ruby sparks
Contributor
So....you live on a small planet that only has two 'races'. One is green-skinned and the other is blue-skinned. About 85% of the population is green-skinned, the remaining 15% are blue-skinned. They refer to themselves as greens and blues respectively.
For historical reasons, the greens are generally, on average, much wealthier, better-educated, more privileged and so on. They also hold many more of the positions of power, status and/or influence. They represent, effectively, the hegemony, as least statistically, though to be fair, much less so than in the past, because things have improved a lot for the blues, and there are privileged, wealthy, educated blues as well as poor, uneducated unprivileged greens. But on the whole, it is most often still an advantage to be green rather than blue, all other things being equal.
Imagine a scenario in which, in a particular jurisdiction or 'state' on the planet, the population mix is mostly blues, or is at least something more like equal numbers of greens and blues. But the politicians and the law enforcers are 95% greens. And there is evidence that there is bias and unfair discrimination going on against the blues, at least to some extent, in the state, including in the law enforcement and government, even if not as much as in the past.
So, it is agreed by everyone, including the green politicians and law enforcers, that more blues would likely be a good thing, for a number of reasons, and it is agreed that this should be an aim, even if only for a temporary period.
A job vacancy (it could be either in the government or the police) is advertised, to all persons, with minimum qualifying criteria specified ('must have the full compliment of eight legs, seven arms and three heads', for example, or, 'must be able to fly unaided, and also breathe underwater where necessary' and so on). Which of the following actions, if any, would you consider to be racist (see multiple choice poll above)? I am not going to try to pre-define the word racism. You can be subjective about that.
A. More effort is put into encouraging blues to apply.
B. Programs are established to help blues in particular become better qualified to apply.
C. In a situation where a blue and a green application candidate are equally qualified, a blue is permitted to be selected (it's an option given to the state's public service employer).
D. In a situation where a blue and a green application candidate are equally qualified, a blue is to be selected.
E. Race is permitted to be considered as one valid qualifying criteria among several others during applications. In other words, it is one of a number of 'weighted' criteria.
F. There is a quota rule of some sort for increasing the number of blues, which means that some will get a job ahead of a better-qualified green, though all must meet the minimum criteria.
I probably haven't covered everything or gone into enough detail. But hey, it's a straw poll. Interpret the options as you will and answer as best you can, subjectively, according to your own preferences (and definitions).
For historical reasons, the greens are generally, on average, much wealthier, better-educated, more privileged and so on. They also hold many more of the positions of power, status and/or influence. They represent, effectively, the hegemony, as least statistically, though to be fair, much less so than in the past, because things have improved a lot for the blues, and there are privileged, wealthy, educated blues as well as poor, uneducated unprivileged greens. But on the whole, it is most often still an advantage to be green rather than blue, all other things being equal.
Imagine a scenario in which, in a particular jurisdiction or 'state' on the planet, the population mix is mostly blues, or is at least something more like equal numbers of greens and blues. But the politicians and the law enforcers are 95% greens. And there is evidence that there is bias and unfair discrimination going on against the blues, at least to some extent, in the state, including in the law enforcement and government, even if not as much as in the past.
So, it is agreed by everyone, including the green politicians and law enforcers, that more blues would likely be a good thing, for a number of reasons, and it is agreed that this should be an aim, even if only for a temporary period.
A job vacancy (it could be either in the government or the police) is advertised, to all persons, with minimum qualifying criteria specified ('must have the full compliment of eight legs, seven arms and three heads', for example, or, 'must be able to fly unaided, and also breathe underwater where necessary' and so on). Which of the following actions, if any, would you consider to be racist (see multiple choice poll above)? I am not going to try to pre-define the word racism. You can be subjective about that.
A. More effort is put into encouraging blues to apply.
B. Programs are established to help blues in particular become better qualified to apply.
C. In a situation where a blue and a green application candidate are equally qualified, a blue is permitted to be selected (it's an option given to the state's public service employer).
D. In a situation where a blue and a green application candidate are equally qualified, a blue is to be selected.
E. Race is permitted to be considered as one valid qualifying criteria among several others during applications. In other words, it is one of a number of 'weighted' criteria.
F. There is a quota rule of some sort for increasing the number of blues, which means that some will get a job ahead of a better-qualified green, though all must meet the minimum criteria.
I probably haven't covered everything or gone into enough detail. But hey, it's a straw poll. Interpret the options as you will and answer as best you can, subjectively, according to your own preferences (and definitions).
Last edited:
