Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

#2,951
#2,951
UTProf said:
Clay misses the point entirely. That original criticism by Nichols is not about ESPN being woke at all. It's about her being protective of her own job but more importantly her criticizing ESPN (and other corporations are just as guilty) for attempting to hire one person or a handful of people that tick multiple boxes so that they can claim to be a diverse workplace while at the same time preserving their status quo. Heaven forbid they create a workplace that actually has diversity in gender, color, background and thought when they can claim a diversity win while also keeping it monotone and filled with people who share similar opinions by instead hiring one person to fulfill multiple diversity goals. Corporations do this all the time and it's why so little has changed in the American workplace when it comes to coveted jobs (ones that pay well, have status, etc.) despite progress in education and in other areas.

The source article is paywalled but the quote is read in the video here: Rachel Nichols: ESPN removes host from NBA coverage, cancels 'The Jump' - CNN

Going by the quote rather than the coverage of the quote, Clay's interpretation of the quote, or twitter's interpretation of the quote, in no way does Nichols say Taylor got the job because she was black. Rather Nichols appears to be criticizing the network for fulfilling their 'diversity needs' via the multiple box method and in doing so using one minority to take away from another minority. That's far too nuanced for twitter or Clay but there it is.
Click to expand...
I’m shocked that Clay missed an argument….

Clay Travis is actually the most honest person in media. He is simply out to make a buck and will tell you whatever you want to hear in order for him to get paid.

Currently the job that pays the most is attacking ESPN, “woke culture” and anyone on the ideological spectrum left of Fox News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1GatorHater, Cosmo Kramer and UTProf
#2,953
#2,953
pierce60 said:
I’m shocked that Clay missed an argument….

Clay Travis is actually the most honest person in media. He is simply out to make a buck and will tell you whatever you want to hear in order for him to get paid.

Currently the job that pays the most is attacking ESPN, “woke culture” and anyone on the ideological spectrum left of Fox News.
Click to expand...

Clay definitely jumps on whatever trend he finds and rides it hard but IDK if he's honest about his motives. But you're correct that Clay isn't trying give his audience anything other than what they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1GatorHater
#2,954
#2,954
utvols88 said:
She had a transparently selfish response to it while betraying her own values. I don't mind her advocating for herself in the hard work she's done to get there. But she specifically suggested for her it to simply not be her job. Politics are irrelevant when you arbitrarily enact those values. No one is saying all white this or that.
Click to expand...

There was absolutely selfishness in her response but that doesn't make her any less right about ESPN's record. A certain amount of selfishness is exactly what I would expect from someone discussing their actual job and desire to keep it with someone else. It's specific because hers is the one in question. ESPN could expand in a number of ways but instead of doing so their approach was nix one woman and give to another while claiming a boost in diversity rather than a reduction.
 
#2,955
#2,955
UTProf said:
There was absolutely selfishness in her response but that doesn't make her any less right about ESPN's record. A certain amount of selfishness is exactly what I would expect from someone discussing their actual job and desire to keep it with someone else. It's specific because hers is the one in question. ESPN could expand in a number of ways but instead of doing so their approach was nix one woman and give to another while claiming a boost in diversity rather than a reduction.
Click to expand...
Except she didn't specify creating anything. She simply wanted them to do it elsewhere. Sorry, I can't respect that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#2,956
#2,956
utvols88 said:
Except she didn't specify creating anything. She simply wanted them to do it elsewhere. Sorry, I can't respect that.
Click to expand...

I think you're being far too judgmental. This was a private conversation about her job rather than a prepared thesis. Disrespect her all you like though. It still doesn't change ESPN's history or the fact that they're not creating genuine diversity nor do they desire to. They're a corporation that only cares about the bottom line and unless the status quo breaks them completely they have no incentive to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1GatorHater and Ulysees E. McGill
#2,957
#2,957
UTProf said:
I think you're being far too judgmental. This was a private conversation about her job rather than a prepared thesis. Disrespect her all you like though. It still doesn't change ESPN's history or the fact that they're not creating genuine diversity.
Click to expand...
Anything in the name of diversity is horses**t. Meritocracy is the the right thing to do. Anyone who hires, fires, etc based on skin color is a moron and that goes both ways. I have zero sympathy for espn either. I also don't hate Rachel. She's half right. But because she still endorses giving jobs for the sake of diversity, she can accept the unjust consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, UTMVol76, Ulysees E. McGill and 1 other person
#2,958
#2,958
utvols88 said:
Anything in the name of diversity is horses**t. Meritocracy is the the right thing to do. Anyone who hires, fires, etc based on skin color is a moron and that goes both ways. I have zero sympathy for espn either. I also don't hate Rachel. She's half right. But because she still endorses giving jobs for the sake of diversity, she can accept the unjust consequences.
Click to expand...

Diversity isn't about giving jobs because of your background. It's about getting the opportunity to get those jobs. One look at the workforce is all you need to do to know that we are not functioning as a meritocracy. If we were, we would be more diverse at the highest levels as well as at the midrange. People tend to hire based on who they know and whether or not a person is like them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1GatorHater
#2,959
#2,959
How about when making hiring decisions the most experience, most qualified, best fit for the job, regardless of uncontrollable attributes like race and gender, gets hired? I know it might be a little out of style right now but the whole idea about merit has some quality to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Dudley Smith, hooperj75 and 8 others
#2,960
#2,960
Glitch said:
How about when making hiring decisions the most experience, most qualified, best fit for the job, regardless of uncontrollable attributes like race and gender, gets hired? I know it might be a little out of style right now but the whole idea about merit has some quality to it.
Click to expand...
Don't be such a racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Bassmaster_Vol, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#2,961
#2,961
UTProf said:
Diversity isn't about giving jobs because of your background. It's about getting the opportunity to get those jobs. One look at the workforce is all you need to do to know that we are not functioning as a meritocracy. If we were, we would be more diverse at the highest levels as well as at the midrange. People tend to hire based on who they know and whether or not a person is like them.
Click to expand...
giphy.webp
 
#2,962
#2,962
UTProf said:
Diversity isn't about giving jobs because of your background. It's about getting the opportunity to get those jobs. One look at the workforce is all you need to do to know that we are not functioning as a meritocracy. If we were, we would be more diverse at the highest levels as well as at the midrange. People tend to hire based on who they know and whether or not a person is like them.
Click to expand...
Wrong. That's not how it is often done. The reality is that the ones pushing diversity are doing the exact thing they fight against.

The problem we have in this country is that the idea of a meritocracy is scoffed at. As evidenced by your posts. "Well look around we aren't one" Then teach and speak toward the goal of it instead of pushing the rhetoric of "diversity" being some major hiring goal The idea that some quota is evidence of diversity or lack thereof is asinine. The NFL, nba, etc is the closest to meritocracy that we have but that is as uneven as you can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Volunteer821, Dudley Smith and 4 others
#2,967
#2,967
I probably should not say this, but...

At one time before I retired, a couple of guys that worked under my supervision and I started and developed a successful division within a company from ground zero. At my retirement we employed over 150 people in well paying jobs with good benefits that offered them upside as a career. I can go to my grave knowing we did not hire or terminate a single employee based on skin color, gender, age, religion, cultural background, or any other factor other than the perceived fit, value add, or value loss (in terms of termination) that the individual possessed. Approximately 60 of the employees were "minorities" (per government classifications) along with about 60% of the work force being female. We had a highly qualified female as one of four in senior management along with an independent audit department headed by a minority female and a couple of other departments with female leadership.

FWIW - the business was started about 20 years ago - it's not a new thing. We were not alone as a company doing that sort of thing. Most every competitor was as well because when you find talent that fits, you hire them. When they don't fit or choose to not do the job correctly, you terminate them. Neither has anything to do with the government game playing or obsessions with race, gender, etc. As a result, we collectively did more for our group, their families and our customer base than any government edict or program ever could.

Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValleyAlVol, InVOLuntary, Brillovol and 14 others
#2,969
#2,969
UTProf said:
Diversity isn't about giving jobs because of your background. It's about getting the opportunity to get those jobs. One look at the workforce is all you need to do to know that we are not functioning as a meritocracy. If we were, we would be more diverse at the highest levels as well as at the midrange. People tend to hire based on who they know and whether or not a person is like them.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to trade one injustice for another? That is not equality...it is pure prejudice.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top