On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English.
It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
Sarah
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Fred