On 04/15/11 2:46 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauderfredbaud@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."
The Irish candidate would still be required to be equally proficient in a second language, which could be Gaelic. A specific exclusion, such as Urdu would be discriminatory. A native Navaho speaker would probably qualify. Would it be discriminatory if the State Department hired foreign service workers on the basis of language proficiency? If the CIA hired spies that weren't fluent in the language where they would be posted they would be less than effective.
Ray