Just read on the beeb, RAF has quotas for diversity and is actively turning away white males. How is this ok? It’s reverse discrimation. Surely any selection process that has pass / fails based on gender or race is illegal?
Or is reverse discrimation okay?
Maybe I’ve misread ?!
All the headlines seem to suggest that white men are being shown the door but the recruitment chief says:
The board would “not necessarily” prioritise women and minority-ethnic recruits over white men, she said, responding to critics who have accused the RAF of “wokery” and policies that are “little short of an illegal campaign of institutional sexism and racism against white male officers”.
I had to do some training on 'privilege'. Bit of an eye opener as to how the majority of us benefit from privilege without really realising, not speaking for the RAF process itself but it its merely seeking to redress the balance. The problem is having a diverse pool of applicants, if the target groups are not applying because its not a traditional career, then the recruitment roles must be very difficult.
Same in trying to recruit female field engineers (using the term loosely, we are better described as technicians) into a predominantly male environment.
Positive discrimination innit.
As a white heterosexual male in the UK, I tick all the privilege boxes and will shed no tears at any organisation actively seeking to redress the balance.
Sounds like more anti-woke bollox.
I did think that unlike the USA we weren’t allowed to do discrimination. Say by setting quotas at the point of being offered the job.
However it might be that what’s actually happening is that a proportion of interview or similar selection process places are reserved for minorities. Which I think is allowed
Here is a source that may help you understand the process. Look past the outraged headlines and have a deeper think about the issues and why things should change.
Are we going along with the “not enough white blokes in the RAF” story then? Poor us. When do we get our chance? 🥱
As a white heterosexual, [b] + middle class[/b] male in the UK, I tick all the privilege boxes and will shed no tears at any organisation actively seeking to redress the balance.
+1
Clickbait Daily Mail bollocks, as far as I can tell.
It's difficult to tell what's actually going on, but it doesn't look like they are hiring people from ethnic minorities and women over white men, more that they aren't hiring anyone until they get a sufficient number of candidates to maintain their diversity numbers.
So, no, if you are a white man fear not. A one legged black lesbian is not going to take your coveted place in the RAF but you might have to wait longer to get started.
They can't train you even if they do hire you anyway so what's the rush?
'Ere Mum, wot's 'discrimation"?
my guess is the OP is a 44 yr old white man who went to the recruiting office on his way home from seeing Top Gun and is now attributing his foiled fighter jet pilot aspirations on the woke left.
i mean if tom cruise can do it, why can't he...
+2
As a manager in a field that relies on diverse thinking, I find a bit of diversity of background and experience helps. That doesn’t just mean gender and ethnicity of course, but that’s part of it.
Or is reverse discrimation okay?
Maybe I’ve misread ?!
Nope, positive discrimination is indeed illegal, and I'd be very surprised if that's what the RAF are doing.
However positive ACTION is ok, which is stuff like encouraging more applications from underrepresented groups etc.
I suspect you haven't misread, so much as seen some heavily slanted clickbait designed to further the culture war and rile up the PC Gone Mad brigade.
I don't agree with him, but this guy has a lot to say on the matter and is ex-RAF. Seemingly was there at the start of the push for diversity.
There's a few videos covering the subject. Gives me bad vibes with some of the tone/language.
Quota's aren't a bad thing, but this whole argument comes down to the 'Equality of Outcome vs Equality of Opportunity', the first is not a good thing, as you are going to change the dynamics of how you recruit and what level of candidate you recruit, the second is what should be standard practice.
Again, nothing wrong with recruiting heavily in communities where you want to have more diversity or whatever, but you can't let that cloud how you assess and pass candidates against the required criteria, otherwise you are not offering the candidates equality.
I bet they're trying to ban Christmas as well.
I bet they’re trying to ban Christmas as well.
Too early, we've got poppy ranting to come first!
Not entirely relevant, but have you ever seen a non white, non male, non slightly posh RAF fighter pilot
They would appear to all be carbon copies of each other
Obviously there are many more jobs in the raf than typhoon and red arrows pilots, but that specific job doesn’t exactly scream diversity
Actually I just watched a documentary on raf fighter pilot training which featured one of the 8 female pilots. Great stuff.
Not entirely relevant, but have you ever seen a non white, non male, non slightly posh RAF fighter pilot
Well I’ve spoken with one - non-male at least. I’m not exactly pro-military but she came across ok.
What ever happened to recruiting the best person for the job? Surely in this equal opportunities world applications should be sought from all sectors and groups in society and the best candidates appointed.
What ever happened to recruiting the best person for the job?
It has been shown time and time again in research that we generally don't select the best person for the job, we select the people who are most like us.
Therefore, if you have a workforce that is not diverse and you take no action to diversify it this mono-cultural selection is going to continue.
Hopefully the RAF won’t copy the Navy in only recruiting people who can’t fit bike cranks correctly
That was actually a recruiting tool to see if your noticed it was wrong. Well done, you passed.
What ever happened to recruiting the best person for the job?
Please define what you will use to judge 'best person for the job'? Do you think having a workforce that is diverse in race, gender, etc., and also importantly diverse in thinking, is good for the organisation as whole, or is that relatively unimportant overall? Where will you rank those benefits against other metrics of 'best for the job'?
If your org was almost exclusively white middle class males, for example. And after extensive skills based selection it came down to a male and a female candidate who are almost equivalent but the male is very slightly better. But the female would start to diversify the workforce and potentially lead to other benefits beyond his or her performance in their role. Who do you offer to?
Please define what you will use to judge ‘best person for the job’? Do you think having a workforce that is diverse in race, gender, etc., and also importantly diverse in thinking, is good for the organisation as whole, or is that relatively unimportant overall? Where will you rank those benefits against other metrics of ‘best for the job’?
I would, for example, rather have a surgeon who knows what they are doing. There are some jobs where competence is quite important.
No complaints from this lottery of life winning British born white middle aged, middle class, university educated, heterosexual male.
I told my equally lucky mate the same the other night when he reckoned an oppo wasn’t open to him because he didn’t ‘fit the profile’. Sure it must hurt a bit when you’re on the receiving end, but the equivalently skilled second generation immigrant female has likely spent most of her life on the receiving end.
Surely in this equal opportunities world applications should be sought from all sectors and groups in society.
I think that that's exactly what's happening?
As a white heterosexual male in the UK, I tick all the privilege boxes and will shed no tears at any organisation actively seeking to redress the balance.
That's fine so long as it's equality of opportunity (equity) rather than equality of outcome. Which, in most cases, is that actual case if you read beyond the story.
I would, for example, rather have a surgeon who knows what they are doing. There are some jobs where competence is quite important
Which is why enabling and encouraging people from diverse backgrounds to study for that role in the first place is the starting point (for that particular role), not the actual hospital where they work.
I would, for example, rather have a surgeon who knows what they are doing. There are some jobs where competence is quite important.
I agree. You seem to have ignored the second part of my post though. Any thoughts on that bit?
Surely all recruitment is discriminatory? Otherwise, you'd employ the first person who walked through the door...which I suppose is what the US military does!
Just read on the beeb, RAF has quotas for diversity and is actively turning away white males. How is this ok?
I briefly saw the news few days ago but not sure which aspects of RAF they are referring to. I only read the first few lines then switched off and let it be.
Not sure they are referring to "top gun" pilots flying multi-million pounds jet or ground crews etc?
Silly RAF if it is true especially if they are referring to "top gun" pilots recruitment. Are they trying to downgrade the capabilities of air defense, or are they trying to have an equal opportunities of being shot down by the enemies?
It’s reverse discrimation. Surely any selection process that has pass / fails based on gender or race is illegal?
All discrimination is discrimination whether it is positive or negative. It is a matter of who can get away with what.
I come from a country that openly practice positive discriminate based on religion and race. Those of you that think positive discrimination is acceptable have never lived through it.
Or is reverse discrimation okay?
Never okay. The idea is that "positive/reverse" discrimination creates a level playing field is a myth. i.e. if a person cannot do the job well or do not have the capacity to do, like the intelligence to learn, then no matter how level the playing field will not turn the person into someone more capable.
Maybe I’ve misread ?!
It is a trendy thing to do now so not a surprise.
If your org was almost exclusively white middle class males, for example. And after extensive skills based selection it came down to a male and a female candidate who are almost equivalent but the male is very slightly better. But the female would start to diversify the workforce and potentially lead to other benefits beyond his or her performance in their role. Who do you offer to?
I think at that point you have to sit down and very carefully consider why you think they're equal or the male slightly better. Are they actually objectively better, or do you as the interviewer score them slightly better because they fit your profile.
Alternatively ask why is the other candidate inferior. Are they perhaps just as inherently talented, but overlooked in previous roles so never had the opportunities to tick those boxes.
Please define what you will use to judge ‘best person for the job’? Do you think having a workforce that is diverse in race, gender, etc., and also importantly diverse in thinking, is good for the organisation as whole, or is that relatively unimportant overall?
The problem with this is that when you apply a recruitment process to this you get a group that is diverse in terms of race and gender etc. But very similar in thought and character because that’s what you are forcing the process to focus on to avoid accusations of discrimination.
As for diversity of thinking then that very much depends on the company and what it does. If its a company that has strict legal frameworks to follow then a diversity of thinking might not be what. Im not so sure diverse thinking in say air traffic control is necessarily a good thing. Clearly there will be other places where it is essential
The heart of the issue is that it appears that those the RAF would seek to recruit to be more representative of society don't view careers in the Armed Forces as a viable option in the numbers that they'd like.
Their recruiting initiatives have failed, and while it may seem sensible to push recruiting harder to reach that desired audience, any sort of pause on numbers is simply going to add to a shortfall of personnel, that then has an impact on those serving, thus running the risk of people leaving, creating a greater personnel shortage. I'd imagine the recruiting chief resigned because ultimately they were going to be hung out to dry either way. Despite what the clickbait dressing up headline stated.
And please, let's dispense with the blanket 'best person for the job' line, for a great many roles it's simply someone who meets a very low threshold of suitability.
Even for pilots, the 'best person' part isn't really figured out until they finish their training, the entire pipeline is a sliding scale of places you can wash out.
Do you think having a workforce that is diverse in race, gender, etc., and also importantly diverse in thinking, is good for the organisation as whole, or is that relatively unimportant overall?
No quick answer there but depending on the overall objective.
Like minded workforce tend to be more cohesive, not diverse, can get the job done quickly and everyone is happy.
Diverse, not like minded, can think out of the box better but not may not be cohesive.
Certain aspects of the job is non negotiable and need to select the best regardless of who they are privilege or not.
Imagine you are being treated by a doctor that is recruited based on positive discrimination and not based on merit. You want that?
Certain aspects of the job is non negotiable and need to select the best regardless of who they are privilege or not.
In terms of roles within Defence this isn't a thing. You're selecting those who meet a minimum requirement (physical fitness/health, educational attainment, aptitude) that makes them a potential for success, but there are no guarantees so 'best' is a very subjective label.
I think we agree, apart from diverse thinkers doesn't necessarily mean can't follow procedures or will break the rules. There are many (legal, and ethical) ways to approach problem solving and they don't have to be radical to be different.
I've been involved in recruiting a large number of scientists in my role in the last three years. Men and women, from many different nationalities and ethnicities, and other diverse orientations. The issue is, most of them have followed the same path - pretty much from "decent families"* that see value in an education leading to support through whatever the equivs are of sixth form and Uni and in many cases PhD. Consequently. no matter their race or ethnicity, their lived experience in many respects is similar.
I have managed to recruit a few in this time similar to my example; not necessarily by gender but with a different lived experience for whatever reason. They are all superb scientists, there is still that benchmark of course but the richness it brings to the group in terms of how the group functions and approaches its work is brilliant. And it's opened some eyes in the more senior members of the team too, who have been challenged out of their 'but that's just how it is' bubble. It doesn't have to be, if you're prepared to accept the challenge.
* deliberately provocative, but I think folks understand and it's meant to be a statement rather than a judgement.
The issue is, most of them have followed the same path – pretty much from “decent families”* that see value in an education leading to support through whatever the equivs are of sixth form and Uni and in many cases PhD. Consequently. no matter their race or ethnicity, their lived experience in many respects is similar.
Very similar in defence. Officers and other ranks are very similar in their groups in a lot of ways, and for the first part of their journey it's about adjustment and compliance to a new way of life. Takes a while before many are in a position to show their individuality.
But many show their ignorance on this subject as a great many recruited into defence aren't yet qualified in an specific area. Which is where this conversation has morphed to.
Like minded workforce tend to be more cohesive, not diverse, can get the job done quickly and everyone is happy.
Diverse, not like minded, can think out of the box better but not may not be cohesive.
I couldn't disagree more. It might be true initially, and it does create challenges but it's poor recruitment and management if that enters the decision making process and can't be overcome. Of course, you don't recruit pricks who will just disrupt, but that's not what is being suggested.
Imagine you are being treated by a doctor that is recruited based on positive discrimination and not based on merit. You want that?
As I said in my examples, in all cases they are suitably qualified for the job. Why does best skills then trump best for the organisation (and maybe even society) overall, which seems to be what you are suggesting? What if the lesser skilled (but still perfectly qualified )person was the only applicant, you'd be happy to recruit them then, no?
Imagine you are being treated by a doctor that is recruited based on positive discrimination and not based on merit. You want that?
Arguably, yes, but further back in the process.
I'll change the career as medicine is far more evenly balanced already. Some engineering branches are daft ratios like 20:1.
You recruit more women into engineering careers by encouraging them into Scientific A-levels. You've then got a larger pool of applicants to engineering courses at university, so you've got a better cohort of undergrads. You've then got a better influx of engineers when they join the workforce. Which means at the end of the day bridges don't collapse precisely because something was done early enough in the system to encourage an underrepresented group into it.
In terms of roles within Defence this isn’t a thing. You’re selecting those who meet a minimum requirement (physical fitness/health, educational attainment, aptitude) that makes them a potential for success, but there are no guarantees so ‘best’ is a very subjective label.
Minimum standard yes, but that's different from recruitment based on filling in diverse quota.
As for being "best" you just have to keep filtering out until you get the one that can perform the task perfectly.
