I get why people find it uncomfortable, but as far as I can see it's just one trainee position out of the how ever many new hires the BBC makes every year. The article itself says positive discrimination is not legal generally, but this falls into an allowed category of trainee/apprenticeship positions in industries where minorities are under-represented which sounds fair enough to me. "Best candidate for the job" is one thing if you're interviewing for a really specialised position that only a few people would qualify for and you have few applicants to choose between. For junior entry-level positions there will be so many qualified candidates it is practically impossible to judge "best for the job". In those situations we end up making decisions based on hunches (aka prejudices - we all have them even if we don't like to think so) and then looking for the evidence to support the decision rather than the other way around.
I fully agree with you here, that access should be fair all round, and socio-economic background needs to be part of that. Maybe banning unpaid work-experience is an answer, because that immediately creates opportunities for people who have the means to work for free supported by mum and dad. Mentoring has to be another part of it I think. I was the first in my family to go to university, and made it through that and into what has been a pretty successful career despite being utterly clueless the process. My uni friends and colleagues at work were clued up because parents and siblings had been to uni, had done the careers 'milk-round', and had professional jobs. The company I work for now has outreach programmes into schools in under-privileged areas of South London, and I've been involved in mentoring teenagers there through career options, helping with uni applications etc. The disadvantage they face is so clear when you speak with them and you can tell they just know nothing about what options they have and how to navigate their way through it.
Just to give another side to this closed shop. When my step son left Uni and was unsure what he wanted to do with his life, he visited some relatives in London (his dads family). The couple both work in TV comedy (BBC, C4) and offered him a job, if he fancied a go as a runner. To be completely straight, he thought about it for about a weekend, but he had no real desire to work in TV. Written in the absolute knowledge that at the same time literally thousands of graduates were desperate for that kind of opportunity. Oh and for absolute clarity @Jay he’s a working class white male with a degree in economics who now works as a data analyst. 1st generation graduate - extremely bright. I’d guess his upbringing and yours aren’t a million miles apart. OTOH my daughter loves drama, did loads of AmDram as a kid, and got a drama degree, but was absolutely certain she’d never get a career in the Arts.
In an ideal world there would be no positive discrimination and it would be best candidate for the job. History has shown though that it rarely ever was best candidate for the job and so now they're having to right some wrongs. A necessary evil until cultures change. Jay brings up some points though. My white male privilege have been pointed out on numerous occasions by people that barely know me. In some ways they are undoubtedly right, especially the male part. I don't know what oppressive discrimination feels like. No complaints from me. But... It just grates a bit that they don't know this 'privilege' involved going to White Cross, statistically one of the worst schools in Britain, going to uni but having to work three days a week to pay my way, being turned down time and time again in interviews down south (no such problems when applying up north so...) It's great being lumped in with the gap year darlings from the middle classes.
Your saying that white people have had an advantage for generations and your probably right but you are now advocating exactly the same thing the other way round,two wrongs don,t make a right, the best candidate should be given the job no matter what race, gender, religion or sexual orientation they are..
The point is they're not getting the opportunities to show they could be the right person for the job in the first place. This is just redressing the balance a little.
I'm not advocating for anything. I just think that as a white man, the chances are I've unknowingly had an advantage over any non-white job candidate who may or may not have applied for the same job as I have, so I can hardly be offended if the tables are turned. Just to be clear though, I've against so-called "positive discrimination" as a rule. I've been disabled for about 13 years now, had mental health issues for the last 10 years, and actually turned a job down a few years ago because on the telephone call offering me the role, the guy on the other end let slip that my disability worked massively in my favour, as they could "tick the boxes". Now, it was as close to a dream job as I could get, barring running out at Oakwell as our star striker, but I felt so offended that I might have beat someone to a job who was more suitable than me that I told them to shove it. I wanted the job on merit, not because it looked better on the company for hiring someone with mental and physical disabilities. I don't know if a black(for example) would feel the way I did or not though, as I can imagine a lifetime of being ground down by an allegedly racist system could have a profound effect on you...
I,m very sorry to hear of your plight, i too have suffered mental illness pretty much all my life, i just think this box ticking mentality that we have adopted isn,t the way, guiding companies in the right direction,better training for personnel managers to see potential in every candidate etc is the way forward, i just think that pushing things like this is only going to lead to more division, what about making people employ more gay people or more buddhists , i just think its the wrong road to go down, best person for the job i think, minority groups should certainly be given as much chance as anyone else but it should always be on merit..
It's not about "personnel managers" (or HR as they are commonly known now). Recruiting isn't a wholly devolved function and requires whatever part of the business to be involved in the recruiting. So if you're responsible for sales and need someone in that function, you'll have more idea of skills required than HR, they'll just do more of the admin around the sifting through to offer etc. What is repeatedly shown in studies is that people recruit people they like, which is usually like themselves. Its what people do, look for similarities and so people recruit in their own image. So when white people (and often white men) hold the levers of power and influence, it's no surprise that white men have been offered more jobs than any other category, especially as seniority increases. There are exceptions, of course, but thats the backdrop. I think the important thing to consider here is the dissatisfaction a white male may feel that a job is closed off to them. That they are excluded. Rejected before being considered for one single role. Now imagine if that was what you were faced with every single day of your life from cradle to grave, just because your skin was white. Just imagine. S**t, eh?
It’s not exactly the same and doesn’t even come close. There’ll be thousands of Oxbridge graduates walk straight into high profile jobs over this summer; this one job at the BBC for not much more than minimum wage doesn’t scratch the surface of ‘exactly the same’ privilege does it?
So, not only do we have white people having it easier than BAME people, and men easier than women, but the upper class have it easier than the middle class who, in turn, have it easier than the working class. Not just with jobs, but from the moment you start at an infant school in Barnsley, you will have to be so much better to succeed than a child who starts school on the same day in Windsor. Not because of who you are, but who your parents are - and their parents.
So are we now just talking about high profile jobs?, my point is, no matter whether its a ceo job in a multi national or a counter assistant at mcdonalds, everyone should have the same opportunities and forcing employers to employ certain groups of people whether it be black/white , gay/straight. man/woman imo is wrong...
Having a huge section of society that look at a job description, thinking to themselves "no point applying" is wrong.
I agree it is wrong but forcing employers to employ certain people isn,t the answer, where does it stop...
No ones ‘forcing’ an employer to do anything. An employer has looked at its recruitment strategy and decided it’s clearly made some mistakes and is trying to redress the balance… By hiring one person of colour. Of the hundreds of appointments they’ll make this year (some worth millions), one job at just over NMW will go to a black person. And the outraged refuse to accept the premise that there may have been some gaslighting going on.
Ring-fencing jobs for under-represented group is an excellent idea. spot-on! 'it stops' when all under-represented groups are equally represented at all levels in the work place.
