Tim! You came for an away match. Great to have you here and you raise some very good points indeed. Points which I'm going to try and issue a partial rebuttal to.
The problem with the 'more information' approach is where do you stop? Do you include genetic history? Does the fact someone's parents died when they were eleven factor into your decision making? Does their grandmother's schizophrenia diagnosis from 1940 and subsequent hospitalisation impact your decision making too? Where do you draw the line? Where can you draw the line?
My personal recommendation would be to have employers and potential employees separate. I would suggest this is an ideal job for an algorithm. Google knows what colour pants I'm wearing, it should be able to produce a neutral weighting system that shortlists candidates based on more information than the employer will ever see. Any subsequent interviews should be done blind - and algorithm funding should be linked to its ability to put the right people in the right jobs. If the employee stays for a year, both employer and employee might make a contribution to costs.
Personally speaking, I would do away with a great deal of academic testing. The ability to recall facts under pressure isn't a good fit for the needs of the 21st Century and is irrelevant for most positions. The pedagogic models we have been flogging for a hundred years need to be overhauled with a greater emphasis on interpersonal skills, creativity and self-learning. That should have an impact on how recruitment happens over the next hundred years, we simply need to insert ourselves into the mix to ensue the recruitment is as fair as it can be.
For you that includes a racial component, I would suggest this will be divisive and undermine progress in the longer term. If we can revert back to an economic model of empowerment as leftists, we can level the playing field on an individual by individual basis. Identity politics draws attention to what divides people (skin colour) rather than what unites them (wealth inequality) - by tackling the latter we can resolve the former. When we focus all our energy on the former, we miss all the nuances that make up the latter. Wealth inequality is a fight we can win, racial divisions are not because poor people vote disproportionately against their own interests when pitted against a neighbour.
As you said in a recent article, you have to fight for democracy. There is no democratic mandate for identarianism... if there were, Trump wouldn't have the working class by the nose or have increased his vote share amongst BIPOC voters. At the moment, identity politics is hurting the left - and it'll be culpable in a right wing resurgence. You and I could argue about that until the cows come home - and I have no doubt we will. That's what makes Medium great.
I'm glad you dropped by - many prolific authors on Medium are set to broadcast. It's nice to know you're cut from a different cloth. As I've said to many of the people who challenge my pieces, we're all committed to ending racism and creating a better world for everyone, we just have different roadmaps to get there. :o)
