Reading and writing, communication in written form is a critical skill for a software developer, more important than even coding skills (btw, I'm yet to see a person who can code and can't write, or even hear about such person). It is irrelevant, what is the reason for the lack of skill - innate disability or low intelligence - if you can't clearly and precisely communicate with your coworkers, you'll create more problems for the team than you will solve.
And speaking of discrimination, you wouldn't hire a paraplegic person as a nurse or firefighter, right?
Another case I witnessed was in Canada, where French is an official language, yet the hiring manager excluded one candidate because he had a thick French accent..
Technically speaking too, there’s nothing as “native English”, we all do have an accent to some degree, a lot of English vocabulary are taken from other languages, and even English speakers do have a lot of silly typos and mistakes in their writing all the time, including my writings in here, so it’s never an excuse.
>And speaking of discrimination, you wouldn't hire a paraplegic person as a nurse or firefighter, right?
That’s a poor analogy, you do have the tools to properly and easily compensate such linguistic disability, as easy as having someone double checking their writing or having one of these new AI spell check tools, etc., but we don’t have the proper technology and tools to compensate for a paraplegic to be a firefighter, yet, say in the future there are proven ex-skeletons that can help, then yes you are discriminating.
> you do have the tools to properly and easily compensate such linguistic disability
No, I do not have such tools, and neither do you.
Interestingly, the mistakes non-native English speakers make are different from the ones native speakers make. Thus, excluding non-natives makes it more likely for certain kinds of mistakes to slip by. "There" vs "Their", etc.
If the hypothetical person in question had such tools, then we would not see their "handicap" right? So the discrimination would not have occurred...
The bit about:
hire a paraplegic person as a nurse or firefighter
I like how they picked a tiny sliver of jobs that might require full mobility. Thinking deeper: I am sure there are many nursing jobs that can be done from a wheelchair. And why not doctors? (See Dr. House, with a limb, a cane, and an on-again-off-again opioid addiction!) There are plenty of jobs that can done in a hospital and fire department that do not require all of your limbs. A lot of the work involves sitting in an office, typing on a PC.Once, I had an office mate who had a single hand. Incredibly, he was a member of a "fast reaction" front-line support team. It was a small miracle watching him dash about the keyboard. It helped to open my mind about what was possible with modern technology.
I dont really disagree with your post over all, but you really should refrain from using fictionalized stories to support your real world public policy it never works out well. That is aside from the fact that that example is pretty poor as something that should be aspirational.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/publications/fact-sheets/e...
Obviously those discriminations are illegal so it goes passive most of the times, by continuous interruption during meetings or intentionally asked to repeat or elaborate themselves, among other.
It’s not about communication abilities as this is usually the covert passive response for such discriminatory behaviors, a lot of these candidates can speak “better” in terms of clarity than people with Australian accent for example, it’s just another episode of “I’m better than you”, you can read more about that in here:
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210528-the-pervasive-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2022/11/18/accent-...
https://exceptionalindividuals.com/about-us/blog/what-is-dys...
I love it when people from internet forums are telling me what my job is.
You know, your way of thinking will eventually lead to understanding that interviewing is inherently discriminatory against everyone but the best candidate, and thus must be abolished. This will lead to a creation of some kind of government agency that you'll ask for a worker and it'll appoint someone who would be considered as acceptable by some clerk. You wouldn't have the freedom to refuse to hire the appointee and would be obliged to pay him.
That's not discrimination. The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.
A lot of people have used your way of thinking to justify discrimination. "Obviously foreign people are less educated. I'm just looking for the best candidate so I should not interview someone with a foreign name". How can you be sure that _you_ are not discriminating ?
> I love it when people from internet forums are telling me what my job is.
So you don't agree that your job is to hire the best person without discrimination ? Or you don't agree that giving people the proper tools allow them to be the best version of themselves ?
I assume that someone who can't throw up a few lines of text about himself is not worth even considering for an interview for a job that ultimately requires producing text, in a form of computer code, documentation and communication with co-workers. Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm discriminating against mentally handicapped and illiterate people. That's the intent.
As long as it’s not a catastrophic mental disability, having a disability should not preclude someone from communicating clearly. As long as they slow down and actually take time to make themselves clear, it shouldn’t be a problem.
You have first-hand experience of hiring managers telling you they eliminated someone b/c they had a foreign accent?