Sanctions for not interviewing BAME candidates

[bigbadbob]

On 12/07/2017 at 16:48, StivePesley said:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/my-heart-sinks-admits-chris-10778379

Chris Powell seems like a decent guy, so if he thinks there is an issue, I'm inclined to believe him

 

 

Must be why he didn't get the Derby job

[AndyinLiverpool]

On 12/07/2017 at 17:14, StringerBell said:

I suspect he's drank the progressive kool-aid. Based on his words about 'outcomes' I worry his motivations are for equality of outcome, not of opportunity. He should be firmly challenged on that.

See my over the top, sarcastic post to Paul to see how this ideology, if delivered to its extreme could look. People forced into specific work at the decree of the state, based on race. Cultural Marxism delivered in the only way traditional Marxism can realistically be delivered, by authoritarian methods. 

I've no time for people who want racial 'outcomes', be that people who want a ratio of 100:0 or people who want a ratio of 50:50. I value the freedom of the individual too much and I honestly couldn't care about diversity for diversity's sake.

I agree. He should be challenged and with great vigour. We as a society have lost a great deal of our ability to scrutinise. All too often the  one being scrutinised cites 'offence' of some other spurious excuse then runs for cover.

However, I don't see the interference of the state (or any other organisation we give legitimacy to) as necessarily bad. If we both value the freedom of the individual, as I believe we both do, the state can act as a positive influence - to create a situation where the individual can have opportunities to fulfil potential.

Yes, I know. But I can dream.

[StringerBell]

4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I agree. He should be challenged and with great vigour. We as a society have lost a great deal of our ability to scrutinise. All too often the  one being scrutinised cites 'offence' of some other spurious excuse then runs for cover.

However, I don't see the interference of the state (or any other organisation we give legitimacy to) as necessarily bad. If we both value the freedom of the individual, as I believe we both do, the state can act as a positive influence - to create a situation where the individual can have opportunities to fulfil potential.

Yes, I know. But I can dream.

I generally like government to be small but am not opposed to things being regulated. The racial makeup of any given workforce or institution wouldn't be one of those things. Like I said earlier in the post, things would have to be dire, like the Apartheid or something, for me to even consider that as an option.

[AndyinLiverpool]

21 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I generally like government to be small but am not opposed to things being regulated. The racial makeup of any given workforce or institution wouldn't be one of those things. Like I said earlier in the post, things would have to be dire, like the Apartheid or something, for me to even consider that as an option.

For me, it is not the regulation of the racial make up of a workforce; it is regulation to allow equal access routes to that workforce. I don't believe that exists in football management. As I have expressed elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe it's a racial issue, I believe it to be a competence issue and if regulation can be used to, let's say, 'enhance' the competence of recruiters, then that is a good thing.

[StringerBell]

3 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

For me, it is not the regulation of the racial make up of a workforce; it is regulation to allow equal access routes to that workforce. I don't believe that exists in football management. As I have expressed elsewhere in this thread, I don't believe it's a racial issue, I believe it to be a competence issue and if regulation can be used to, let's say, 'enhance' the competence of recruiters, then that is a good thing.

Same here.

There is a bit of an old boy's network in football and the profession in general doesn't seem to play by the same rules as the rest of society.

I've always been intrigued by the idea of the armchair football fan with the potential to be a good manager. 99 times out of 100 they probably wouldn't be, but there are a number of examples of successful managers who weren't professional players and bad managers who were players. But managers who weren't players are a rarity and I wonder if there are barriers for such people? 

But I can't understand why we should use racialised solutions to a problem that isn't racial. Opening the door for black candidates (or giving them a leg up in this case as I'm not convinced the door is shut for them) might well cast the net wider as you say, but for all the wrong reasons.