> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> > wrote: >> I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is >> a >> legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and >> Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations >> with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi >> than speak English. > > It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful > in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because > what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- > a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), > and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and > excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first > language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which > could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did > not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to > imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu." > > Sarah >
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l