http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/time-be-candid-google-admits-lack-workplace-diversity-n116866
Why does the article treat this like it's a problem? Why can't it just be that the demographics are simply how the numbers worked out for... Google? Why must it be perceived like Google has some nefarious plot to mainly hire Caucasian men and snub others? Why are Caucasian males not considered "diverse" in and of themselves? (As if they all think exactly the same and have the same backgrounds, etc. As if that's true of any group of people...) And why are churches with predominantly African-American congregations and clergy not considered to be lacking in diversity? Why are Native American reservations not considered to be lacking in diversity? Why is it an issue at all? Why can't we just see people as human beings made in the image of God who are all infinitely important and loved by Him?
I got the impression the attitude adopted by the company was saying that if we don't have this much quotient for this race, and this much for this gender and this much for whatever other category one wants to list- we must be racist, sexist, etc.. and thus, there must be a problem. I agree that if a company like Google is actually consciously or subconsciously discouraging anyone from applying (other than reasons of not being qualified- i.e. not having a computer science degree)- then, yes- there is a problem that needs to be corrected. But if that's just how the numbers played out, that's okay too. I think society at large tends to steer men and women to certain professions and that's not any one company's fault. Certainly things can be done to improve that so all boys and girls are encouraged to pursue whatever career they feel God has prepared them for. I only mentioned churches and reservations as examples- I don't consider them racist (unless they are actively discouraging others from coming- with a race-predominant church, that's a huge issue because The Gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone! With the reservations, I understand the desire for Native Americans to practice their way of life in seclusion and having spoken with a full blooded Native American who has lived on a reservation, I have learned some more about them in recent times. (At least some reservations do have a deal about not allowing American Indian/non-American Indian marriages to live on a reservation together though- which is a bummer, but that's their thing if they choose to be separate.) Why should a business pick a minority out of two equally qualified candidates? I understand that's the goal of affirmative action, but I find that equally racist. I don't think hiring someone "because we need a black guy to meet racial quotas" is a good reason to hire someone. I think that's more patronizing than anything.
I didn't say predominantly black membership churches and Native American reservations are being racist or anything of the sort and I definitely do not mean to imply that. I understand the historical reasons for their existence. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is a great achievement that needed to happen and I applaud it. (I just wish its ideals had been applied back around 1620 or so and that America and all other countries had never gotten into the slave trade to begin with, as it is obviously morally wrong and a sin to treat anyone as less than a human being made in the image of God and eternally loved by Him. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)
My comparison with them and Google was just to point out that no one criticizes these groups for not being "diverse" (even though they are diverse by virtue of having more than one person there), but Google is criticized for not being "diverse". I don't see why that is a concern, unless of course, they are actively trying to discriminate against and discourage any particular group of people from getting jobs there (outside of the unqualified applicants who don't have the necessary Computer Science degrees of course.)
I have also been to different churches that have predominantly African-American congregations and I have been totally welcomed in The Name of The Lord. (There is certainly a different style though from Caucasian-predominant Baptist churches- but that's cool. Diversity in that sense is good. We all worship the same Lord God Christ for all His followers. And Jesus prayed that we would be one in John 17. And Galatians 3:26-29 says that there is no Jew or Greek or male or female in Christ; rather, we are all one in Christ.
Anyway, that's mainly what I was trying to say. I also disagree with the thinking that says that a bunch of people of the same race, gender, age, religious background, etc. are all the same in thinking and thus, not diverse. I tend to think that's rather prejudiced in itself. We are all unique with our own thoughts and we all add something of value because God made us all in His image. (Genesis 1:26-27) That's why I like to say that God thinks we are all infinitely important and so do I. He proved that by sending Jesus to die for all our wrongdoings and failures and rise again so that we could put our faith in Him for salvation! The Bible says He has loved us with an everlasting love! (Jeremiah 31:3) And He commands all who follow Him to show that same love to everyone. (John 15:12 - Jesus says it quite a few times in this chapter. They will know we are Christians by our love- that's what Jesus says.)
*As to the example of Native American reservations and single race-predominant churches, they are just examples. As C.S. Lewis (more or less) said once, if they are helpful- cool. If not- discard them.
(Below are some follow-up thoughts after conversing with some people on this topic.)
ReplyDeleteI have heard that affirmative action helps offset the legacy of white male racism. I don't see the need to do this. That sounds like it's suggesting that anywhere a company has mainly white males hired, it must be because they are racist and have actively chosen against hiring equally qualified minority candidates solely because of their race or gender, etc. That was kind of one of my original points to begin with. I don't think that's necessarily the case and I don't think the racial and gender demographics of a company are necessarily reasons to make a push to purposely seek to hire only a certain gender or race, etc. That in itself (no matter which race or gender is preferred) is racist and/or sexist. I also think it's patronizing to minorities, especially if they realize they were hired to meet racial/gender quotas.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is indeed described as The Golden Rule- Jesus gave us that command in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 and I don't think I can improve on that. ;-) It's been said to "do unto others as they would have done unto them", but that logic can also be twisted, as slave owners might well have said that the slaves wanted to be in that position and thus they were merely doing unto them what they wanted to have done unto them. However, when one asks what one would have done unto oneself, I am pretty sure no one would say they would want to be enslaved- thus, it follows that it is wrong for me to enslave anyone else.
I have a bit of a different view on it because I do think all the years of wrong and injustices that people groups have suffered at the hands of another can be corrected in an instant. As 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 talks about, when we come to put our faith in Jesus Christ, we are a new creation! The old has gone and the new has come. And God offers us reconciliation through Jesus- He forgives us of all our sins and restores our relationship with God. And He enables us to do that with others as well. Yes, it takes time to rebuild trust in human effort of course- but God brings former slave-owners and former slaves together as brothers in Christ! (Just read Philemon for a beautiful picture of that. Paul and Onesimus and Philemon all became united as one in Christ.) And that's just what Galatians 3:26-29 talks about. There is no Jew, Greek, male or female in Christ. There is also no slave or free in Christ, as Colossians 3:11 says.
ReplyDeleteAn African-American male who is poor and a white male who has more money may well both have had similar struggles. They may both have worked hard (assuming the white male who is richer is not just an heir or something, but even so- that doesn't mean he hasn't worked hard) and both view struggles and obstacles similarly and both have similar attitudes. They also might be quite different on those points. No matter how much money one has or what position in life, everyone has to work hard for their living. That's part of the curse of Genesis 3 due to the fall of man and also a Biblical principle. As 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 talk about- if a man shall not work, he shall not eat. Hard work is praised in those verses.
So, forgetting racial quotas, here are some reasons why a non-minority might be hired out of two equally qualified candidates where the other is a minority. For one reason, the non-minority may better be able to meet the work hours with reliable transportation. He also may be more flexible in the work schedule. It may be determined that while both have the necessary credentials as far as education and experience goes- the company may go with the non-minority because perhaps he has slightly more education and experience. (But, assuming that the education and experience levels are exactly the same)- it may be determined that the non-minority has better soft skills- i.e. it may be that he is better and more neatly dressed, has better manners and has a better demeanor in general and is more outgoing and is just nicer in general. Some jobs require more of those qualities than others. Maybe he is just more well-read on the company and seems more enthusiastic about wanting to work there. And interviewers have said in polls that these are some of the things that they look at in making determinations for jobs. And of course, it may well be that the minority person outscores the non-minority person in all these things too and thus, he would be chosen instead. But at some point, a company has to make the best choice for its workforce and every choice for one person doesn't necessarily mean that the other person is somehow being discriminated against unfairly. But truthfully, some discrimination does exist in the world [and in the right context, it's not necessarily a bad thing]- we are forced to do that when it comes time to vote for elected officials. (And in a best case scenario- maybe both candidates would be hired! :-))
ReplyDeleteSo, to sum up, I basically say- just hire the best qualified person you can- without regard to external factors like race and gender, etc. and let the chips fall where they will. (And by the way, I have been involved in hiring decisions myself, working on a supervisory level. And I've helped hire both non-minorities and minorities.)
The other thing is that I don't have any white male privilege. And having been both a minority and majority at different times in life, I can see to some degree both points of view generally. But I don't have any privilege or identity outside of Jesus Christ. I don't have any rights or claims to make. I am a slave of Christ (as 1 Corinthians 7:22 says). Colossians 3:1-3 says that I have died and my life is now hidden with Christ in God. As Galatians 2:20 says, I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live- but Christ lives within me. So I am not white, male, American, Gentile, middle class, or any other label- I'm just a soul saved by Christ and I find my identity in Him.
(Oh yeah- I also don't like labels. ;-))
And I view others in the same fashion- people made in the image of God and eternally loved by Him- and by me as well, as I am commanded to do the same.