Moralisch und wissenschaftlich bedenkliche Studien

In Deutschland gibt es einen Überfluss von wissenschaftlich und moralisch zweifelhaften „Integrationsstudien“, die gemäß der Definition von Albert Memmi rassistische Elemente aufweisen.

Mehr dazu finden Sie unter:
http://www.migazin.de/2012/12/18/integration-in-deutschland-moralisch-und-wissenschaftlich-bedenkliche-studien/

Unfaire Rollenverteilung - Die Theorie der selbsterfüllenden Prophezeiung

Die Theorie der selbsterfüllenden Prophezeiung besagt, dass Vorhersagen aufgrund der positiven Rückkopplung zwischen Glauben und Verhalten, von selbst wahr werden.

Mehr dazu finden Sie unter:
http://www.migazin.de/2012/11/19/unfaire-rollenverteilung-die-theorie-der-selbsterfullenden-prophezeiung/

 

Barriers to Inclusion, Diversity and Integration in Germany:

Part 2: Lack of Education about Everyday Racism and Discrimination

We have a Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (Anti-Diskriminerungsstelle des Bundes (ADS) http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/Home/home_node.html) in Germany only since the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeine Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)) came into effect in 2006. Over 81 million people today are represented by a handful people in the ADS office in Berlin. The Agency was established due to pressure by the EU. In spite of a critical need for the agency, the body is underfunded, unpopular, and very controversial.

The General Equal Treatment Act offers little protection. However, given that discrimination has historically been ignored in our country, the act has had made a reasonable impact since its coming into effect. There currently is a discussion to extend the law to offer more protection. However, subsequent to the general attitude toward the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, a wide-spread support is lacking, along with financial and educational Resources.

Due to the higher anti-discrimination standards in the EU, some positive changes are inevitable, no matter what our position may be. However, since changes imposed on from “outside” are less effective, it may take a very long time before anti-discrimination sensitivity becomes more evident. In the meantime, minorities in our country are destined to continue living their lives facing loss in earnings, lack of visibility, lack of self-determination, lack of representation, unable to live up to their potential, marginalized and looked down on.

What is the reason for the outcry against the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency in the first place? Given our history, don’t we have the moral obligation to be the leading country in the fight against racism?

The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency is rejected because it stands for something that the dominant culture is not willing to recognize.

Here is how we fight racism: by “pretending” that it is the same as right extremism. That way, the attention is drawn away from institutions to another group: the “right extremists.”  How well we deal with right extremism, can be studied at the example of the “Döner-Morde” (Turkish Döner means Gyros. German Morde is the plural for murder/killings)—a racist term that was used during the investigation of the killings of 8 Turkish and a Greek man by a right extremist group between 2000 and 2006. In connection with these killings, a female German police officer was also killed. Due to its extent, this event and the disturbing official dealings with it (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/world/europe/german-woman-charged-in-neo-nazi-crime-rampage.html?pagewanted=all) will not be further discussed in this article.

Because of a wide-spread denial that discrimination exists, a proper language for discrimination and related issues has not been established. People interested in an honest discussion are left with only one choice: to use English-language terms. English-language terms however, are not very popular in Germany; especially if a connection to the USA is suspected. Therefore, the usage of English-language terms often immediately leads to a defensive reaction and a limited discussion of the pressing issues. A translation of the English terms into German is not very effective, because of a lack of association with such translated new terms. A strong, established language for discrimination is the key to an effective discussion. The lack of such language means that no wide-ranging effective discussion is taking place.

Here are some examples for the limited anti-discrimination and diversity language: in Germany, words “diversity” and “inclusion” are used. However most people do not know what the words or the phrase entails. Both, diversity and inclusion are usually approached from limited perspectives that are preferably not controversial. Diversity is generally used in context of diversity management in organizations. Ethnic and racial diversity are very controversial topics, therefore, diversity management efforts are over proportionately represented by gender or age diversity efforts. Discrimination, in general, is not a preferred topic for diversity discussions. According to a situation, few aspects of diversity are taken at a time and dealt with.

Under inclusion, most of us understand the inclusion of disabled persons only; turning inclusion also into a very limited discussion, inappropriate for what the term should address. These and many more examples explain the “confusion” about diversity and inclusion in Germany. A broad perspective is missing.

Besides the lack of proper language, most organizations, including the government, do not have internally established contemporary anti-discrimination procedures. Among other reasons, they do not have the know-how to establish such procedures even if they wanted to. Given that the existence of discrimination and racism has been rejected by a majority of people, and still is, know-how to do the job was never developed. Therefore, a victim of a possible discrimination has to consider that during a complaint procedure, she most likely will end up dealing with people who are not educated about discrimination, don’t know how to respond and even react with hostility.

Unlike i.e., in the USA, moving forward with an anti-discrimination complaint in Germany is most certainly associated with attorney fees. The burden of proof is on the organization that allegedly discriminated. However, the initial cost of a possible law suit is the responsibility of the person who feels discriminated against; discouraging someone with limited financial means from pursuing her rights. Another discouraging factor may be that the financial reward for detecting discrimination is very nominal. The fact that the effort and resources put into detecting discrimination does not return appropriate financial reward makes pursuing a complaint even more difficult. It is common that law suits in Germany don’t yield as much reward as they do i.e. in the USA. Compared to what it may cost to pursue a lawsuit, one needs to consider if it is "worth" pursuing it in the first place.

The status quo of anti-discrimination is striking, given our status in Europe and the rest of the world. Germany claims to be the leader in many disciplines, but why are we so backward when it comes to dealing with discrimination and racism?

The idea of equal treatment is not new in Germany. It has been anchored in the German Constitution (Basic Law) (Article 3, Paragraph 3) since 1949, however has had little to no public attention until recently. For example, practices such as racial profiling at clubs have been standard procedure and continue to take place, in spite of the General Equal Treatment Act as many club owners either don’t know that racial profiling for entry to a club is illegal or don’t care that it is because the number of complaints are very limited and the fines for breaking the law are nominal.

As late as end of October 2012, an upper administrative court in Koblenz overruled a decision that was made beginning of the year, that racial profiling by the police was a lawful measure (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-german-court-forbids-police-checks-based-on-skin-color-a-864455.html). Today, due to the lack of a formal ruling, racial profiling remains a grey area (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/germany-neo-nazi-investigation-institutional-racism).

Regardless of the resistance and lack of education about discrimination, there is one aspect of “diversity” that is a popular discussion topic in Germany: “integration.” Integration is non-controversial and comfortable way to discuss the lack of diversity and representation of minorities.  This discussion revolves around “blaming” minorities and their lack of language and other skills for the missing representation in the society.

As opposed to the severe lack of studies and education about discrimination there is an over-supply of studies related to integration. Studies which document that the minorities, especially the “Turks” are unable to integrate into our society (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article7222075/Tuerken-sind-die-Sorgenkinder-der-Integration.html). Usually, these studies lack explanation that discrimination, ethnocentrism, oppression, lack of cultural sensitivity and lack of diversity are some of the major causes of the problem.

On the one hand, we have inadequate anti-discrimination strategies, policies and procedures, but on the other, we have a Minister of Integration Migration and Refugees (Beauftragte für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration). The existence of this position signifies the importance of integration versus anti-discrimination efforts. Similar to most decision makers, this Minister too, is (a) white (woman).

As to the question why minorities are not represented in public institutions and offices, the official claim is that minorities are difficult to recruit, because they do not speak German well enough. The language requirement is usually that one speaks “perfect” German; apparently, something that our minorities are not capable of, but the “real” Germans are. There is also a claim that minorities simply do not meet the educational and other qualification-requirements to be hired.

In this context, it is important to mention that many minorities that are also put into the category of immigrants/people with migration backgrounds were born and raised in Germany, have a German passport. They are Germans. The question here is: why would Germans born and raised in Germany not speak German as well as other Germans?

Our society communicates over and over on a daily bases that discrimination is a given. Racist jokes are made with little or no hesitation. Stereotypes are communicated as a given.

Due to the denial that discrimination, every day-, and institutional racism exists, minorities are left to deal with the severe impact of different forms of exclusion and hurt on their own. The lack of encouragement, education, standard operating procedures, and resources to detect and deal with discrimination and racism sends a clear message that if minorities want to continue to live in our country they are going to have to put up with the status quo, until the EU forces us to comply with higher standards. 

Diversity and the US Presidential Election—Questioning President Obama’s Identity

On 6 of November 2012, American voters elected President Obama into office, for a second term, reaffirming their historic choice in 2008. Mr. Obama’s path to the Oval office was an extra difficult one, full of questions and challenges about his identity.

In early 2011, the unofficial beginning of 2012 US Presidential Campaign, Donald Trump who had indicated his interest in running for President of the USA on a Republican ticket, accused President Obama not meeting the natural born American requirement of the US Constitution (Article 2, Section 1) to qualify as a US presidential candidate. President Obama responded by posting his birth certificate (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/28/us/politics/28obama-text.html) in the internet as unfortunately, Mr. Trump was not the only one who questioned the President’s natural born citizenship.

The doubt about President Obama’s citizenship, even couple of years after in office, was not the first instance of his identity being questioned.  

There are continuous debates about his “color” and his religion as well.  In 2010, according to a survey conducted by Fox News, one of every five Americans thought that President Obama is a Muslim, in spite of the fact that Mr. Obama repeatedly confirms that he is of Christian faith (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/19/nearly-americans-thinks-obama-muslim-survey-shows/). After nearly four years in office, having repeated over and over that he is a Christian, many people still don’t believe that Mr. Obama is a Christian. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/figuring-faith/post/president-obamas-faith-challenge-at-the-democratic-convention/2012/09/06/ea688c80-f83c-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html).

The discussion is interestingly not only indirectly about whether someone of the Muslim faith is suitable to run for office in the United States, supposedly the country of religious tolerance, but also, about refusing to accept a man’s word for his religious identity; meaning, the public is defining a man as she sees fit and is ascribing him an arbitrary “undesirable” religion. Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Romney’s religious identities were ever questioned. Although, there have been discussions about whether Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion was a “suitable” one for a President, no one ever questioned that Mr. Romney was a Mormon.

Last but not least, there are continuing debates over whether Mr. Obama was/is going to be a “black President” or the President Of The People. There are/were not many public debates about whether his running mates Senator McCain (in 2008), Mr. Romney (in 2012) or all the other “white men” in the past who ran the country were going to be a “white President” or the President of the People.

Even more ironic than the continuing public attack on President Obama’s identity is that, on the one hand, Mr. Obama seems to be “too black” to run the country but at the same time, the US public also wonders if President Obama is “black enough” (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html).

Stanley Crouch wrote in New York Daily News that “Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.” (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-11-02/news/18339455_1_black-world-alan-keyes-people-of-african-descent).

The actor Morgan Freeman recently said that President Obama was not the first black president of the USA (http://www.npr.org/2012/07/05/156212527/morgan-freeman-no-black-president-for-u-s-yet).  

It may be correct that Mr. Obama does not share a heritage with the African American community in the USA. However, for some taxi drivers or HR managers in Kansas City, he is a “black man.”

Among other, the debates underline that President Obama has many traits that are still considered questionable in the USA. His “foreign” name, his “dark skin”— traits that limit access to opportunities, that are a sources of everyday discrimination and injustice.

President Obama’s biggest accomplishment shall always be that he overcame the odds against him—his name, his “color,” his age, his perceived religion—and became the President of the USA. One will never be able to exactly measure his positive impact as a role model on African Americans and other minorities, but one should remember that he has changed the course of history. As—at least in regard to his presidency—he did overcome racism and other bigotry, along with him, so did the country.  

Because of President Obama, at least one 8-year-old boy has found his role model in the Oval Office. He can identify himself with this man: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/politics/indelible-image-of-a-boys-pat-on-obamas-head-hangs-in-white-house.html?_r=0 (at the time when the picture was taken, the child was 5-years old). Maybe he too, will be President some day?

 

Barriers to Inclusion, Diversity and Integration in Germany:

Part 1: the Unforgiving German Language

Us Germans seem to be very proud that our language is such a difficult, unforgiving, and exclusive one; a fact we like to emphasize. The exclusivity of our language gives the “native speakers” a heads up, some sense of superiority toward someone who is not a native German speaker. We often take the liberty to correct non-native speakers while they are speaking; putting ourselves in an undeserved and inappropriate position of superiority, discouraging the other person from learning the language, and speaking freely. Taking the liberty to correct someone is patronizing and considered extremely rude in many cultures.

The correcting and cultural and linguistic exclusivity make it extremely difficult to learn the German language, let alone feel comfortable speaking it. It can be very alienating to have one's speech constantly corrected. It most likely will result in a decrease in interest in learning the language altogether.

It is easier, for example, to learn American English as most people in the USA, make an attempt to understand what the other person is saying instead of concentrating on the mistakes and taking the liberty to fix them. An expectation of speaking “perfect English” is rather rare. Who speaks a language perfectly in the first place?

Many of us do not speak or write very well in our own language. Our mistakes, however, are judged by different standards than the mistakes of non-native speakers. Language mistakes made by us are “just” language mistakes whereas, mistakes made by minorities are a confirmation of stereotypes, their inability to assimilate, to learn, and integrate into our society.  

Learning German is made even more difficult by our “requirement” of speaking German without an accent. In spite of the fact that most of us have “accents“ or speak a dialect ourselves, a foreign accent is not desirable; making the language even more exclusive. An accent in reality does not have anything to do with how well someone manages a language. Accents should be encouraged as they are a reflection of someone’s identity, not the inability to speak or write in a language. The desire for minorities to speak German accent-free reflects our desire for assimilation versus encouraging and celebrating diversity.

German is a difficult language, among other, due to a severe grammatical complexity, some lack of logic, and a lack of diverse vocabulary. Many words are driven from a word with the same root, making the language extremely confusing to non-native speakers. Here is an example: the word ziehen (to pull) is ascribed to various words: ausziehen (take off or move out), einziehen (i.e. move in), durchziehen (i.e. pull through), entziehen (i.e. deprive) and the list goes on. The articles (der, die, das) do not follow much logic either. A girl (das Mädchen) is, for example, "neutral" whereas a table is "male" (der Tisch). The capitalizations of “nouns” add to the difficulty of the language. There are of course many capitalizations (or not) that do not follow a simple logic but rather make up the exceptions to the rule. An effort to simplify the language back in the late 90ies has failed. Although, many changes were introduced, a simplification was not the result.
 
Instead of making it difficult to learn the language, we should appreciate and encourage learning and concentrate on listening and understanding what others are saying, instead of making them feel bad about their “mistakes."

It may help to remember that nobody speaks “perfect German” in the first place.  

Unconscious Biases and Hidden Messages in „Where are you from?“

Many of us may be contributing to the cycle of unconscious biases, prejudice, racism, inferiorization and discrimination by answering the question “Where are you from?” without further examining this question. Dr. Zuleyka Zavallos, argues that “’where are you from’ is best understood through the concept of everyday racism” and that “[e]veryday racism makes visible the ways in which racist ideas are socially reproduced in taken-for-granted ways through familiar everyday situations.” (http://zuleykazevallos.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/where-are-wogs-from-exploring_18.html).

Before responding, one should first find out what the other person is exactly inquiring about and why. An answer should not be provided simply to satisfy the expectation of the person who is asking or because responding in a certain way is the norm.

It is common knowledge that inquiring “where someone is from” is practiced globally. The question is asked by people of the dominant culture as well as by minorities. However, it’s meaning changes, depending on who is asking who, and where. In Turkey for example, the question can have various meanings and the reasons for asking will most likely be different than in Germany. Same applies to the USA. In spite of the differences, there are also astonishing parallels how  many minorities perceive this question. An example from the USA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRc_7Xk-4is. Since I am currently living in Germany, I will discuss this problem from my current perspective.

Let’s look at the first barrier to interpreting this question. What does “Where are you from?" mean and how does one define “where she is from”? Are we from where we consider ourselves to be from or does the society define where we are from? Would it be inaccurate to identify the place where one was born, raised and lived her entire life to be the place where “one is from”? Apparently yes. That would be inaccurate.

People of Turkish descent living in Germany, for example, no matter if they were born in Germany or not, are not considered “from Germany.” An exception would be, if one “looks German.” In that case, a person with a Turkish descent could pass for someone “from Germany.”

If the place where some of us were born or consider ourselves to be from does not equal “where we are from,” “where are we from” then?

The barrier to a logical conversation in this case is this: “Where are you from?” in most cases in fact, is a socially accepted way of inquiring about a stranger’s ethnic origin or race. For example, when people of Turkish descent in Germany are asked “Where are you from?” the inquirer usually wants to know what the other person’s ethnicity is, not where she is from. Most people in Germany know this. Therefore, the expectation is, that the person who is asked, provides the information on her ethnicity. If she provides the information on “where she is from” instead, the other party usually will continue the questioning, until she receives the information satisfying her perceptions of the other person. Rarely does anyone question this awkward and highly personal interaction between strangers. Why should a stranger care about the ethnicity of another stranger and why would someone answer this highly personal inquiry from a stranger in the first place? Dr. Zuleyka Zavallos writes that according to her studies, “[m]ost women saw the question ‘where are you from?’ as simultaneously frustrating and compelling” (http://zuleykazevallos.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/where-are-wogs-from-exploring_18.html). However, one answers the question even that she feels uncomfortable. She does not stand up for herself and reject answering the question because answering the question is considered a given in spite of its racial connotation. The vicious cycle of racism strengthens with each such interaction of inquiry and response.

Asking a stranger “where she is from” serves in Germany as a means to distinguish the “legitimate residents” of the country from the outsiders who “came from some place.” The question is an excellent example of everyday subtle racism; one that is deeply engrained in the society as an accepted form of interaction, and supported bilaterally. Due to its ambiguity, this type of racism is extremely difficult to detect and address. At the same time, “Where are you from?” offers one of the most significant opportunities to break the vicious cycle of racism and inferiorization of others. The target is offered an opportunity over and over to provide an unexpected answer and to challenge this culturally ingrained and socially accepted form of racism.

Are we going to take the opportunity and challenge the status-quo or do what is expected of us—provide highly personal information to satisfy strangers’ need to categorize us and safely put us in the box, designated for us by others?

Koblenz Court Rules Racial Profiling is Lawful

 
„Bundespolizei darf Bahnreisende aufgrund Ihres ausländisches Aussehens [und Hautfarbe] Kontrollieren“ http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/bundespolizei-darf-reisende-wegen-auslaendischen-aussehens-kontrollieren-a-824066.html
and http://www.migazin.de/2012/06/26/bundesregierung-verteidigt-verdachtsunabhangige-polizeikontrollen-nach-hautfarbe/.

Koblenz Court ruled that it was legal for the “Bundespolizei” (Federal Police) to ask individuals "riding the train on certain paths used for illegal entries” to the country, to identify themselves solely based on their “foreign looks;” without a cause for suspicion. In other words the court ruled that racial profiling is a lawful measure in Germany.

There are effective and fair procedures to detect illegal residents: randomly picking a train car and asking all passengers for identification. That way, the “bad guys” can be caught no matter what they look like.  

Naturally, racial profiling in Germany is not limited to certain “travel paths that are used for illegal entries” to the country. The method is used broadly. It is common for the police i.e. to stop a person at the train station and ask for his/her id. The target of such arbitrary procedures is usually a non-white male person. Like the officer mentioned in the Spiegel article “Der Polizist war verblüffend ehrlich…” [the officer was surprisingly honest about it…]. Most people in Germany don’t “make a big deal” out of discrimination because these measures are generally not considered a discrimination. As mentioned in my previous blog http://diversitygermany.blogspot.de/2012_09_01_archive.html, there is a lack of education in Germany about what discrimination, racism and so forth exactly is.
 
There are several problems with this court ruling. First, it indicates a lack of concern for civil liberties—suspecting and stopping a person without a due cause. Second, the court decision sends a strong message that some people “look like they don’t belong here.”

The court decision sends an especially painful message to Germans with a “migration background”* since they are more likely not to “look German.” Given that many people with migration background already feel like foreigners in their own country, it is unclear why such a measure would even be considered as an option.

According to a study published in die Welt, immigrants of Turkish descent are the least “integrated group” in Germany. People with i.e. a Russian background are better integrated
(http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article7585378/Die-Heuchelei-bei-der-Integration-der-Tuerken.html).
 
Here is a question—people of which descent are more likely to be stopped in the train based on their “looks”? It may sound far-fetched to conclude from one problem to the other, but it is evident that a mindset “someone looks foreign” does not stop at the train station. It rather carries on into the day-to-day interactions of people living in Germany.

Racial profiling is a very damaging method to the society. If not stopped, it will lead to even more tensions and the country’s shaky so called integration efforts will fail for good.

In a democratic society, racial profiling cannot be an option.

*In Germany, ethnic people such as the people of Turkish descent are called "Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund" (people with migration background). Many of them are German citizens, born and raised in Germany.

 

Germany’s Diversity Dilemma: 80% of German Companies Surveyed Promote Women’s Rights Only

According to a recent study by the Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, 80% of the companies surveyed for Diversity Management in Germany, promote women’s rights only http://www.rolandberger.com/media/press/releases/Role_of_Diversity_and_Inclusion_in_German_business.html.

Why is it that disadvantages based on one trait gets more attention, than disadvantages based on other traits?

Germany is currently working on fixing the problem that she considers important: moving forward women. Plus, due to the lack of appreciation for diversity, “white” women tend to benefit disproportionately from this effort. This can be considered a plus as racial and other forms of discrimination are seen as controversial topics. They are therefore avoided, as much as possible.

It is “safer” to talk about gender inequality because gender inequality exists in the United States as well as other countries in Europe. Most people know that women have been historically disadvantaged in the workplace. Therefore, the topic is less controversial.

However, due to Germany’s history, admitting that people are also disadvantaged based on their ethnic, racial and other traits is more difficult. Admitting  that racial and ethnic discrimination exists  additionally would lead to questions about i.e. institutional racism in Germany. A topic that is avoided and its existence preferably denied.

As a result of avoiding an honest discussion about ethnic and racial inequalities, appropriate scientific knowledge was never established in Germany. There is a lack of education about biases, stereotypes, discrimination and related issues.
 

What Germany needs is 21st century level knowledge and education on issues related to diversity. People who work in the Diversity Management field play a big role in improving the status-quo. The concept of diversity is unfortunately very new to Germany. Most organizations don’t know enough about the topic. Therefore, they need to rely on Diversity Consultants to educate their employees. The Diversity Consultants have the responsibility to encourage organizations to discuss ethnic and other forms of diversity and not limit the discussion on gender diversity. After all, diversity—as the name suggests—means diversity, not “women only.”

Lack of equal opportunity is damaging and costly to a society no matter what the discrepancy is based on. Neglecting discrimination based on ethnicity, racial and other factors while trying to fix discrimination based on gender sends a very strong message. Assuming that this message is not intended, a change of course in Diversity Management is needed as soon as possible.

 

Maryland Becomes the First State that Makes Asking for Social Media Passwords Illegal

The diversity perspective: Would you want to work for an employer who asks you for your password of your social media account?

On 2^nd May 2012, Governor O’Malley approved Senate Bill 433, prohibiting an employer from requesting a user name or password for accessing a personal internet account (http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/sb0433.htm). Maryland is the first state to making such employer requests illegal. Similar legislations in several other states are pending.                                                                                                                             

There are many practical problems with accessing someone else’s personal account. First of all, computer users agree not to share their user name and password with anyone. Sharing the information with a prospective employer would at the very least, violate such agreements. Additionally, the employer would “penalize” honest applicants, as in most cases, social media profiles can be marked as “private” and therefore would be difficult to find through internet research, in case the user refuses to share this information about his/her account voluntarily. 

Apart from the privacy question, practical, legal and ethical questions arise.  

The diversity and equal opportunity perspective 

What would an employer find after logging into an applicant’s account? Private pictures, information about the applicants’ friends? How would the information that the employer finds in such a private environment be judged? By what standard? What mechanism does the employer have put in place for example, to avoid “unintended” discrimination? If everyone had to present and conduct him/herself as a professional at all times how would that affect diversity? Isn’t the fact that people can live their personal lives according to their standards, what makes diversity possible, in the first place? 

 
To ensure the highest level of equality, fairness and lowest possibility for “unintended” discrimination, employers should keep the focus during the hiring processes on objective questions that lead to the answer of one question only: can the applicant do the job?

Washington DC Council Unanimously Passes Law Against Discrimination of Unemployed Jobseekers

On March 12, 2012, the Council of the District of Columbia unanimously passed the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act of 2012 http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/lims/legislation.aspx?LegNo=B19-0486&Description=%22UNEMPLOYED+ANTI-DISCRIMINATION+AMENDMENT+ACT+OF+2011%22.&ID=26794.

New Jersey was last year the first state to pass a law against the discrimination of unemployed applicants http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/PL11/40_.PDF. Legislations in other states and a federal legislation are pending. The New Jersey law outlaws i.e. discriminatory ads but does not outlaw i.e. offering lower wages to unemployed workers with similar qualifications as someone who is employed. It is expected that legislations in other states that are currently pending, will follow suit.

Proponents of the laws argue that discrimination of the unemployed is not only an ethical concern but also a diversity concern since minorities tend to be disproportionately affected by unemployment in the first place and that therefore discrimination of the unemployed would exponentially affect minorities.
 

Opponents of the laws argue that the wordings of the law are so broad that it may lead to litigation, if the unemployed are for example, offered lower wages than applicants with same qualifications who are currently working.