put "White" or "Caucasian" in the race category. I leave it blank, if I can.

Same here.

I think I really like what I created here.

OSH;1398511 wrote:I have applied at several jobs recently. I no longer put "White" or "Caucasian" in the race category. I leave it blank, if I can.

If they are looking for a woman or minority to fill the position, then why waste your time interviewing?

Hiring managers don't see the EEOC info anyway, so it's a moot point. Even if they did, by not filling in the box they'd have to assume you're white. If you were a minority and didn't check it, then you're probably too stupid to hire.

gut;1398569 wrote:If they are looking for a woman or minority to fill the position, then why waste your time interviewing?

Hiring managers don't see the EEOC info anyway, so it's a moot point.

I didn't say anything about interviewing. I only WISH I could get lucky enough to get an interview...

gut;1398569 wrote:If they are looking for a woman or minority ...

gut;1398569 wrote:If they are looking for a man or Caucasian ...

If either one of those would be racist, then I'd suggest both are.

O-Trap;1398524 wrote:Same here.

When given the option, I always leave it blank as I believe it is irrelevant.

O-Trap;1398586 wrote:If either one of those would be racist, then I'd suggest both are.

I didn't say either was racist. You implied that position by leaving it blank. If you believe it honestly hurts your chances, then you're wasting your time when you show up to interview and they see you are white. Like I said, only a white person or very stupid minority doesn't self-identify.

But there's nothing racist to say they are looking to fill 2 of 10 interview slots with minorities. They are required to do so by law, not overtly but that's the impact of how the laws are enforced.

gut;1398592 wrote:I didn't say either was racist. You implied that position by leaving it blank. If you believe it honestly hurts your chances, then you're wasting your time when you show up to interview and they see you are white. Like I said, only a white person or very stupid minority doesn't self-identify.

But there's nothing racist to say they are looking to fill 2 of 10 interview slots with minorities. They are required to do so by law, not overtly but that's the impact of how the laws are enforced.

Sometimes it's nice just to get an interview though. Regardless of what they are looking for -- because, ultimately, the applicant does not know that they need or want to hire a minority. If it ups my chances of getting an interview, I'll do that.

I wish there was a place on those forms to put "Appalachian" or "European American." I would definitely include one or both of those.

gut;1398592 wrote:I didn't say either was racist.

I would suggest both are racist in practice. I hope that didn't come across as me implying you were being racist, though.

gut;1398592 wrote:You implied that position by leaving it blank.

Eh, it's listed as optional, and I don't see why it matters, which is why I leave it blank.

gut;1398592 wrote:If you believe it honestly hurts your chances, then you're wasting your time when you show up to interview and they see you are white.

I don't know whether or not it helps or hurts. Again, I just don't think it matters ... or at least I don't see WHY it would matter.

gut;1398592 wrote:Like I said, only a white person or very stupid minority doesn't self-identify.

Which is think is telling. The fact that any intelligent minority would self-identify suggests that any intelligent minority recognizes a potential advantage, a judgment in their favor so to speak, based purely on the color of their skin. I just don't see why skin tone should matter.

For what it's worth, I do have one friend who refuses to answer that question who isn't white and isn't stupid (it's a periodic diatribe of his). He does so because, in his words, "I was born in America, just like you." He gets annoyed at any special treatment based on his ethnicity. From the outside looking in, he comes across as a chronic over-achiever, seemingly to "out-earn" anything allotted him on a racial basis.

I can see his position, though he gets weirdly staunch about it. He's hardly stupid, but I think his justifications for not self-identifying have logical merit.

gut;1398592 wrote:But there's nothing racist to say they are looking to fill 2 of 10 interview slots with minorities.

I would again suggest there is, because the judgment used views race/color as essentially a requirement of hiring. We're merely changing HOW we're racist. It's certainly a more benign racism than in our past, but whether benign or malicious, judging one by his skin color is judging one by his skin color. Sauce for the goose ...

gut;1398592 wrote:They are required to do so by law, not overtly but that's the impact of how the laws are enforced.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm suggesting that the enforcement is wrong.

O-Trap;1398605 wrote: I can see his position, though he gets weirdly staunch about it. He's hardly stupid, but I think his justifications for not self-identifying have logical merit.

I can respect that and admire his integrity and principle, but that don't pay the bills. As a businessman, I DO have to question his judgement for not taking advantage of a perfectly legitimate and legal advantage. I would agree that AA does a disservice to qualified/exceptional individuals that have to deal with whispers of not deserving their position as a result.

O-Trap;1398605 wrote: I would again suggest there is, because the judgment used views race/color as essentially a requirement of hiring. We're merely changing HOW we're racist. It's certainly a more benign racism than in our past, but whether benign or malicious, judging one by his skin color is judging one by his skin color. Sauce for the goose ...

Take issue with the law, but being forced to comply with the law does not make the action racist. In some cases compliance is actually court-ordered. IMO, equal opp is often a scapegoat for just not being the best for the job. Truth be told, there are probably 10 unqualified/undeserving white guys that got the job for every EE screw...just tougher for the losers to make excuses.

O-Trap;1398605 wrote: I don't know whether or not it helps or hurts. Again, I just don't think it matters ... or at least I don't see WHY it would matter.

It matters only for reporting statistics, to demonstrate their hiring practices are not discriminatory. Hiring managers should not be seeing that information in their stack of resumes.

gut;1398610 wrote:I can respect that and admire his integrity and principle, but that don't pay the bills. As a businessman, I DO have to question his judgement for not taking advantage of a perfectly legitimate and legal advantage. I would agree that AA does a disservice to qualified/exceptional individuals that have to deal with whispers of not deserving their position as a result.

Provided I know him as well as I think I do, I think he questions your assumption of legitimacy. I would contend that there are plenty of things that are legal, even mandatory, that I may not recognize as legitimate. That's MY view: That the legality of something doesn't validate its legitimacy as a practice.

gut;1398610 wrote:Take issue with the law, but being forced to comply with the law does not make the action racist. In some cases compliance is actually court-ordered. IMO, equal opp is often a scapegoat for just not being the best for the job. Truth be told, there are probably 10 unqualified/undeserving white guys that got the job for every EE screw...just tougher for the losers to make excuses.

I don't have a frame of reference by which I can claim ratios, but I don't think it matters. If such requirements weren't a thing, the complainers would have no more excuse, and the one guy wouldn't get screwed.

I ultimately do take issue with the law. I'm not blaming the company for carrying out what is required. I'm calling into question the legitimacy ... even the ethics ... of what is required. Such stipulations force skin color to continue to be an issue. They force it to remain a deciding factor ... an area of judgment ... which I assert is the antithesis of the intent of the movements that have striven for racial equality.

gut;1398611 wrote:It matters only for reporting statistics, to demonstrate their hiring practices are not discriminatory. Hiring managers should not be seeing that information in their stack of resumes.

Perhaps they don't. While I've conducted interviews, I usually just had the resume and letter of application in hand, so I certainly don't recall seeing it myself. I will plead ignorance on such a matter, but maintain that it is, at best, a metric with no practical purpose other than for some governmental organization to have a reason to scrutinize a business.

O-Trap;1398643 wrote:Provided I know him as well as I think I do, I think he questions your assumption of legitimacy. I would contend that there are plenty of things that are legal, even mandatory, that I may not recognize as legitimate. That's MY view: That the legality of something doesn't validate its legitimacy as a practice.

I would guess at least half the public disagrees, and the courts have repeatedly struck down challenges to the law. Not a gray area IMO. If a friend placed his resume on top of the pile, is that any more or less legitimate? Would he also not take advantage of that? Like I said, I'd question his judgement.

O-Trap;1398643 wrote: Perhaps they don't. While I've conducted interviews, I usually just had the resume and letter of application in hand, so I certainly don't recall seeing it myself.

I'm pretty sure the fine print says it is for information purposes only and will not be disclosed. But I think it's different for college applications since they can legally award points to a diversity score.

gut;1398740 wrote:I would guess at least half the public disagrees, and the courts have repeatedly struck down challenges to the law.

Eh, the courts don't mean much for our purposes, as I'm calling legality as a justification into question. It'd be circular.

As for the public, I'd say they might be split on this topic, but as for the claim that legislation doesn't equate to legitimacy, I bet most people would agree.

Not a gray area IMO. If a friend placed his resume on top of the pile, is that any more or less legitimate? Would he also not take advantage of that? Like I said, I'd question his judgement.

O-Trap;1398742 wrote:..but as for the claim that legislation doesn't equate to legitimacy, I bet most people would agree.

It's not some one-off or unchallenged claim - the courts, liberal and conservative, have addressed this issue again and again. The business world is competitive - if he goes this way on a black & white issue (no pun intended), I would have to be concerned over his judgement in grayer areas. Would he not do business with a customer who's politics or products he disapproves of?

I could also question his integrity (as a hiring manager, I don't know the guy). He may very well know (and should know, if he can read) that checking that box doesn't do a damn thing for him - I'm guessing I'd probably see that he's black when he comes in for an interview.

gut;1398750 wrote:It's not some one-off or unchallenged claim - the courts, liberal and conservative, have addressed this issue again and again. The business world is competitive - if he goes this way on a black & white issue (no pun intended), I would have to be concerned over his judgement in grayer areas. Would he not do business with a customer who's politics or products he disapproves of?

I'm not suggesting it hasn't been addressed by the courts, but if you're calling into question what the courts are establishing, then using the courts to defend themselves is circular. Again, I'm not blaming the company. They're abiding by needless, merit-less legislation. They can't help that. Just because the courts insist on a legal issue, it does not grant either side of that issue any inherent merit as though the courts had control of what can be defined as sensible.

gut;1398750 wrote:I could also question his integrity (as a hiring manager, I don't know the guy). He may very well know (and should know, if he can read) that checking that box doesn't do a damn thing for him - I'm guessing I'd probably see that he's black when he comes in for an interview.

He's not black. He's Korean, and thereby, a minority. He was born in Mishawaka, Indiana to middle-American parents whose parents had moved over here as children with their parents. So, if I have great grandparents from Wales just as he has them from Korea, how is he different than I am? Would you see that he's of Asian descent in an interview? Of course you would. So why do you need to know ahead of time?