|
|
|
|
|
by pyuser583
1570 days ago
|
|
Interviewing someone from an opposite “frictioned background” is not considered a conflict of interest in law or ethics. “Conflict of interest” is when someone has a clearly defined interest, usually in something of value, that opposes the interests of someone they have a duty towards. In ethnic prejudice, there’s no clearly defined interest. I know this sounds pedantic. But when a conflict of interest arises, the next questions are “when did it begin?”, “when will it end?”, “how big was it?”, and “can we mitigate it somehow?” You can’t do any of those things with ethnic bias. Ethnic bias is bad, but it’s not a conflict of interests. |
|
> Ethnic bias is bad, but it’s not a conflict of interests.
Okay, so - for sure, if you're from an opposite "frictioned background" and you can interview someone neutrally, you should be able to.
But if you have an ethnic prejudice, you literally have an interest against the person you are interviewing.
> But when a conflict of interest arises, the next questions are “when did it begin?”, “when will it end?”, “how big was it?”, and “can we mitigate it somehow?”
(one example) > when did it begin?
hundreds of years ago
> when will it end?
not soon
> how big was it?
the US literally fought an entire war over it
> can we mitigate it somehow
Yes, by having a variety of people from different backgrounds interview the candidate.
That wasn't that hard, was it?