Seattle emphasizing diversity in hires

[BKIslandersFan]

So the NFL should force the next NFL team with an opening for a head coach to hire only a black candidate to try to create more equal opportunity?

Terrible comparison but hardly a surprise. Seattle won’t be only hiring minorities and women. But keep lying.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Then why mention meeting certain %s? Why not say just that?

Because they knew it would make some people mad.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Easy. Head coaches in NFL and college football? Guess how many minority are in position of power?

Just because they can drink from the same fountains now doesn’t mean equality actually exist. Maybe you should escape the white suburban bubble and actually take time and talk to people of color.

Quick question, and you totally don't have to answer - but are you a woman or a visible minority?

 

[daver]

Because they knew it would make some people mad.

Be serious. It's a PR move that feeds a narrative that women and minorities need help in getting jobs or that unless a specific effort is made to counter it, white people and males will always be in power positions.

And as some responses in this thread show, that racism and sexism lurk just below the surface everywhere.

If the company believes that they should break people down into superficial identities to give an appearance of being "diverse", just do it. Don't make it a big deal.

 

[Noldo]

This is making some very unusual assumptions that all white males think the same way. That being said, that the team felt the need to publicize their "diversity" clearly indicates an additional or different motivation than what you are talking about. I think it is just a PR move frankly. It looks good on paper, makes them look woke, and noone will go back in two years to see how diverse they actually are including any of the posters in this thread who are getting worked up about this.

There is definitely a PR aspect in this approach. However, there are legitimate reasons to promote a diverse recruitment policy. For example, such a policy may encourage applicants who share these values, or feel that Seattle is more likely to give them an opportunity, to prefer Seattle over some other employer. After all, the team has to compete for talent with many other businesses and if they legitimately become number one choice for groups of candidates, their chances of getting the best improve, at least among that group of candidates.

Of course that approach is not without risks. It may alienate some who feel that they are not given equal opportunity or who believe that they would be seen as quata hires and thus undervalued. Any strong value statement also includes the risk that if the organization fails to uphold those values, it may cause backlash.

One can look at Nike’s campaign with Colin Kaepernick, Gillette’s #meToo ad or recent SAS advert as examples of difficulties a business can face, and advantages that may be reaped, if the company decides to take a stand in respect of polarizing issues.

 

[daver]

There is definitely a PR aspect in this approach. However, there are legitimate reasons to promote a diverse recruitment policy. For example, such a policy may encourage applicants who share these values, or feel that Seattle is more likely to give them an opportunity, to prefer Seattle over some other employer. After all, the team has to compete for talent with many other businesses and if they legitimately become number one choice for groups of candidates, their chances of getting the best improve, at least among that group of candidates.

Of course that approach is not without risks. It may alienate some who feel that they are not given equal opportunity or who believe that they would be seen as quata hires and thus undervalued. Any strong value statement also includes the risk that if the organization fails to uphold those values, it may cause backlash.

One can look at Nike’s campaign with Colin Kaepernick, Gillette’s #meToo ad or recent SAS advert as examples of difficulties a business can face, and advantages that may be reaped, if the company decides to take a stand in respect of polarizing issues.

Great post. I wouldn't suggest any company get involved in this type of stuff. Any short term gains will not be sustainable and now they have put themselves into a position where they can be held to a standard that is not good for business. Anyone can find examples of non-diversity; it is an impossible standard to reach especially when those judging one's diversity have an self sustaining agenda to always find "problems".

If the point is to make it look like a company is not sexist or racist, a ridiculous premise to begin, just like thinking that a company can have high morals, make a statement that you welcome a "diversity" and be done with it.

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

How about color and sex should be ignored and a pool of the best applicants should be called in and interviewed. Saying whites cant have jobs before deciding who is best with the most experience seems idiotic

Unfortunately, the effects of the American racial caste still presents issues w/ individuals and their ability to achieve a higher means of education and what have you to compete w/ whites.

 

[RogerRoger]

Unfortunately, the effects of the American racial caste still presents issues w/ individuals and their ability to achieve a higher means of education and what have you to compete w/ whites.

You think there is an overrepresentation of white in high profile colleges/Ivy League?

 

[SmytheKing]

I love that everyone saying "they should hire the best person" doesn't even see how that's the sort of soft racism people talk about existing everywhere. You're assuming they aren't because they're putting an emphasis in hiring women and/or minorities. Your assumption is that the job SHOULD have gone to a white man or something even if you don't realize it. You weren't in any interviews and you won't ever be in any of them. There's no way to tell who is "best" for a position. You can only know who is qualified to do it. These people who are hired are going to be qualified to do it.

It doesn't mean they'll do a great job or a bad job either. It just means they're going to be doing the job. White coaches get fired every day in the NHL and no one bats an eye when they get a job again later. But a woman gets a job and suddenly it's "well I hope they hired her because she's capable and not because it's for PR."

Seriously, time to do some introspection and move forward.

 

[SuperScript29]

I love that everyone saying "they should hire the best person" doesn't even see how that's the sort of soft racism people talk about existing everywhere. You're assuming they aren't because they're putting an emphasis in hiring women and/or minorities. Your assumption is that the job SHOULD have gone to a white man or something even if you don't realize it. You weren't in any interviews and you won't ever be in any of them. There's no way to tell who is "best" for a position. You can only know who is qualified to do it. These people who are hired are going to be qualified to do it

It doesn't mean they'll do a great job or a bad job either. It just means they're going to be doing the job. White coaches get fired every day in the NHL and no one bats an eye when they get a job again later. But a woman gets a job and suddenly it's "well I hope they hired her because she's capable and not because it's for PR."

Seriously, time to do some introspection and move forward.

No, but when people talk about "diversity quotas", I'm going to assume that things like race, gender, etc is in your hiring criteria, which is bullshit. If you're going to hire the best person for the job, just go ahead and do it regardless. There's no need to announce crap about diversity, the last I checked, there's no ban on minorities from applying for the job. Let the individual's capabilities speak for themselves whether they're men, women, white, black, or whatever, and let the hiring process be organic rather than forced.

 

[Kamiccolo]

I think right now the problem is that progressive people are divided between if they want true equality or what they perceive as revenge.

 

[daver]

I love that everyone saying "they should hire the best person" doesn't even see how that's the sort of soft racism people talk about existing everywhere. You're assuming they aren't because they're putting an emphasis in hiring women and/or minorities. Your assumption is that the job SHOULD have gone to a white man or something even if you don't realize it. You weren't in any interviews and you won't ever be in any of them. There's no way to tell who is "best" for a position. You can only know who is qualified to do it. These people who are hired are going to be qualified to do it.

It doesn't mean they'll do a great job or a bad job either. It just means they're going to be doing the job. White coaches get fired every day in the NHL and no one bats an eye when they get a job again later. But a woman gets a job and suddenly it's "well I hope they hired her because she's capable and not because it's for PR."

Seriously, time to do some introspection and move forward.

Maybe if the team didn't do PR in promoting "diversity" this wouldn't come up perhaps?

 

[Gardner McKay]

Then why mention meeting certain %s? Why not say just that?

Because frankly, they are pandering. You could even make the argument it is a good marketing strategy given the location of the team (probably wouldn't have same effect in Dallas or Raleigh..). But, I've said it once and I'll say it again, Seattle deserves no kudos, nor do they deserve any hate. Any organization worth their salt has a good affirmative action plan in place to ensure they are in line with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most federal contractors are required to have an AAP and even if you aren't, from an ethics and liability perspective it is still a good idea to have one.

All plans *should* in some form state that they are going to do their best to be representative of the population they serve. Seattle, as a more diverse city, should be emphasizing diversity in their hires. It isn't acceptable from an HR perspective to have an overwhelmingly white or male workforce. The bunch of white dudes trope is... well just that, a tired and inaccurate trope.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I think right now the problem is that progressive people are divided between if they want true equality or what they perceive as revenge.

No they aren't. Progressives are such a boogeyman on this site I wonder if a good chunk of users are too afraid to step outside of their own house.

 

[singlesliceofcheese]

Unfortunately, the effects of the American racial caste still presents issues w/ individuals and their ability to achieve a higher means of education and what have you to compete w/ whites.

In what sense statistically speaking?

 

[Benedict Kovalchuk]

I think right now the problem is that progressive people are divided between if they want true equality or what they perceive as revenge.

It is probably closer to say that their vision of justice just ends up looking a lot like revenge.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Thread closes at 7:30pm EST.

Get 'em in now

 

[lottster14]

Diversity is good and no one should be considered less equal based on race, if you're capable you're capable, if you're a good person you're a good person, regardless of race. but trying to shame a skin color and gender simply for existing (in 2020, white men) that is crazy and racism in itself, and a result of the purposeful divide and conquer.

Having said that, this is strictly a business move designed to fit into the ongoing paradigm shift of society

 

[daver]

Because frankly, they are pandering. You could even make the argument it is a good marketing strategy given the location of the team (probably wouldn't have same effect in Dallas or Raleigh..). But, I've said it once and I'll say it again, Seattle deserves no kudos, nor do they deserve any hate. Any organization worth their salt has a good affirmative action plan in place to ensure they are in line with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most federal contractors are required to have an AAP and even if you aren't, from an ethics and liability perspective it is still a good idea to have one.

All plans *should* in some form state that they are going to do their best to be representative of the population they serve. Seattle, as a more diverse city, should be emphasizing diversity in their hires. It isn't acceptable from an HR perspective to have an overwhelmingly white or male workforce. The bunch of white dudes trope is... well just that, a tired and inaccurate trope.

Why though? Who the hell cares except those pushing a specific agenda?

I think the majority, likely the vast majority, of people don't want something as superficial as your gender or skin colour having any relevance in how you are treated so f*** the minority, probably a very small minority, that do care about this stuff.

 

[Kamiccolo]

No they aren't. Progressives are such a boogeyman on this site I wonder if a good chunk of users are too afraid to step outside of their own house.

I've read some scary shit that has support on sites like twitter. I think everyone has a right to be worried about the direction our countries take, and if that involves going hand in hand, or the wish to turn the tables and enact revenge on those who are like who hurt you.

Nothing has ever shifted in one big motion. It's always a slow slide into madness. Questioning each time you slide shouldn't be frowned on. We should each have responsibility to try and ensure that some of the horrific things of the past are never experienced again by anyone.

And no, I am not extrapolating all of this from just the OP, but it is a symptom of another slide.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I've read some scary **** that has support on sites like twitter. I think everyone has a right to be worried about the direction our countries take, and if that involves going hand in hand, or the wish to turn the tables and enact revenge on those who are like who hurt you.

Nothing has ever shifted in one big motion. It's always a slow slide into madness. Questioning each time you slide shouldn't be frowned on. We should each have responsibility to try and ensure that some of the horrific things of the past are never experienced again by anyone.

And no, I am not extrapolating all of this from just the OP, but it is a symptom of another slide.

If you say so.

 

[Major4Boarding]

OK, so I gave it an extra hour

Before I close this thread, I want to make sure it's clearly mentioned why.

Overall, we're thankful that given its such a sensitive subject that this thread lasted 13 pages. Civilly for the majority of it. That being despite the fact that it barely touched upon the subject matter for this Forum. Which is in our banner:

"Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion."

And although the discussion was well put by both sides, regardless of where you all land on this, if I don't close this thread now it'll just keep going. Which sets a precedent for future subjects to be posted here and debates that are ongoing that would be far less on-topic. So I hope there's an understanding as to why.

- Closed