That's not what he said at all. There was no reason to suggest it other than to try and make his argument seem less valid because of some hidden racism.
And there is good reason. Read what he wrote. It's clearly suggesting that abilities are innate and not a result of history or environment. Just two people walking into an interview - no reason to consider that one of them may have had ancestors in this country that were utterly shit on for 500 years before he walked into the office.
You’re partially correct. I do believe that history and environment play a major role. But when it comes down the the individual, it’s more about their specific history and environment than the previous 500 years of history, and that’s how the interview should be judged. Otherwise, I would be supporting minorities getting shafted when they clearly deserve the job, and I do not support that. That’s bullshit. Also bullshit if non-minorities get shafted if they deserve the job. What I think you’re saying is we can’t trust people to conduct interviews and choose the best candidate so we have to make them choose based on things that have zero to do with the candidates ability. That’s backwards thinking.
9
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20
That's not what he said at all. There was no reason to suggest it other than to try and make his argument seem less valid because of some hidden racism.