I wonder how many white chefs or staff work away or get trained to work in Curry houses?......I wonder if they are biased when it comes to who is taken on.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't......However, I don't see the Morning Star moaning about that ever.

I work in a school with a department that contains more Asians than any other demographic......You know what.....I think people like to complain and point fingers too easily.

Employers should be allowed to employ people and not be second guessed over small time statistics.

If the school really has a history of refusing the employ of minorities then fair enough....prove it.....But complain about and extend this to all other industries as well. Otherwise its hypocrisy based upon race.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Why do you ask? Do you have an interest in 5 year olds?

Actually, add about 60 years and you will be nearer.

Do you believe everything you read in, say, the Daily Mail?

The Morning Star was for many years the slave of Soviet Russia and regularly published outright lies. These days it tries to latch onto every extreme left organisation, including the laughable "Peoples' Assembly"'

(Only joking with the 5 year-old jibe by the way - amoung your many faults, I don't really think that is one of them!)

Almost certainly, although the question would also be how many are applying for the job (subconscious selective bias works both ways). One of the best Indian meals I had was in Cornwall, cooked by a white Scotish Chef.

All industries could benefit in how they select candidates for interview, either by introducing a point based score system or by selecting candidates who's personal data has been obfuscated (name, gender, martial status, race/ethnicity etc).

Employers should be encouraged to employ the best person for the job, and given the tools to do that. But also they should not be allowed to discriminate on grounds of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation without good reason.

If you want the best person for the job, the best method is to avoid unconscious selection bias.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Presuming a Muslim Employer to be a 'Muslim dominated company'.

No, but then the research would probably show the similar socially generated prejudicial bias, as its generated from within the societal influences, and should be subject to the same or similar processes of balance.

The point arises from the experience of prejudice in certain groups, which have a history of experience of prejudice.

The point isn't that whitey is a racist (and if you look at the expanded subject, you'll find it applies to groups outside of race) but that we are prone to a phenomina of bias that is generated socially, on the apriori assumptions made by the person reviewing cv's - In fact their individual views on race have nothing to do with it.

Its a selective, apriori, bias, that is culturally and socially influenced. Unfortunately some groups in society are far more affected by this than others, and it generally reflective of social hierarchy, power relationships and influence.

Even peoples names will generate similar bias. You'll struggle to get a job as a mechanic named Tarquin Oliver-Smyth and similarly someone called Crystal Fowler will find it more difficult in employment associated with higher classes.

This is the issue I have with Institutional racism, its a misnomer, because it isn't limited to race, but how a racial group is positioned and presented in society.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I'm not sure that the state should get involved to the point where no discrimination by an employer is allowed. It seems too much like thought policing to me. Some aspects of covering up details for a job just don't work.....Many jobs are given out upon the process of 'fitting' in with clients or co-employees and for that to happen the employer really needs to be able to ascertain the personality of the individual in a face to face interview.

However, I believe that the message from the state should always be towards an integrated employment strategy where what always should be of primary importance is employing the best candidate for the role.

An employer can always come up with bulls*** reasons for not employing someone if they wished too.

But if the state is educating and providing well adapted and functioning employees for businesses to employ then any business discrimining upon race or gender or anything else are fools to themselves as well as being stuck in the past and unfair.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The employer or line manager should always have the final say on who is hired, because ultimately they need to determine whether they can fit into the team.

However best practice is to provide the manager or employer with the best candidates, and its at this point where the problem of selective bias really occurs (at interview the applicant presents himself in person, so the role of selective bias is massively reduced).

Selective Bias is significantly diminished through face to face interaction (because sufficient information to overcome selective bias can be presented, and usually people are looking at the candidate by this point on a more merit based ability - it only really plays a role where there are two more or less equal applicants.

Of course where a reasonable case for discrimination on race, gender, sexual orientation or religion can be made, then it should be made (because that's illegal unless reasonable grounds for discrimination can be presented).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]