Zone1 Anti-white racism in hiring is beyond extreme

[Lisa558]

It's an interesting topic, so I will look around for some additional statistical information as well. Whatever I find, I will PM you with it to add to the topic if you choose to.

One last comment.
As of 2023, the U.S. non hispanic white population stood at roughly 197.0 million which translates to approximately 58% instead of 70% of the entire population of the country.

Thank you for your respectful engagement on this thread.

The issue with DEI and the consequences - blatant racial discrimination against whites - should be a concern to all who oppose racism. I find it disheartening that we have posters on this forum who claim to be adamantly against racism, and then not only defend it when it goes against whites, but actually call anyone who doesn’t support anti-white racism a racist. I abhor hypocrisy and double standards, and we see it with this topic in spades.

Now, then….on to the studies: I can’t find studies by region, but I did come across an interesting poll in which 1 out of 6 hiring managers were told NOT TO HIRE WHITE MEN. In the same poll, about half of all managers reported they were told to priotize race over qualifications.

1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men - ResumeBuilder.com

More than half of hiring managers whose companies have DEI initiatives in place believe their company practices “reverse discrimination”.

www.resumebuilder.com

The anti-white racism is especially pronounced among the liberal institutions, as would be expected, and in the following link, we see a university that has developed a handbook - a roadmap - to guide how to exclude whites from being hired as staff. They literally celebrated when they got through a year and were able to limit all new hires to POC.

No White Faculty Allowed

Civil rights laws have not stopped blatant racial discrimination in faculty hiring.

www.city-journal.org

 

[Coyote]

There is plenty of discussion of “systemic racism” against blacks and POC, but the truth is that the biggest target of racism are WHITES. (And if you’re a white male, the odds are stacked against you even more. Just pray you don’t lose your job.)

In this Bloomberg report, it is revealed that the S&P 100 added 320,000 jobs in the year after the violent, ex-felon died - and 94% of the new jobs went to POC. This shows how extreme the agenda is to prioritize race over merit as the primary qualifier for jobs, and it is a recipe for decline.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Coyote]

So the question is: do we accept lesser overall capability in our companies in preference for diversity rather than make hiring decisions regardless of race? If yes, then America will remain on a downhill slide.

Why do you assume they have less overall capability? These are entry level jobs.

How many applicants were White vs Hispanic or Black?

That’s an interesting observation, but it still comes at a disadvantage to the majority of whites - since the majority of whites have no more than a high school education - and they will find it hard to compete for service and labor jobs against blacks and Hispanics.

Delving deeper into the stats, what this shows is that corporations, in an effort to increase diversity and hire more POC over whites, are finding it easier to do that on the lower-end since there are more POC on the lower end from which to choose. Thus, they can “make their numbers” and hire POC retail workers, counter clerks, low-end support staff, etc., and turn away whites for those jobs.

This means that whites without career training after high school will be SOL.

There is nothing in data that shows they are turning away people for these low level jobs based on race. You are making a subjective assumption.

 

[Lisa558]

Why do you assume they have less overall capability? These are entry level jobs.

Another one who denies anti-white racism by pretending not to understand per capita.

How many applicants were White vs Hispanic or Black?

The numbers are too far askew to try to make THAT excuse.

There is nothing in data that shows they are turning away people for these low level jobs based on race. You are making a subjective assumption.

You deny obvious racism when it’s against whites, and then accuse whites of being racist for bringing it up. Hiring managers are reporting that they have been INSTRUCTED TO EXCLUDE WHITE MEN, and liberal organizations have handbooks on how to justify hiring a lesser qualified black over a better qualified white.

 

[Coyote]

..

Another one who denies anti-white racism by pretending not to understand per capita.

The numbers are too far askew to try to make THAT excuse.

Your claim is meaningless with out more data, it is just correlation. If there were 100 Black and Hispanic applicants and only 15 Whites then that is different than 100 Whites and 15 Blacks and Hispanics.

You deny obvious racism when it’s against whites, and then accuse whites of being racist for bringing it up. Hiring managers are reporting that they have been INSTRUCTED TO EXCLUDE WHITE MEN, and liberal organizations have handbooks on how to justify hiring a lesser qualified black over a better qualified white.

So…how about all those Asians who made the greatest gain then? Are they being unfairly hired instead of Whites as part of DEI?

 

[katsteve2012]

Thank you for your respectful engagement on this thread.

The issue with DEI and the consequences - blatant racial discrimination against whites - should be a concern to all who oppose racism. I find it disheartening that we have posters on this forum who claim to be adamantly against racism, and then not only defend it when it goes against whites, but actually call anyone who doesn’t support anti-white racism a racist. I abhor hypocrisy and double standards, and we see it with this topic in spades.

Now, then….on to the studies: I can’t find studies by region, but I did come across an interesting poll in which 1 out of 6 hiring managers were told NOT TO HIRE WHITE MEN. In the same poll, about half of all managers reported they were told to priotize race over qualifications.

1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men - ResumeBuilder.com

More than half of hiring managers whose companies have DEI initiatives in place believe their company practices “reverse discrimination”.

www.resumebuilder.com

The anti-white racism is especially pronounced among the liberal institutions, as would be expected, and in the following link, we see a university that has developed a handbook - a roadmap - to guide how to exclude whites from being hired as staff. They literally celebrated when they got through a year and were able to limit all new hires to POC.

No White Faculty Allowed

Civil rights laws have not stopped blatant racial discrimination in faculty hiring.

www.city-journal.org

This one from the Bureau Of Labor goes into detail, illustrating post pandemic labor statistics by race.


"The labor market continued to recover in 2021 from the recession caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall unemployment rate (jobless rate) for the United States averaged 5.3 percent in 2021. However, the rate varied across race and ethnicity groups. Among the race groups, jobless rates were higher than the national rate for Blacks or African Americans (8.6 percent), American Indians and Alaska Natives (8.2 percent), and people categorized as being of Two or More Races (8.2 percent). The unemployment rates for Asians (5.0 percent) and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (6.9 percent) were not much different from the overall unemployment rate in 2021.
The rate for people of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, at 6.8 percent, was higher than the rate of 5.0 percent for non-Hispanics."

The jobless rate for Whites (4.7 percent) was lower than the national rate.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2021/home.htm

 

[IM2]

When someone such as Lisa starts talking, they do not consider the preferences created by any other policy besides the ones they are race baited to believe. For example no one on the right complains about Asians who are hired because of the H1B Visa from the government. The number 1 recipient of this government policy are Asians. Asian immigrants are coming over here being hired for high tech jobs instead of Americans because of this visa. Indians are the number 1 recipient. Indians are Asians. They come to this country with foriegn degrees and are hired for American jobs. Then when discussions like these are held we read about how Asians and whites are getting passed over for jobs that are given to unquaifed blacks. This is inaccurate to put it nicely.

 

[Lisa558]

This one from the Bureau Of Labor goes into detail, illustrating post pandemic labor statistics by race.


"The labor market continued to recover in 2021 from the recession caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall unemployment rate (jobless rate) for the United States averaged 5.3 percent in 2021. However, the rate varied across race and ethnicity groups. Among the race groups, jobless rates were higher than the national rate for Blacks or African Americans (8.6 percent), American Indians and Alaska Natives (8.2 percent), and people categorized as being of Two or More Races (8.2 percent). The unemployment rates for Asians (5.0 percent) and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (6.9 percent) were not much different from the overall unemployment rate in 2021.
The rate for people of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, at 6.8 percent, was higher than the rate of 5.0 percent for non-Hispanics."

The jobless rate for Whites (4.7 percent) was lower than the national rate.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2021/home.htm

That study proves nothing: the unemployment rate for whites has always been lower than for other minority groups.

That does not explain away why out of more than 300,000 new corporate jobs, only 6% went to whites and 94% went to non-whites. Numbers that skewed are the result of INTENTIONAL discrimination against whites, and it is racist.

In the studies I posted above, 1 in 6 managers were told not to hire white men, and about half were told to prioritize diversity over qualifications (meaning that if a well-qualified white and a lesser-qualified black applied for the same position, the black should get the job).

And what is happening at the liberal universities is especially racist. They actually have handbooks to explain how to exclude whites.

And that goes for the antisemitism, as well. In CUNY, located in a city that is 20% Jewish (and Jews having higher levels of education on top of that), not a SINGLE Jew is among the 80 senior staff positions. That is by INTENT.

Racism and bigotry is not only accepted by Democrats when it’s against whites, and especially Jews, but now it’s actually being pushed. You simply cannot be a party trying to run on a platform of opposing racism and then practice it against others.

 

[Lisa558]

..


Your claim is meaningless with out more data, it is just correlation. If there were 100 Black and Hispanic applicants and only 15 Whites then that is different than 100 Whites and 15 Blacks and Hispanics.

Oh, please….your denial is ridiculous. This was a broad-range study thst showed that of the 320,000 new jobs filled by the 100 largest corporations, only 6% went to whites and 94% to non-whites,

So…how about all those Asians who made the greatest gain then? Are they being unfairly hired instead of Whites as part of DEI?

There’s an obvious answer to that: ANY non-white will do. And Asians are the highest educated population in the country, next to Jews. So in order for corporations to meet their objective to exclude whites, they default to Asians.

It is time to stop the Democrats’ racist agenda and just go by MERIT.

 

[katsteve2012]

That study proves nothing: the unemployment rate for whites has always been lower than for other minority groups.

That does not explain away why out of more than 300,000 new corporate jobs, only 6% went to whites and 94% went to non-whites. Numbers that skewed are the result of INTENTIONAL discrimination against whites, and it is racist.

In the studies I posted above, 1 in 6 managers were told not to hire white men, and about half were told to prioritize diversity over qualifications (meaning that if a well-qualified white and a lesser-qualified black applied for the same position, the black should get the job).

And what is happening at the liberal universities is especially racist. They actually have handbooks to explain how to exclude whites.

And that goes for the antisemitism, as well. In CUNY, located in a city that is 20% Jewish (and Jews having higher levels of education on top of that), not a SINGLE Jew is among the 80 senior staff positions. That is by INTENT.

Racism and bigotry is not only accepted by Democrats when it’s against whites, and especially Jews, but now it’s actually being pushed. You simply cannot be a party trying to run on a platform of opposing racism and then practice it against others.e

I will have to disagree.
If the unemployment rate(which is a per capita number) is SIGNIFICANTLY lower within a certain group compared to another, then it obviously is a benchmark that indicates the group with the lower rate is not being rampantly victimized in favor the group with the higher rate of unemployment.

That is not to say that that ARE NOT isolated instances of initiatives at work in SELECT places where there are programs designed to create an advantage for a certain group that has been disenfranchised in the past, however that does not prove by any means that there is rampant favoritism affecting every employment sector "dating back decades" that is taking place.

If that was the case, the group that has been the beneficiary of such a practice for a period of decades, would at some point see substanstantial improvement in their overall unemployment rate, and the group with the lower unemployment rate would be adversely affected on a per capita basis.

The first study in the OP only proved that in ONE isolated period in time that more upper management jobs were offered to a group(Asians) other than the group who is the majority and historically has, and still does hold the vast majority of jobs in that category.

It did not prove that such initiatives are common and that there is "rampant racism" at work against another group, that historically has always had the lowest rate of unemployment.

 

[Lisa558]

I will have to disagree.
If the unemployment rate(which is a per capita number) is SIGNIFICANTLY lower within a certain group compared to another, then it obviously is a benchmark that indicates the group with the lower rate is not being rampantly victimized in favor the group with the higher rate of unemployment.

That is not to say that that ARE NOT isolated instances of initiatives at work in SELECT places where there are programs designed to create an advantage for a certain group that has been disenfranchised in the past, however that does not prove by any means that there is rampant favoritism at work in every employment sector "dating back decades" that is at work.

If that was the case, the group that has been the beneficiary of such a practice would see substanstantial improvement in their overall unemployment rate, and the group with the lower unemployment rate would be adversely affected.

The first study in the OP only proved that in ONE isolated period in time that more upper management jobs were offered to a group(Asians) other than the group who is the majority and historically has, and still does hold the vast majority of jobs in that category.

It did not prove that such initiatives are common and that there is "rampant racism" at work against another group, that historically has always had the lowest rate of unemployment.

That’s all historic.

Right now, the racism has reversed - with initiatives and policies deigned to intentionally exclude white applicants from consideration for jobs, even though specific white applicants may be the best qualified.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is, among others, the pattern of deciding actions based on GROUPS rather than individuals. No matter which way it cuts, it’s racist.

it is unfair when two applicants, one white and one black, both able for the same job (or promotion), and when the most qualified applicant is white but he is rejected in favor of hiring the less qualified black because, as a group, blacks have higher unemployment rates. How is it appropriate to make a decision to punish the individual white because, as a group, whites have better unemployment stats?

Let’s give a specific example. My dad, may he RIP, grew up in a poor family, and studied his butt off to win free tuition to college, and then graduated at the very top of his class. Now a job in his field open up, and the other applicant is a black kid, who is much less qualified. He has a degree, but from a lesser college, and his grades were mediocre. My father is rejected because of his skin color.

Then he applies to another job, and it happens again. And again. And again. Finally, because he is desperate for income, he takes a job as an assistant somewhere, at half the salary of what he is qualified for.

Making hiring decisions based on race, with the instructions to avoid hiring whites, is racist….and wrong. Decisions should be based solely on merit.

 

[katsteve2012]

That’s all historic.

Yes, it is historical. And the history has not changed enough to reflect a significant change in numbers that have been consistent for generations. Actually the black unemployment rate was lower in 1965 than it is now, which is likely attributed most to the growing presence of immigrant laborers.

Right now, the racism has reversed - with initiatives and policies deigned to intentionally exclude white applicants from consideration for jobs, even though specific white applicants may be the best qualified.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is, among others, the pattern of deciding actions based on GROUPS rather than individuals. No matter which way it cuts, it’s racist.

it is unfair when two applicants, one white and one black, both able for the same job (or promotion), and when the most qualified applicant is white but he is rejected in favor of hiring the less qualified black because, as a group, blacks have higher unemployment rates. How is it appropriate to make a decision to punish the individual white because, as a group, whites have better unemployment stats?

Let’s give a specific example. My dad, may he RIP, grew up in a poor family, and studied his butt off to win free tuition to college, and then graduated at the very top of his class. Now a job in his field open up, and the other applicant is a black kid, who is much less qualified. He has a degree, but from a lesser college, and his grades were mediocre. My father is rejected because of his skin color.

Then he applies to another job, and it happens again. And again. And again. Finally, because he is desperate for income, he takes a job as an assistant somewhere, at half the salary of what he is qualified for.

Making hiring decisions based on race, with the instructions to avoid hiring whites, is racist….and wrong. Decisions should be based solely on merit.

And again, the "policies" that you're speaking of have not had a generational presence that could be considered "rampant" by any means, because the current employment per capita numbers do not reflect support of "blatant, nor rampant favoritism" towards non white prospective job candidates.

Are there isolated examples of what you're describing?
No argument there.

Examples would be the study in the OP regarding the 320,000 jobs, resulting in 25% of those jobs in upper management being awarded to Asian candidates and the case that you presented involving UW, which by the way, action was taken swiftly in that case to ensure it does not reoccur.

See the link below:

University takes action after faculty hiring process inappropriately used race as a factor

Late last academic year, concerns were reported about a faculty hiring process in the University of Washington’s Department of Psychology. A review was requested by Dianne Harris, Dean of the...

www.washington.edu

Lastly, If your father(RIP) were still here, it is true that he would likely face a more diverse field of competitors, (including more women) because during his era, typical hiring guidelines would also have likely excluded diverse candidates from even applying for the same job, and if they did apply, the probability of being hired would not even be a realistic expectation.

 

[ElmerMudd]

That study proves nothing: the unemployment rate for whites has always been lower than for other minority groups.

That does not explain away why out of more than 300,000 new corporate jobs, only 6% went to whites and 94% went to non-whites. Numbers that skewed are the result of INTENTIONAL discrimination against whites, and it is racist.

In the studies I posted above, 1 in 6 managers were told not to hire white men, and about half were told to prioritize diversity over qualifications (meaning that if a well-qualified white and a lesser-qualified black applied for the same position, the black should get the job).

And what is happening at the liberal universities is especially racist. They actually have handbooks to explain how to exclude whites.

And that goes for the antisemitism, as well. In CUNY, located in a city that is 20% Jewish (and Jews having higher levels of education on top of that), not a SINGLE Jew is among the 80 senior staff positions. That is by INTENT.

Racism and bigotry is not only accepted by Democrats when it’s against whites, and especially Jews, but now it’s actually being pushed. You simply cannot be a party trying to run on a platform of opposing racism and then practice it against others.

You are cherry picking data. You do not aoppear to have experience in the real world.
We work with many companies, of all sizes. The largest companies do look to balancem their work force by race. They do it for many reasons but they feel it provides them the best workforce for their company to be successful. Top management get in trouble if they are not successful. It is a private company. They should be able to do what they want. That is conservative values,.
Medium to small companies do not do so as much.

At the end of the day, what will get you hired and keep you employed is work skills and work ethics.
People with good , marketable skills and a w good work ethic will find jobs.

Too many people look at reasons they cannot get jobs rather than the reasons they can. Unemployed whiners

 

[ElmerMudd]

It is true that whites currently occupy the vast majority of senior-level jobs, to be expected to some extent since whites are the majority population, but does that justify the current practice of discriminating against a white applicant who is superior to a POC applicant, simply to diversity the upper ranks more?

The key is to end discrimination by race, period, rather than to look at groups as a monolith and adjust hiring decisions with a pre-determined goal of increasing the number of people from POC groups and decreasing it from the white. When you do that, in the majority of cases, you will not get the best qualified applicant. And that is because whites are the majority population, so statistically the best candidate will be from the white group.

So the question is: do we accept lesser overall capability in our companies in preference for diversity rather than make hiring decisions regardless of race? If yes, then America will remain on a downhill slide.

That’s an interesting observation, but it still comes at a disadvantage to the majority of whites - since the majority of whites have no more than a high school education - and they will find it hard to compete for service and labor jobs against blacks and Hispanics.

Delving deeper into the stats, what this shows is that corporations, in an effort to increase diversity and hire more POC over whites, are finding it easier to do that on the lower-end since there are more POC on the lower end from which to choose. Thus, they can “make their numbers” and hire POC retail workers, counter clerks, low-end support staff, etc., and turn away whites for those jobs.

This means that whites without career training after high school will be SOL.

Diversity within a work force and within a society is a good thing.

 

[ElmerMudd]

There is plenty of discussion of “systemic racism” against blacks and POC, but the truth is that the biggest target of racism are WHITES. (And if you’re a white male, the odds are stacked against you even more. Just pray you don’t lose your job.)

In this Bloomberg report, it is revealed that the S&P 100 added 320,000 jobs in the year after the violent, ex-felon died - and 94% of the new jobs went to POC. This shows how extreme the agenda is to prioritize race over merit as the primary qualifier for jobs, and it is a recipe for decline.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The affirmative action , in hiring, is an good educational experience for whites.
Whites get a very small taste of what minorites have faced for decades and still do.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, it is historical. And the history has not changed enough to reflect a significant change in numbers that have been consistent for generations. Actually the black unemployment rate was lower in 1965 than it is now, which is likely attributed most to the growing presence of immigrant laborers.

And again, the "policies" that you're speaking of have not had a generational presence that could be considered "rampant" by any means, because the current employment per capita numbers do not reflect support of "blatant, nor rampant favoritism" towards non white prospective job candidates.

Are there isolated examples of what you're describing?
No argument there.

Examples would be the study in the OP regarding the 320,000 jobs, resulting in 25% of those jobs in upper management being awarded to Asian candidates and the case that you presented involving UW, which by the way, action was taken swiftly in that case to ensure it does not reoccur.

See the link below:

University takes action after faculty hiring process inappropriately used race as a factor

Late last academic year, concerns were reported about a faculty hiring process in the University of Washington’s Department of Psychology. A review was requested by Dianne Harris, Dean of the...

www.washington.edu

Lastly, If your father(RIP) were still here, it is true that he would likely face a more diverse field of competitors, (including more women) because during his era, typical hiring guidelines would also have likely excluded diverse candidates from even applying for the same job, and if they did apply, the probability of being hired would not even be a realistic expectation.

Let’s stick with my father, RIP, since it is the individual level where the DEI initiatives hurt whites, and that’s their intention: to prioritize non-whites.

So it’s true my father would have come up against more diversity, but don’t fool yourself: there was still plenty of diversity when he went to college, including plenty of black students. The point is that my father got hired because he was just about the BEST. These days, he would be rejected in favor of a much weaker POC, and simply due to skin color.

It’s racist. Why should a top student have job opportunities slammed shut in his face simply because he’s white? Why should he be punished?

I oppose racism, and that includes making decisions based on race - such as whom to admit to college, law school, or med school…..whom to hire doe a job….whom to promote.

 

[Lisa558]

Diversity within a work force and within a society is a good thing.

Better is having the most qualified, capable, accomplished workforce - without any consideration to race. Let the best get the jobs.

I want the best doctor possible for my heart surgery (Gd-forbid I should ever need it) rather than someone picked for med school to add diversity.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Better is having the most qualified, capable, accomplished workforce - without any consideration to race. Let the best get the jobs.

I want the best doctor possible for my heart surgery (Gd-forbid I should ever need it) rather than someone picked for med school to add diversity.

Responding to both of your posts with a real world situation.
The University I went to implemented affirmative action. As a result some white kids did not get in because of affirmative action. Som,e of my, white, alumni friends kids were effected by this. They were mad. I understand. Affirmative action was eliminated and went to a pure merit program. The focus was on grades and test scores. The % of asians students increased substaqntially. Way above the % of asians in the US population. My frienda whose white kids were not getting in, and those who were getting in, complained the large % of asians students was not providing a real world experience for the overall student body. The University realized that there needed to be consideration besides grades and test scores to provide a balanced community that provided a better education for all involved. Considerations went beyond grades and test scores. An applicants activities, participation in the community, unique experiences were taken into consideration. It provided a more balanced student body and the overall education was better by many people's standards.

 

[katsteve2012]

Let’s stick with my father, RIP, since it is the individual level where the DEI initiatives hurt whites, and that’s their intention: to prioritize non-whites.

So it’s true my father would have come up against more diversity, but don’t fool yourself: there was still plenty of diversity when he went to college, including plenty of black students. The point is that my father got hired because he was just about the BEST. These days, he would be rejected in favor of a much weaker POC, and simply due to skin color.

It’s racist. Why should a top student have job opportunities slammed shut in his face simply because he’s white? Why should he be punished?

I oppose racism, and that includes making decisions based on race - such as whom to admit to college, law school, or med school…..whom to hire doe a job….whom to promote.

I am not privy to what your father experienced during his years entering and getting started in the workforce, however, I am quite
aware of what was going on during my own father's period of entry into the workforce, and he experienced numerous closed doors due to Jim Crow restrictions, even though he graduated at top of his own class, and had a spotless work record from the Navy as well as in previous jobs held.

As far as there being "plenty of diversity back then", I'm not certain what "plenty" would have resembled for that era.

Perhaps "plenty" would have been one or two minorities out of a field of 20 candidates?

Neither of us know for certain, however I do know that if my own father was still living, he would be in his mid 90's, and would describe a much different experience in terms of "diversity" where he came from.

IMHO, it is a very slippery slope to anticipate what your father would have experienced now versus then, because we are talking about isolated cases, not actual laws on the books that mandate that colleges like UW do what they did, and were promptly corrected for, as they deserved to be.

That being said, the holy grail for most here who often discuss matters of race, refer to per capita as the approved benchmark for most statistics.

We've even done so in this thread.

With all due respect, based on current per capita numbers, if qualified, your father (RIP), would have just as likely had a positive outcome, especially at the executive and managerial level,
in today's environment.

Of course that is speculation, just as it to assume that he may have been passed over due to what is considered "preferential treatment" (by some) being extended to someone else of a another demographic.

This is my opinion based on statistics, as well as my own observations.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I am not privy to what your father experienced during his years entering and getting started in the workforce, however, I am quite
aware of what was going on during my own father's period of entry into the workforce, and he experienced numerous closed doors due to Jim Crow restrictions, even though he graduated at top of his own class, and had a spotless work record from the Navy as well as in previous jobs held.

As far as there being "plenty of diversity back then", I'm not certain what "plenty" would have resembled for that era.

Perhaps "plenty" would have been one or two minorities out of a field of 20 candidates?

Neither of us know for certain, however I do know that if my own father was still living, he would be in his mid 90's, and would describe a much different experience in terms of "diversity" where he came from.

IMHO, it is a very slippery slope to anticipate what your father would have experienced now versus then, because we are talking about isolated cases, not actual laws on the books that mandate that colleges like UW do what they did, and were promptly corrected for, as they deserved to be.

That being said, the holy grail for most here who often discuss matters of race, refer to per capita as the approved benchmark for most statistics.

We've even done so in this thread.

With all due respect, based on current per capita numbers, if qualified, your father (RIP), would have just as likely had a positive outcome, especially at the executive and managerial level,
in today's environment.

Of course that is speculation, just as it to assume that he may have been passed over due to preferential treatment being extended to someone else of a another demographic.

This is my opinion based on statistics.

As an old white guy, I agree with all that you said.
Too manywhites deny the affect of racial inequalities of the past, and currently, but are screaming when they feel they may be receiving unequal rights.