Telling a white man who only hires other white men, that he has to look closer at applicants of other races and he is expected to find a few suitable non white non male employees is not a disease. It's actually an accommodation for an employee with an obvious impairment.
It would be simpler for everyone to fire the guy and replace him with someone better equipped for the job.
It is quite common for me to hear from managers and department heads that have non-diverse departments that it’s not their fault. That being “forced” to hire diverse candidates is “discrimination against males/whites,” while they genuinely remain oblivious to the fact that the reason they are being asked to do it is because of their history of discriminating against non-white males, as shown unequivocally in their staff make up.
One looks at them having this denial, and one observes that their department is 99% male or 99% white male, and one observes that other departments having a nearly identical function are 60% white male. And so when they are told to get with the 90s and stop putting barriers in front of diverse candidates, they cry out, “wut?!? I never!!”
Kind of like this example:
(acknowledging that I assumed the candidate was white male, but he was apparently non-white male, so we are talking about M/F descrimination, not racial)…
I know, for certain, that the candidate my team selected to join our team this year was discriminated against because of his sex.
I know because when we selected him, my boss checked with his boss, and his boss said "you cannot have another male on your team barring extraordinary circumstances".
And I picture the boss’ boss, looking at a deparment of 29 women and one man and saying, “you cannot have another male….”
Oh wait, no. The boss’ boss would not have said that if the department were already gender diverse. So there must have been a
problem that caused it to be said. A problem of the hiring history favoring men.
This is denied, of course. It always is. “Oh we
never discriminate! It’s just
random chance that we never hire women!”
Metaphor states that the department in question is less than 50% male. And implies that there is no reason of any kind that the boss’ boss has a reason to seek to increase gender diversity. It’s possible that the boss’s boss is trying to correct for another, even worse department and help the compan as a whole overcome its discrimination problem.
Now in this case, the boss’ boss even said that if extraordinary circumstances presented, they could override the corrective directive. But the team still claims, “nothing extraordinary, just whatever caused the boss’ boss to need a correction should not be corrected. We need a male candidate, and you’ve discriminated against him. You’re terrible.“
It’s always excuses about the current candidate, not balancing with the ones last week and the week before. “I only have too complain about
today, and then I never had to address my hiring biases.”