Sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Also, who wants to work for a company that is essentially reaching out to hire more racists?
It’s already illegal to discriminate but should we really demand that everyone like each other too?
Keep work out of politics not just politics out of work.
Your characterization of racism as a "belief" is alarming.
What word would you use for something someone believes is true, even if it isn't? I'm having a really hard time imagining what's wrong with the word "belief" here, to talk about the state of someone's mental expectations of the world.
Racist people don't magically become unbiased in the workplace.
People can and do change, and most of them can compartmentalize in the mean time. "Racist" is not a fundamental, unchangeable attribute of a person, and it's too easy to scope creep once you've got the weapon of ostracism and censorship ready at hand. No matter how wrong they are, we can't just permanently deny people access to jobs and public life. That makes them martyrs.
Please can you stop using this line of reasoning to dismiss racist behavior, it's incredibly frustrating to read this in this context. The risk with hiring someone who's being discriminatory is that they'll act in a discriminatory way towards the other employees, which then puts those other employees at risk for being denied access to jobs and public life. The weapon of of ostracism and censorship is already being wielded once that discriminatory rhetoric has been put out, perhaps you're trying to have good intentions and be forgiving, but the way you're going about it guarantees you'll be a step too late and the damage will have been done already.
If you do, fair enough. I certainly don't.
Also. '"Racist" is not a fundamental, unchangeable attribute of a person' I would love to know the secret to changing someone's mind on this. I think the whole world would to be honest. If it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Sadly in USA circa 2021 many people have forgot elementary moral wisdom.
Matthew 7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Matthew 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
This guy seems to have a pretty good track record: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
One thing that helps is just exposure to counterexamples of whatever bias a person has. If someone thinks that all of group A are lazy, show them hard-working members of group A.
Again, maybe you're trying to be forgiving when you say "we can't just deny people access to jobs and public life" but we absolutely can do that when they become a detriment to everybody else involved in those jobs and public life. It's sad but it's true. For people who are particularly detrimental to the point where they commit hate crimes, we send them to prison.
Maybe not like each other, but acknowledging their coworkers right to exist should be required.
Define racist content, and what is not racist content.
EDIT: I am serious, since Twitter mobs define it in a way that suits a political agenda, obviously, to "cancel" someone.
EDIT PS: Bring the downvotes.
I believe you make an excellent point
What much of the mainstream population interprets as racist behavior (a significant example being WW2 caricatures) would be considered both classically racist, and neoracist.
The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations would also be considered by many to be classically racist, but not neoracist. As neoracism views everything through a lense distorted by privilege theory, hegemony, and critical race theory, this would instead be viewed as a counter to previous racism. "Sure, give the unprivileged a leg up at the expense of the privileged, that white man doesn't need it."
If we apply the same to sexism, there are then two definitions of sexism - a classical one, and a neosexist one. One affirms what we know biologically speaking are the differences, and tendencies. Neosexism on the other hand, is viewed through a gender theory lense, tempered with CRT and privilege theory, completely malleable, and in many cases, rejecting the science of biology. Level setting to disadvantage men would be a plus. However, in neosexism, the pecking order would start with men at the lowest, followed by genetic women, and then into modified/self-identified and others.
We could also carry this though in sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, etc. For example, classical discrimination against traditionalist religious groups such as Christians, Muslims, and Observant Jews are frowned upon. But, in a neo-sense, discrimination against them, for having privilege or being part of power structures, would be a benefit, even, dare I say, celebrated, particularly if they benefit from Western Civilization.
This goes a long way towards explaining what we can observe as outgrowth of Critical Theory / Privilege Theory.
The result isn't so much "you can't be racist against whites", but rather "blacks/PoC and minorities can't be racist".
Citation needed there. If someone makes sexist and racist comments, their coworkers often conspire to get them fired.
Most of these places have a minimum wage of $11-$15/hr, so they're paying pretty much nothing for hard labor tedious jobs.
[0]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/06/case-for-liberal...
I get that it's hard to craft precise moderation rules, but drafting policy based on the rare exception seems strictly harmful.