Calling it "the last taboo" or "the ultimate taboo" seems a little ... pretentious. Pretentious and most likely wrong.

I have/had never even imagined such a question had existed, so have no opinion on the matter. I think it is an interesting area to research.

You wrote:

I have/had never even imagined such a question had existed, so have no opinion on the matter. I think it is an interesting area to research.

What you talking about? That was one of the main arguments of the colonialist Brits: that they were 'liberating' the 'darkies' from the 'murky fog' of 'ignorance and stupidity'.

They even carried out bogus 'research' to 'prove' that african/asian/aborigine/native american people were 'less developed' or 'unevolved'.

Such 'ethical Darwinism' lead to different peoples around the world thinking it was their duty to eradicate the 'lesser' races from the face of the earth.

As far as I knew, all genuine scientific research has pointed to humans of all races having similar characteristics in terms of IQ or whatever. If new research is being carried out it makes me wonder what the intentions of the bodies funding it are.

Somehow I managed to unlink it with all that debate.

I know they expected the Africans to have less variation in eyesight (or simply better by default) - as that would make them more animal like or something, but when testing, it was found to be the same.

But on intelligence... maybe I live in cloud cuckoo land. I never thought about it. Or if I did, I have forgotten.

That is what the documentary is asking in a round about way.

The end conclusion of the documentary is that IQ tests are not really tests of intelligence, and as for the impact of hereditary/racial intelligence, we don't really know, but if it was, how racist would it be to suggest that?

On an unrelated note, but one that admin might like, is this:

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=120&a=1393

Ya'qub wrote:

On an unrelated note, but one that admin might like, is this:

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=120&a=1393

I think that deserves its own thread. I don't understand why that is on a spoof news site though...

If someone told a racist joke would you laugh with them or tell them off?

It would depend on how funny it was.

Slightly off-topic but got this in email today..

Andrew gets the interviews, Muhammed doesn't

Shocking evidence of race discrimination in recruitment procedures have just been published by the government.

As part of an investigation, the Department for Work and Pensions sent out nearly 3,000 job applications to employers in the private, public and voluntary sectors. They found that for every nine applications sent by a white applicant, an equally good applicant with an ethnic minority name had to send 16 to obtain a positive response.

The names that were used for the purposes of this research included: Nazia Mahmood, Muhammed Kahlid, Mariam Namagembe, Anthony Olukayode, Alison Taylor and Andrew Clarke.

I wonder how many of you think you have suffered discrimination in the recruitment process or know someone who has? There has long been anecdotal evidence that employers discriminate, but now have some cold, hard facts. What do you think should be done to prevent this kind of recruitment bias?

The public sector vacancies included in this study - which usually required standard application forms, did not discriminate at this initial stage of recruitment. This suggests that discrimination might be reduced by the use of standard application forms.

But would that remove incidences of discrimination completely? Can we ever rid the hiring process of discrimination? From my point of view, I think it's worrying that after 30 years of the Race Relations Act, this kind of prejudice in recruitment still exists and people are simply being judged by their name.

From here

Why would you want to work for someone who does not want to employ you?

You wrote:

Why would you want to work for someone who does not want to employ you?

not sure that's the best way to look at it
personal feelings/prejudices shouldn't come into the hiring process - it should simply be the best suited for the job

and people are not robots - if there is already a problem at the interview stage, why won't that be exacerbated when you have to actually work with the person multiple hours each day?

Being suited to the job involves being able to work well with those around you.

Ofcourse, for big companies where the HR/employment side and the work side is totally separated, they can have a personal company policy/procedures which do not let the power get to the HR employee's head, hindering the performance of the company.

You wrote:

and people are not robots - if there is already a problem at the interview stage, why won't that be exacerbated when you have to actually work with the person multiple hours each day?

Being suited to the job involves being able to work well with those around you.

Ofcourse, for big companies where the HR/employment side and the work side is totally separated, they can have a personal company policy/procedures which do not let the power get to the HR employee's head, hindering the performance of the company.

what are you on about?

working alongside people of other backgrounds/beliefs etc is one of THE reasons why prejudice/preconceptions have gone down in the past 40 years in (parts of) this country. The fact that there is far more racism in monocultural places (both here and abroad) than in big cities like london.

govt should (and do?) discourage any sort of discrimination on this. That is without mentioning the fact that it is unfair/unjust.

the big question is whether govt should encourage positive discrimination for marginalised groups, ethnic minorities, disabled people etc

Ya'qub wrote:

what are you on about?

working alongside people of other backgrounds/beliefs etc is one of THE reasons why prejudice/preconceptions have gone down in the past 40 years in (parts of) this country. The fact that there is far more racism in monocultural places (both here and abroad) than in big cities like london.

I am not disagreeing with that, just asking why I would want to work in a place where the others may despise me... (and there is a perfectly valid answer for that: money.)

Ya'qub wrote:

]govt should (and do?) discourage any sort of discrimination on this. That is without mentioning the fact that it is unfair/unjust.

I think it is illegal. But should it be the governments job to tell people who to employ, what to think?

You wrote:

, just asking why I would want to work in a place where the others may despise me... (and there is a perfectly valid answer for that: money.)

You wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

govt should (and do?) discourage any sort of discrimination on this. That is without mentioning the fact that it is unfair/unjust.

I think it is illegal. But should it be the governments job to tell people who to employ, what to think?

i don't know know if/think it is illegal, especially since the public sector has been 'accused' of doing it in recent past.

would a law also ban "positive discrimination"?

I am sure equal opportunities laws would have something to do with this - and being accused of something does not mean the letter of the law was violated and even if it was, that can happen - like that woman recently who employed an illegal worker and got caught by the very legislation she had worked to pass as law.

EDIT - from the BBC's On This Day: 26 November 1968:

1968: Race discrimination law tightened

The new Race Relations Act has come into force, making it illegal to refuse housing, employment or public services to people because of their ethnic background.

According to the sidebar on the page, some public institutions such as the police were only covered by race relations legislation in 2000.