I posted recently about the racism at the bbc

And quite a lot of people said it wasn't racist if the BBC to make a firm commitment to having a certain number of black or foreign (or female) employees at the BBC.

What are people's opinions on the fact that positions within the BBC are being reserved solely for people of 'black, Asian or none-white' ethnicities?

For example, there is currently a position as a trainee researcher but white people are not allowed to apply that's right, we aren't talking about favouring minorities if two candidates are similarly skilled, it is a clear cut direction that white people are not allowed to apply for this position.

A job is going at CBBC but only if you aren't white.
BBC natural history, but only none whites may apply.

Now I don't care how you word it or what excuses you make, that is discrimination in its most clearest form. You have two people one white, one black and you are saying that the white guy can't apply due to skin colour. That is discrimination no matter how you dress it up

 

**** me...You're boring.

 

Thank you sugarplum. Now run along

 

On the other side if it is clearly white dominated regardless of the ratio of ethnic viewers then the system is probably racist .
Unless they are implying that all the white applicants or candidates are mostly superior than the ethnic candidates and hoping that excuse is accepted by the populace ,which I gond hard to believe.
I wouldn't call it racist I would say its sensible to allocate positions to avoid the issue of racism.imo

 

I use the reverse test. If the job said white people know it would be racist. To say no white people is therefore racist.

Everyone should be allowed to apply and then the best person given the job on merit not colour.

 

As I said at the time you first posted positive discrimination is wrong regardless of its intention. Roles should be filled on ability and qualifications to do the job. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I'd quite like to see these job advertisements. Any chance of a link?

 

Obviously the system and bodies that make these decisions are being questioned.
If the board making these decisions are predominantly white and mostly whites are being employed then surely that has to be questioned .
It seems that the only way ethnics can change this is by a change in policy.
Much as the same way women are having to force their way through constituency selection as they were not being represented .
The constituency's argued they were picking the best qualified person but legislation had to be changed and I have noticed a big difference in local area wards that used to be very macho dominant.

 

It's fairly common knowledge now that it's unfashionable to be a straight, white male. We have no chance with how lefty left this country is at times.

 

^^^^^

THis in spades. Any reference to positive discrimination means there is a negative. You cannot have one without the other. Quota systems are therefore racist/sexist by their very nature. For example, If 80% of a population is a given ethnicity say white then 80% +/- say 5% of posts filled by white people would not be inherently racist. Ovelooking someone who is a best fit to fulfil an agenda is totally wrong

 

No chance of what, exactly?

 

Personally I think that if the hiring people are only hiring white people and are therefore racist then they should be sacked and replaced as it is they who are racist, not the age old system of applying for a job and being told yes or no.

If Bob from the BBC refuses to give jobs to black people is the solution to force him to by only allowing gblac people to apply for jobs or is it to say Bob is racist and to remove him? Surely it has to be to get rid of Bob.

An interview cannot be racist, an interviewer can.

 

IF advertised as such (which I doubt) it IS illegal as it would be covered under the race discrimination act. 'Non-whites only need apply' Absolutely illegal!!!

 

Direct quote from the job application:
All roles advertised through Creative Access are only open to UK nationals from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority.
Only applications via Creative Access will be considered – please DO NOT contact companies directly.

 

personally

I think same as always the best most qualified person should get whatever position they are up for end of,

 

Re: personally

That's correct and I agree,
Maybe its the people choosing that is under suspect.

 

Link?

 

Use Google flower

 

But is the system of choosing an employee fair?
If only whites are being given these roles then the ethnic community cannot have a say in how they are represented.

 

Sorry - you've got this completely wrong...

Creative access is a charity trust which offers training opportunities and internships (which this is) to disadvantaged and under-represented minorities. It is NOT offering a full-time job role or contract, and instead is a charity which funds and creates opportunities at large organisations with the hope of giving disadvantaged people a boost in certain areas.

The site is http://creativeaccess.org.uk/about-us if you are interested in reading more.

I can see how without the internship info it could be seen as racist - but it's important to realise that when the job goes to advert it is available to anybody. This is an internship to gain experience, the same kind of which are offered to poor people over rich, inner-city over countryside, state school over public. It's an opportunity, not racism.