Two days ago I asked 8 related questions via Twitter. Here is one: Should it be okay to use political views or ideology as a basis for choosing associates at work (W), i.e., employee or business partner, or for choosing who you live with (L), i.e., house or apartment mates?
Good point. I would argue that institutions with strong social components tend to have editorial perspectives, and at least for those who are hired into positions that are directly involved with their mission, such "discrimination" is not only OK, but necessary.
But not for "back office" or technical positions in such institutions.
Example: A friend of mine is a liberal of liberals, and worked as a librarian for Fox News for many years. She left for a better job but was happy to leave.
People will discriminate when they know. I should have added that. In fields with a strong social component, like journalism, television, public relations, some parts of academia, you may know all the practitioners in your town (and their views), or be able to pick up certain cues. This may be less knowable or relevant in IT and technical fields.
I sure disagree with the assertion that people will discriminate based on political views when hiring. How would they know? Early on in the last job I had before I retired, I hired a lot of people; let's say, 50. I never ever knew what a candidate's political views were before the decision was made whether or not to extend an offer. I really wonder: How would you know somebody's political views when you have to make a hiring decision? I suppose you could ask them, but why would you?
I was occasionally surprised to find that someone I worked with had far left or far right political views; or strong religious views. But when I did find this out, it was generally over a beer or in a casual conversation while traveling together on a business trip. With nearly all my colleagues, I never found out even after years of working together what their political or religious views were, And in the rare cases when I did find out, it didn't change anything.
Should it be okay to use political views or ideology as a basis for choosing associates at work?
Whether it is okay or not, people will discriminate on such a basis. So maybe the question should be: Is it okay to lie about your political views or ideology when applying for a job?
When I see activists march for some expansion of civil rights, and it always seems to begin and end with regulations on firms and employers, it always reminds me of the "institutions must seem to serve the demands that constituents say they want while actually serving the demands that constituents really want" dictum.
Well, the progressive ideal is OK = legal... Except for the seperated managers and the media; OK=legal does not apply to them. That kind of comes out in the chart. That's why political problems persist in the US. Too much hypocracy from progressives, jews and the elite. I don't see those groups putting any skin in the game.
A quick glance at the Twitter comments shows that many respondents would answer differently if the question is about social norms vs. law. (I would, but then I didn't vote. And I personally find it frustrating that many - maybe most - people don't distinguish between the two.)
One cynical way of reading your results is that people are more willing to restrict the choices of others, than of themselves. Everyone is a consumer, most people are employees. Relatively few are producers or employers.
Good point. I would argue that institutions with strong social components tend to have editorial perspectives, and at least for those who are hired into positions that are directly involved with their mission, such "discrimination" is not only OK, but necessary.
But not for "back office" or technical positions in such institutions.
Example: A friend of mine is a liberal of liberals, and worked as a librarian for Fox News for many years. She left for a better job but was happy to leave.
People will discriminate when they know. I should have added that. In fields with a strong social component, like journalism, television, public relations, some parts of academia, you may know all the practitioners in your town (and their views), or be able to pick up certain cues. This may be less knowable or relevant in IT and technical fields.
I sure disagree with the assertion that people will discriminate based on political views when hiring. How would they know? Early on in the last job I had before I retired, I hired a lot of people; let's say, 50. I never ever knew what a candidate's political views were before the decision was made whether or not to extend an offer. I really wonder: How would you know somebody's political views when you have to make a hiring decision? I suppose you could ask them, but why would you?
I was occasionally surprised to find that someone I worked with had far left or far right political views; or strong religious views. But when I did find this out, it was generally over a beer or in a casual conversation while traveling together on a business trip. With nearly all my colleagues, I never found out even after years of working together what their political or religious views were, And in the rare cases when I did find out, it didn't change anything.
Should it be okay to use political views or ideology as a basis for choosing associates at work?
Whether it is okay or not, people will discriminate on such a basis. So maybe the question should be: Is it okay to lie about your political views or ideology when applying for a job?
Thanks.
When I see activists march for some expansion of civil rights, and it always seems to begin and end with regulations on firms and employers, it always reminds me of the "institutions must seem to serve the demands that constituents say they want while actually serving the demands that constituents really want" dictum.
Sure, should it be legal is a fine followup question to ask. But I chose to ask about okay to start with.
Well, the progressive ideal is OK = legal... Except for the seperated managers and the media; OK=legal does not apply to them. That kind of comes out in the chart. That's why political problems persist in the US. Too much hypocracy from progressives, jews and the elite. I don't see those groups putting any skin in the game.
A quick glance at the Twitter comments shows that many respondents would answer differently if the question is about social norms vs. law. (I would, but then I didn't vote. And I personally find it frustrating that many - maybe most - people don't distinguish between the two.)
One cynical way of reading your results is that people are more willing to restrict the choices of others, than of themselves. Everyone is a consumer, most people are employees. Relatively few are producers or employers.
Do you think it's important to distinguish between whether it's OK and whether it should be legal?