DNC: White men shouldn't apply for tech jobs

a reply to: NotTheCIA

Although I am sure you are going to move the goal posts, here's a comment of mine, from the other day, criticizing Bush, Reagan, and Atwater...

...And saying the buck stops with Trump on vetting Manafort and Stone.

Heck, I even insinuate that Trump hired them for their 'fall guy potential' or other 'unpleasant' reasons.

Link

ALSO, I don't believe there is a 'Conservative narrative'...I think there is ONE narrative and Democrats and the GOP are behind it. So why would I comment as if I believed the parties have different agendas when I think they have the same agenda?

Geez...if you are reading your own partisan ideas into my comments, then that's on you for being so partisan.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I think it's more like saying "I know there are some great candidates out there who aren't straight white males, and I'd like to find them". Do you think it's possible to find great employees that aren't straight white males, or not?

You are missing the point. Purportedly, cisgender white males were to be excluded from being offered to apply.

I'm sure there are in fact non-white non-straight non-men who are qualified. However, I' don't think it should be seen as "OK" to exclude ANYONE who is qualified from the offer to apply for the position.

To say "this job should be offered ONLY to [fill in the blank] people" is wrong.

This is for IT tech jobs. The color of a person's skin or their sexual preference or what parts they had when they were born has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on whether or not they might be qualified for the positions, so why in the world would it be acceptable practice to keep these job offers away from applicants who are of a certain skin color or sexual preference, or based on what sexual organs they had at birth?

What does any of that have to do with possibly being qualified for the job, and thus be allowed to be offered to apply?

Ridiculous email, and doens't sound like it is policy, so not sure it matters much. But companies have skirted with hiring or firing based on race to meet affirmative action standards and avoid audits for a long time now. I guess it's only news if a group you don't like does it. : )

Here's a thought:

What if the white male who wanted to apply was born female?

It's not as if the DNC can legally ask the now-male if they were born biologically male or born biologically female. So how would they know if the person applying was a transgender male or a male since birth?

It's up to the applicant to offer up that information or not, so the DNC could actually be excluding the offer to transgender males as well as cisgender males.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Some are very literally incapable of identifying anything non-partisan. It seems that when an individual delves deep enough into the murky waters of partisanship, truly non-partisan behavior is perceived as partisan. Its impossible to be unbiased, but I don't believe that stands true with partisanship.

Its genuinely devious social programming and we see it frequently. Wherein, someone might actually identify a real source of conflict and division, but they will participate in it just as much as anyone. I don't believe its conscious, but it does seem like some feel it gives them a "free pass" if they point out a problematic area.

It may seem a bit of a detour from the topic, but I think the same exact thing happens with racism. So much time and "brainspace" is given to accusing others, and finding any sleight no matter how minor, that introspection doesn't even enter the picture.

With a bit of organized, intentional manipulation, you can create an environment where individuals and social groups perpetuate the very thing they think they are fighting. Thereby ensuring that no progress can be made.

Sad situation...

And partisan cheese is excellent on so many things. I find getting it by the wedge, instead of pre-shredded, makes it more cost effective and tasty.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: amazing

You are right that this is about one person. But is it?

This person felt comfortable enough in their environment to send that memo. I suspect that means that they did not expect anyone outside of their peers to see it. That seems to trip people up often and expose the inner culture in their group.

It's particularly bad coming from the Party of inclusion. The DNC certainly wasted no time throwing that person under the bus.

ETA: If they are credible they will run that person down the road, if they are not they will likely pretend to and move her to another job and pay her more to shut her up. Time will tell.

I see what you're saying Blaine, and I don't disagree with you. I just think it's wrong to blame all Liberals/Democrats for one persons transgressions. We should look at it, bring it to light and discuss it and condemn it, but we shouldn't paint a whole demographic with it.

a reply to: amazing

It's on the DNC to see that she is fired or resigns. And she needs to seek sensitivity training before she looks for a new job.

And that brings to mind another story. One of NPR's top editors has resigned (yesterday or today) after allegations he sexually harassed two prospective employees and acted inappropriately towards other female NPR staff.

Some of those staff have complained that NPR didn't do more to prevent that.

The DNC needs to ensure their staff and prospective employees are protected from a management-level employee who openly discriminates based on gender, race, and sexual orientation/gender identity.

If they care about those issues and that kind of thing...and they claim they do.

a reply to: amazing


True, but there are people (including in this thread) who seem to be oblivious to the problem with Ms. Leader's hiring practices. They seem to be OK with the idea of excluding a person from being offered to apply for the positions solely based on skin color and sexual preference.

When an organization (in this case the DNC) has someone of authority engaging in unfair hiring practices, that organization should be called out, because it may be that the culture within that organization is what led to the unfair hiring practices in the first place.

That may end up not being the case, but the question should still be asked.

You can argue that there is no evidence that it was caused by the culture within that organization, but the very fact that there are people (including on ATS) who are in support of Ms. Leader's unfair hiring practices shows that it is possible for such a culture to exist.

You folks are funny. I was literally laid off from an IT tech job because I am a white male, by a large company who was trying to keep their minority-to-white ratio at a "proper level." It happens by design.

I still think the idea of the person who wrote the email is wrong and stupid, but one dumb person doesn't reflect the policies of an entire company. The title of this thread is disingenuous and misleading.

originally posted by: fleabit
I still think the idea of the person who wrote the email is wrong and stupid, but one dumb person doesn't reflect the policies of an entire company. The title of this thread is disingenuous and misleading.

That actually depends on the actions the DNC takes with regard to this employee. If they do nothing, then legally they are adopting it as a 'policy.'

That's how torts/liability/discrimination claims work. If an employer doesn't take steps to ensure the unlawful action is fully investigated internally and is prevented from happening again, the law would see it as the employer adopting the practice as policy -- whether it is written/formal or not.

In a civil court, taking no serious action can mean the difference between a $20,000 award and a $12 million award to a plaintiff who has been discriminated against.

a reply to: fleabit

So you don't think it is possible that Ms. Leader's practices were incubated by the culture within the DNC?

I'm sure the DNC understands that such practices are illegal, so they would not overtly authorize her specific actions, but the culture within the DNC may have inadvertently encouraged her to think her actions were perfectly acceptable.

a reply to: amazing

I agree. This does not speak to the average Democrat in any way. It only speaks to what's going on inside the Party leadership.

There are more and more like me I think who have rejected both Parties due to stuff like this from both sides.

a reply to: fleabit

That practice is illegal, but I have no doubt it does happen often. No way for the victims of it to prove intent.

As to the one person involved, that they felt comfortable sending that does indicate the culture they are in among the leadership of the DNC. Would you send that at work if you thought you would be immediately outed and fired?

I don't think that Democrats as a whole are part of it, just the leadership.

a reply to: Box of Rain

And I hear you and agree with you. It's just misleading to say "DNC: White men shouldn't apply for tech jobs" . That's a false headline. Maybe a more accurate thread title would be "Some hiring managers in the DNC think white men shouldn't apply for tech jobs"

Although close, it's a huge difference that doesn't stereotype millions of people and does address the fact that there may be a culture in the DNC that needs to change.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: amazing

I agree. This does not speak to the average Democrat in any way. It only speaks to what's going on inside the Party leadership.

There are more and more like me I think who have rejected both Parties due to stuff like this from both sides.

Yeah. I may never vote for the 2 major parties again. Even worse with Donna's article that says the democratic party isn't even democratic but in control of corporate insiders and Clinton's inner circle still. I would have been willing to vote for a reasonable democratic alternative to Trump last election but Clinton wasn't that.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: amazing

I agree. This does not speak to the average Democrat in any way. It only speaks to what's going on inside the Party leadership.

There are more and more like me I think who have rejected both Parties due to stuff like this from both sides.

Yeah. I may never vote for the 2 major parties again.

Not that you asked for my thoughts...

The night before the last election, I checked the polls in my state and saw that Trump was going to win easily (I'm in Kentucky). Then, I checked the national polls for the third party that was polling best (Libertarians).

So I voted for Gary Johnson. I would have voted for Jill Stein if the Green Party was polling better. But voting for Hillary or Trump would have been a total waste of my vote...my state was going for Trump, no matter what.

Anyway, my hope was that my vote counted towards maybe bringing a third party over the 5% threshold, so that they could get equal ballot access and public funding. IMO, that would be more progress than anything either Trump or Hillary would ever do as president.

SO, FWIW...I felt good about approaching the election that way....even if the Libertarians only got like 3%. I felt better about that vote than I did about voting for winners, in the past.

Look how easily the people could make it happen.

If I can convince one person who is disillusioned by the two-party system, and maybe they can convince another... This is where our voting power really is. If your state is going to vote easily for one candidate anyway -- it's the ONLY way to cast your vote, IMO!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IAMTAT

According to the email, the majority of the tech employees are straight white males. I see nothing wrong with looking for a few competent employees to add to that bunch who are diverse.

just face it Kayla its straight up discrimination.

Awesome....now I can too be referred to as "those people" !

a reply to: mobiusmale

No, this isn't racist at all.