Real life example: Was I racially discriminated against?

[Axulus]

Naw. If you think any of this has to do with anything other than looking the part, you are totally mistaken.

Ya, it's a PR thing. A Japanese guy doesn't actually have any more of an in with the Koreans than an English guy has with the Italians. They want to be able to demonstrate to the asian communities that they're diverse and increase their connections with those businesses due to that, not because having someone of that race means that guy will personally be able to make these new connections.

So they are doing it as a way to cater to the businesses they want to serve. Having an Asian on the board shows that the organization is committed to diversity and other Asian business owners in this industry will see that and maybe be more likely to support the organization or reach out to it? I can understand that to an extent, that they are catering to the customer, so to speak.

However, I assume we would agree that a business in the deep south, maybe one that does high end remodeling work targeted toward the wealthy (which happens to be primarily white families in this hypothetical) would be wrong to discriminate against hiring blacks on the basis that some of their customers are racist and are uncomfortable with having a black man inside their expensive home or they have racist fears that he will case the joint and bring back his friends to rob the place.

 

[laughing dog]

So they are doing it as a way to cater to the businesses they want to serve. Having an Asian on the board shows that the organization is committed to diversity and other Asian business owners in this industry will see that and maybe be more likely to support the organization or reach out to it? I can understand that to an extent, that they are catering to the customer, so to speak.

However, I assume we would agree that a business in the deep south, maybe one that does high end remodeling work targeted toward the wealthy (which happens to be primarily white families in this hypothetical) would be wrong to discriminate against hiring blacks on the basis that some of their customers are racist and are uncomfortable with having a black man inside their expensive home or they have racist fears that he will case the joint and bring back his friends to rob the place.

Do you not see a significant difference between showing you are more inclusive vs. catering to people's racist fears?

 

[prideandfall]

So they are doing it as a way to cater to the businesses they want to serve. Having an Asian on the board shows that the organization is committed to diversity and other Asian business owners in this industry will see that and maybe be more likely to support the organization or reach out to it? I can understand that to an extent, that they are catering to the customer, so to speak.

However, I assume we would agree that a business in the deep south, maybe one that does high end remodeling work targeted toward the wealthy (which happens to be primarily white families in this hypothetical) would be wrong to discriminate against hiring blacks on the basis that some of their customers are racist and are uncomfortable with having a black man inside their expensive home or they have racist fears that he will case the joint and bring back his friends to rob the place.

Do you not see a significant difference between showing you are more inclusive vs. catering to people's racist fears?

he and half the posters in this thread also don't see the difference between preference and exclusion, so just about anything goes at this point.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Ya, it's a PR thing. A Japanese guy doesn't actually have any more of an in with the Koreans than an English guy has with the Italians. They want to be able to demonstrate to the asian communities that they're diverse and increase their connections with those businesses due to that, not because having someone of that race means that guy will personally be able to make these new connections.

So they are doing it as a way to cater to the businesses they want to serve. Having an Asian on the board shows that the organization is committed to diversity and other Asian business owners in this industry will see that and maybe be more likely to support the organization or reach out to it? I can understand that to an extent, that they are catering to the customer, so to speak.

However, I assume we would agree that a business in the deep south, maybe one that does high end remodeling work targeted toward the wealthy (which happens to be primarily white families in this hypothetical) would be wrong to discriminate against hiring blacks on the basis that some of their customers are racist and are uncomfortable with having a black man inside their expensive home or they have racist fears that he will case the joint and bring back his friends to rob the place.

The English language definition of racism makes no distinction between discriminating against blacks or against whites or any other group by another.

 

[Axulus]

Do you not see a significant difference between showing you are more inclusive vs. catering to people's racist fears?

he and half the posters in this thread also don't see the difference between preference and exclusion, so just about anything goes at this point.

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

 

[Axulus]

So they are doing it as a way to cater to the businesses they want to serve. Having an Asian on the board shows that the organization is committed to diversity and other Asian business owners in this industry will see that and maybe be more likely to support the organization or reach out to it? I can understand that to an extent, that they are catering to the customer, so to speak.

However, I assume we would agree that a business in the deep south, maybe one that does high end remodeling work targeted toward the wealthy (which happens to be primarily white families in this hypothetical) would be wrong to discriminate against hiring blacks on the basis that some of their customers are racist and are uncomfortable with having a black man inside their expensive home or they have racist fears that he will case the joint and bring back his friends to rob the place.

Do you not see a significant difference between showing you are more inclusive vs. catering to people's racist fears?

Showing you are more inclusive by excluding others?

I agree there is a difference between the two reasons for exuding people by race. I was just trying to determine if there is agreement that exuding people of certain races to better cater to the customer base doesn't automatically make it right.

 

[laughing dog]

he and half the posters in this thread also don't see the difference between preference and exclusion, so just about anything goes at this point.

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

If you had been first to volunteer, you would not have been excluded because of your race. Anytime someone expresses a preference for A over B, A is preferred over B. When someone chooses A and does not choose B, B is excluded.

 

[Axulus]

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

If you had been first to volunteer, you would not have been excluded because of your race. Anytime someone expresses a preference for A over B, A is preferred over B. When someone chooses A and does not choose B, B is excluded.

But since I wasn't first to volunteer for a position, I ended up being excluded from the remaining position due to my race. Can we at least agree on that?

When someone chooses A and not B because of B's race, B is excluded due to B's race.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you not see a significant difference between showing you are more inclusive vs. catering to people's racist fears?

Showing you are more inclusive by excluding others?

Look, anytime someone makes a choice, the option not chosen is excluded. That is what making a choice is about. So, anyone is not chosen is excluded for some reason.,

I agree there is a difference between the two reasons for exuding people. I was just trying to determine if there is agreement that exuding certain people to better cater to the customer base doesn't automatically make it right.

And it doesn't make it automatically wrong either. For example, day care centers exclude convicted pedophiles from employment. Accounting firms when looking for accountants exclude non-accountants.

- - - Updated - - -

If you had been first to volunteer, you would not have been excluded because of your race. Anytime someone expresses a preference for A over B, A is preferred over B. When someone chooses A and does not choose B, B is excluded.

But since I wasn't first to volunteer for a position, I ended up being excluded from the remaining position due to my race. Can we at least agree on that?

We can agree that you were no longer viewed as qualifed for the volunteer position. Would you be complaining if they had said instead "Look, we have enough CPAs on the board, we'd prefer a sociologist"?

 

[prideandfall]

he and half the posters in this thread also don't see the difference between preference and exclusion, so just about anything goes at this point.

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

not from what you've described, no - at least, not in a way in which the very concept of the idea behind the words "discrimination" or "excluded" or "because of race" has any shred of meaning.

yes, i totally agree that you could make the argument that you were excluded due to race if you wanted to get ridiculous, stupidly pedantic about the precise definition of the word.
however, given that what seems to have happened based on A. your very limited providing of information on the incident and players involved and B. logic is in fact not an incident of exclusion but of preference, i have to continue my disagreement with characterizing as either exclusion or discrimination (in the sense of how those terms are used when discussing race relations).

preferring chocolate ice cream isn't discriminating against vanilla and excluding it from being eaten, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring using screws to using nails for a wood building project isn't discriminating against nails or excluding them for being used, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring sci-fi movies to westerns isn't discriminating against westerns or excluding them from being watched, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.
preferring an asian for an open spot in your group because you want their ethnic representation isn't discriminating against white people or excluding white people from being in groups, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

you didn't meet the qualifications and criteria that were set for the position, and you're butt hurt about it - i get that, and i can sympathize.
doesn't mean you're a victim here, at least not that i can see based on the information you've provided.

 

[Axulus]

Look, anytime someone makes a choice, the option not chosen is excluded. That is what making a choice is about. So, anyone is not chosen is excluded for some reason.,

My point is that the exclusionary factor was race. Why are people trying to dance around it?

And it doesn't make it automatically wrong either. For example, day care centers exclude convicted pedophiles from employment. Accounting firms when looking for accountants exclude non-accountants.

And people looking for an Asian will exclude a white applicant due to that applicant's race.

We can agree that you were no longer viewed as qualifed for the volunteer position.

Yes, I didn't meet the racial qualifications for the position and was therefore excluded due to my race. Agreed.

Would you be complaining if they had said instead "Look, we have enough CPAs on the board, we'd prefer a sociologist"?

How is stating a plain fact a complaint?

Yes, if they said they were looking for a sociologist, I would've been excluded from the position due to my profession and not my race.

 

[prideandfall]

When someone chooses A and not B because of B's race, B is excluded due to B's race.

and this again is where that white privilege expectation of everything revolving around you comes into play.

when someone chooses screws over nails for a wood working project, the nails aren't being singled out and punished for being nails... they're not being picked because they don't meet the needs of the situation, whereas the screws do.

 

[prideandfall]

My point is that the exclusionary factor was race. Why are people trying to dance around it?

nobody is, at least not that i can see.
only speaking for myself, what i'm arguing is the concept of you describing it as "exclusionary" and your describing it having to do with your race.
it has nothing to do with you being white, and everything to do with you not being asian.
if you were mexican, you wouldn't have been offered the position.
if you were black, you wouldn't have been offered the position.
if you were an eskimo, you wouldn't have been offered the position.

you keep trying to force the narrative to be about "oh woe is poor axulus the white man is being kept down by those uncaring coloreds" when that's so patently absurd it defies description.
an offer was made to someone who has qualifications that you lack. you tried to shoe-horn your way in expecting that because you're white you're automatically qualified for everything and entitled to it.
you didn't immediately get your way, and now you're all pouty about it. that's what the situation looks like to me.

 

[Axulus]

I was excluded from that board position because of my race, was I not?

not from what you've described, no - at least, not in a way in which the very concept of the idea behind the words "discrimination" or "excluded" or "because of race" has any shred of meaning.

yes, i totally agree that you could make the argument that you were excluded due to race if you wanted to get ridiculous, stupidly pedantic about the precise definition of the word.
however, given that what seems to have happened based on A. your very limited providing of information on the incident and players involved and B. logic is in fact not an incident of exclusion but of preference, i have to continue my disagreement with characterizing as either exclusion or discrimination (in the sense of how those terms are used when discussing race relations).

How is it ridiculous or pedantic to plainly state that since I was the wrong race, I was excluded from that particular board position due to my race? The preference was such that they preferred an Asian at the _exclusion_ of all other races. Not just a mere preference "an Asian would be nice, but we'll still consider other factors as well". But rather "an Asian and only an Asian will do".

preferring chocolate ice cream isn't discriminating against vanilla and excluding it from being eaten, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

It is if you exclude vanilla from your possible ice cream choices.

preferring using screws to using nails for a wood building project isn't discriminating against nails or excluding them for being used, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

It is if you exclude nails as a possibility all together.

preferring sci-fi movies to westerns isn't discriminating against westerns or excluding them from being watched, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

It is if you exclude Westerns from your list of movie choices all together from the list of movies you are considering watching tonight.

preferring an asian for an open spot in your group because you want their ethnic representation isn't discriminating against white people or excluding white people from being in groups, at least not by any commonly used vernacular of the words discriminate or exclude.

Not "white people". Me, and any other white person who may have been interested in the position, if any. I do not claim to represent all white people.

you didn't meet the qualifications and criteria that were set for the position,

Correct, my race excluded me from meeting the qualifications.

and you're butt hurt about it - i get that, and i can sympathize.

I'm not really hurt. Minor annoyance is how I would describe it, that I wouldn't be considered for the position due to my race. I have no idea if I would've even pursued the position, but I was interested in learning more about it. This was all over 6 months ago.

doesn't mean you're a victim here, at least not that i can see based on the information you've provided.

I have not claimed to be a "victim". A victim of feeling annoyance? Maybe, but that is pretty pathetic to add the "victim" tag to that.

 

[prideandfall]

How is it ridiculous or pedantic to plainly state that since I was the wrong race, I was excluded from that particular board position due to my race?

because you weren't excluded because of your race, you were exclude because of your lack of being the desired race.
the way you're phrasing your complaint is like saying you didn't win the lottery because they discriminated against your number, that you were excluded from winning because of your number - the logical end result being that you have been wronged and deserve some kind of compensation or justice (which is basically what you said in the OP in the first place, that this entire gripe was about you feeling owed something for the slight).
however in your case as in the case of the lottery example, you're not being singled out and punished because of your race or your number, you're just not the race they wanted or the owner of the correct number.

The preference was such that they preferred an Asian at the _exclusion_ of all other races. Not just a mere preference "an Asian would be nice, but we'll still consider other factors as well". But rather "an Asian and only an Asian will do".

AND WILL BE UNTIL THE BLOODY END OF TIME THE SYSTEM SHALL FALL BECAUSE A NON-ASIAN DISGRACES THOSE HALLOWED HALLS.

that's the other thing that IMO weakens your argument: this isn't some long-standing venerated establishment, a communal institution vital to the local economy or powerful in its influence of local politics... it's a fucking pothead lobbying group that formed up a couple of months ago and is trying to set up a diverse board.
if a couple of months from now (or a couple of years) some board members have come and gone and a position opens up that they are not wanting to reserve for an as-yet unrepresented ethnic group and you ask to join and get told no because you're white, THEN you can come cry about it here and i will totally support you.

It is if you exclude vanilla from your possible ice cream choices.

as in, like, for all time? sure.
for one trip to the shop or maybe during one of those "i just have a craving" periods humans are so prone to? nope.

It is if you exclude nails as a possibility all together.

now this is just stupid, because no it isn't, if nails won't work for the required function.

Not "white people". Me, and any other white person who may have been interested in the position, if any. I do not claim to represent all white people.

you can't have it both ways - either you were excluded for your race which means all "white people that exist on the planet" or else you're wrong about trying to make this about your race.

Correct, my race excluded me from meeting the qualifications.

yes, that's correct.

 

[Axulus]

A company that has a "preference" for white people - meaning that they give bonus points to white applicants for job positions, and only hires blacks, Asians and other races if they are especially well qualified, and when the non-white race number in the company reaches some internally set limit, it starts considering white applicants and only white applicants for the remaining positions. Such a company would be engaging in racial discrimination would it not? It would be both immoral as well as illegal, would it not?

 

[laughing dog]

My point is that the exclusionary factor was race. Why are people trying to dance around it?

Because you are exaggerating your claim. The reason you were not chosen was that you did not fit the qualifications for that particular volunteer position - you were not "Asian". You were not chosen because they were looking for an "Asian". So you were "excluded" because you were not "Asian" not because you were white (presumably if you had been Black or Native American, you would have also been excluded based on that criterion). Now, if diversity is a legitimate goal for this organization and if your "exclusion" helped them meet that goal, what is the point here? It seems to me you are tacitly assuming that diversity is not a legitimate goal for this organization. Is that what is driving this OP?

- - - Updated - - -

A company that has a "preference" for white people - meaning that they give bonus points to white applicants for job positions, and only hires blacks, Asians and other races if they are especially well qualified, and when the non-white race number in the company reaches some internally set limit, it starts considering white applicants and only white applicants for the remaining positions. Such a company would be engaging in racial discrimination would it not? It would be both immoral as well as illegal, would it not?

And you think this somehow analogous to your OP situation?

 

[Axulus]

The reason you were not chosen was that you did not fit the qualifications for that particular volunteer position - you were not "Asian". You were not chosen because they were looking for an "Asian".

My being white excludes me from the possibility of being Asian. It is my white race that makes me fail this particular qualification.

My being a CPA does not necessarily exclude me from the possibility of being a sociologist (to use a prior example of yours). A sociologist is also something I can become if I really want to meet the qualifications for such positions that require it.

A company that has a "preference" for white people - meaning that they give bonus points to white applicants for job positions, and only hires blacks, Asians and other races if they are especially well qualified, and when the non-white race number in the company reaches some internally set limit, it starts considering white applicants and only white applicants for the remaining positions. Such a company would be engaging in racial discrimination would it not? It would be both immoral as well as illegal, would it not?

And you think this somehow analogous to your OP situation?

It is analogous to how people are using the word "discrimination" and "exclusion", meaning that the way it is being used, my scenario would not be an example of it. I am not claiming it is analogous to my OP situation.

Is there some unwritten rule that questions can not be asked unless the question is about an analogous scenario of the OP? That a new thread must be created every time a different scenario discuss is desired, even if the topic is substantially similar?

 

[Axulus]

Can you imagine if someone said to a female who claimed to be denied an executive promotion because she was female (maybe she heard a comment that they already have plenty of females on the executive team): "There are already some females on the executive team at this company. Therefore, you exaggerate your claim of sex discrimination. You weren't excluded because you are female, you were excluded because you aren't male. It is your lack of a penis that disqualified you from consideration, not your possession of a vagina that did it." That would be truly cringe worthy.

Once again, I AM NOT CLAIMING MY SCENARIO IS IN ANYWAY ANALOGOUS TO THIS SCENARIO. However, how words and phrases are being used by others in this thread and the logic they employ I would claim _is_ consistent.

 

[fromderinside]

You have at least two problems with your argument. You have an 'all- none' problem. Diversity doesn't include no diversity. Second the potential interviewee's view isn't relevant to any argument presented by the private company.

Those aren't problems for my argument. As you said "It is their vision." and "you have no right to inflict yourself on them". That means you have no right to inflict your vision in favor of diversity on them. They can have a vision of no diversity, or they can have a vision that ideal diversity means 10,000 white employees and one black employee at the lowest position. You have no right to impose your ideal of diversity on them.
IOW, my argument follows from yours, unless you want to claim that one's right to impose on a private companies vision about diversity depends on whether you personally agree with that companies vision. That's a bit like saying, you have the right to do whatever I let you do.

Well actually I do. Diversity relates to equality where lack of diversity relates to apartheid.