On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred
Bauder<fredbaud(a)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