Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The tyranny of egalitarianism
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bigverne



Joined: 12 May 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: The tyranny of egalitarianism Reply with quote

We have now reached the absurd situation where individuals may be prosecuted under anti-discrimination laws if they specifically state, in an advert, the type of people they wish to live with.

'Gay flatmate wanted' ads break equality laws

‘To let’ adverts often specify that a flatmate should be from a preferred ethnic group or have a particular sexual orientation.

However human rights experts have warned that under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for someone letting or sub-letting a property to “discriminate against or victimize” interested parties based on their religion, race, age, marital status, sexuality or physical ability.

This means that any ‘to let’ adverts that specify that a lodger should be gay, single or from a particular country fall foul of the law.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9372735/Gay-flatmate-wanted-ads-break-equality-laws.html

The government has no business in legislating into people's personal lives like this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
recessiontime



Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

why/how does this surprise you? This is England we are talking about
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm curious, can you post an ad requesting a specific gender?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the problem:

Quote:
Dr Nuno Ferreira, an expert in discrimination law at the University of Manchester, said that the act covers adverts placed by absentee landlords, letting agents, live-in landlords and tenants looking for housemates.

It doesn’t make a difference if the landlord lives in the premises or not,” Dr Ferriera told the BBC.


You don't get to pick your neighbors, but you're supposed to be able to pick your roommates (flatmates).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Here's the problem:

Quote:
Dr Nuno Ferreira, an expert in discrimination law at the University of Manchester, said that the act covers adverts placed by absentee landlords, letting agents, live-in landlords and tenants looking for housemates.

It doesn’t make a difference if the landlord lives in the premises or not,” Dr Ferriera told the BBC.


You don't get to pick your neighbors, but you're supposed to be able to pick your roommates (flatmates).


That's quite the poorly written law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NilesQ



Joined: 27 Nov 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember that discrimination is a two way street. If you do something intentionally kind for one group, by default you are discriminating against everyone else.

Why is it ok to say that only gay people can live somewhere, but it's discrimination if you say only straights need apply?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NilesQ wrote:
Remember that discrimination is a two way street. If you do something intentionally kind for one group, by default you are discriminating against everyone else.

Why is it ok to say that only gay people can live somewhere, but it's discrimination if you say only straights need apply?


In the case of looking for a roommate, both should be acceptable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ontheway



Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not just extend this kind of equal treatment instead of fighting it ...

Discrimination should be banned when choosing a mate as well. And perhaps we should ban job selection based on qualifications, that certainly discriminates against the less qualified. Why allow discrimination against things as well, why you should just stick anything into your mouth when you eat without discriminating, after all, when you show preference for one thing aren't you attacking the other, and the poor fellow who is selling that other thing might lose out ... So, whatever it is ... just eat it ...

Tell the government to "Eat it!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
young_clinton



Joined: 09 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ontheway wrote:
perhaps we should ban job selection based on qualifications, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI


Actually it's unethical not to discriminate in that manner for jobs. It has always been that way. And very few people would not want it that way.


Last edited by young_clinton on Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spartacist



Joined: 18 Feb 2012

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's political correctness gone mad! If you own something, you should have the right to pick and choose who comes in, gay, straight, black or white. You can be own own little dictator! That's freedom!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigverne



Joined: 12 May 2004

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Actually it's unethical not to discriminate in that manner for jobs. It has always been that way. And very few people would not want it that way.


Actually, in the US, aptitude tests have been challenged under anti-discrimination laws, making it more difficult for employers to discriminate on the basis of qualifications.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bigverne wrote:
Quote:
Actually it's unethical not to discriminate in that manner for jobs. It has always been that way. And very few people would not want it that way.


Actually, in the US, aptitude tests have been challenged under anti-discrimination laws, making it more difficult for employers to discriminate on the basis of qualifications.


The only tests I know that have been challenged are the ones that have a bias towards a certain group or invaded privacy, or the employer designed the test to exclude certain applicants, etc. Things of that nature. Although in this day and age I would imagine some folks challenging tests because they simply could not pass it and saying its discriminatory but even in those they need to show statistical data as back up and it has to be a significant sample size. Its very difficult to prove.

For example, math tests aren't challenged usually for example because its universal. Its hard to argue bias. When people challenged the SAT for cultural bias it was the English portion, not the Math. Maybe there are some tests that have been challenged that don't show a bias but for the court to ban it, in the judge's opinion there was some advantage to one set of applicants that put others at a disadvantage.

If a certain skill or aptitude is needed to do a job or a certain aptitude, just on the face of it, its difficult to have those banned.

Many types of jobs have aptitude tests. They are rarely challenged.

Here is an example of a type of test that was successfully challenged and its plain to see why.

http://www.applicantselection.biz/legalityArticle.asp
In a landmark ruling on the legality of psychological tests (for clinical diagnosis of abnormal behavior problems, i.e., the MMPI), the California Court of Appeals held that certain portions of a personality test administered to job applicants for security guard positions violated the state constitutional right to privacy and state anti- discrimination laws.
Certain questions, taken from test items on the MMPI, asked applicants about their religious preferences and sexual orientation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bigverne wrote:
Quote:
Actually it's unethical not to discriminate in that manner for jobs. It has always been that way. And very few people would not want it that way.


Actually, in the US, aptitude tests have been challenged under anti-discrimination laws, making it more difficult for employers to discriminate on the basis of qualifications.


Ricci v. DeStefano is more complicated than that.

A New Haven Fire Department written test revealed a disparate impact in its results, and only 8 vacancies were open, but all of the top 10 were white. New Haven discarded the tests and promoted nobody, because they were afraid they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court struck down New Haven's response, and said the city violated Title VII when it took remedial action, and should reinstate the tests.

The aptitude test wasn't challenged, but instead its removal was challenged. The test was upheld and reinstated, and rightly so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems like New Haven wanted to diversify their workforce. Nice sentiment but I would contend that it should be done without lowering standards.
There are plenty of fire departments that are diversified, major cities so it can be done and has been done.
I'm not so sure cases such as these are the norm and are rather the extreme exception.
The American workforce for all kinds of things is very diversified nowadays and the nations fire, police, etc. seems well trained.
I worked with one guy back home who wanted to be a firefigher very badly. It was his dream. They actually have schools that train you in all manner of thngs including how to take the tests and have mock tests. If you want to be a firefighter bad enough you go to that school. Basically, if you prepare you will pass it. There are some that look at the benefits, pay, etc but aren't as serious and just take the test to see if they'll pass it.
In this day and age I think its more along that lines. In the example, my guess and its only a guess, that if New Haven kept the results, the Blacks that didn't pass it wouldn't have filed suit. It was the whites who did (rightfully so in my opinion).

This case is not an example of what bigverne was talking about though. It was a fair test that was thrown out by the employer...out of fear perhaps...but it was self induced. No one was stopping them from hiring who they wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple:

http://glpiggy.net/2012/07/11/picky-picky/

Quote:
The Harvard Crimson corrects an article about the appointment of a new director of the “BGLTQ” student life office:

An earlier version of this article used the pronoun “she” to refer to Vanidy “Van” Bailey, the newly appointed director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. In fact, Bailey prefers not to be referred to by any gendered pronoun.


Must respect her wishes.

http://takimag.com/article/nams_kill_nams_and_they_blame_the_pilgrims_john_derbyshire


Quote:
Hence my title. NAM is an abbreviation for “Non-Asian Minority” commonly used among us wicked people who notice What Should Not Be Noticed.

A couple of weeks ago during a live radio forum to discuss the recent surge in violent crime in Chicago—homicides are up 38 percent on last year—a community activist asked this of Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy:

What does the community need to do with the Police Department to close the gap that I see…between the Police Department and the community…?

McCarthy’s answer:

Closing the gap, that’s a big issue. It’s a long time coming. Um, you know, we’ve done a lot of things wrong in policing in this country. I’m willing to admit that. But this goes back two, three hundred years to the time when Pilgrims came here and things started developing from that, the African American experience in this country.

Chicagoans kill Chicagoans, and he blames the Pilgrim fathers!


and the last piece of terminal cancer:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/09/Feminist-Journo-Finds-Liberal-Culture-Turned-Against-Her

Quote:
Heathcote-Drury got her world turned upside down over the last few months, and the liberalism of her own self-defeating British culture is what did her in. One has to feel for her, if only a little bit, but her case most certainly shines a spotlight on the failings of progressivism.
So, imagine the scene. A British, feminist journalist sees a woman in a hijab loading a large number of groceries onto the store conveyor belt at check out. She begins fuming with feminist ire because this Muslim woman's husband stands idly by doing nothing to help the overworked woman load the groceries.

The journo can take it no more and just has to say something. She brusquely confronts the man telling him that his wife needs help loading the merchandise. She pushes past the man and starts helping the hijab-clad woman herself because, "This is what feminism's about - women helping women."

As it happened, neither the Muslim man nor his wife much appreciated the "social lesson" the journalist thought to teach them. And, as so many Muslims in Britain do, they proceeded to play the Brit's liberalism against them. The couple cried racism and had the journalist arrested for a "hate crime."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 1 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International