Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk
True, but having read the article, we now know that people will discriminate even without intent. If we accept that as a truth, then don't we have an obligation to test everything against that knowledge and reject any process that continues the discrimination?
|
I think the article generally said people
denied having intent, not that they didn't
actually have intent.
Lots of people say there is not a discriminatory bone in their body, but then intentionally give preference to alumni of their own lily white school, to people who their own lily white friends recommend, to people who grew up in their icky white suburb or to other people who fit their own tribal characteristics. Hiring nothing but white people while denying discriminatory intent is a time-honored American tradition.
But interviewing people who are shocked at their own discriminatory actions is like asking the guy holding walking out of your house holding a jewel box if he is stealing it. "Stealing what? Oh, this? Just have to bring it to the shop and fix a blown gasket. I don't know how it found it's way into my hands. Is this yours? It looks like mine."
