Well the US definition of diverse is much more picky about what diverse means. I am talking about situations where indian / filipino / chinese hire only people of their ethnicity.
Or in case of Europe in an international company a team decides to hire only people that speak german / russian / french even when the interaction with other teams is obviously just in english.
> Or in case of Europe in an international company a team decides to hire only people that speak german / russian / french even when the interaction with other teams is obviously just in english.
You're clearly conflating ethnicity with language.
1/ Just because people talk the same language doesn't mean they have the same ethnicity.
ex: French is spoken as a native language on every continent.
2/ Just because people have allegedly the same ethnicity, doesn't mean they share the same language or even culture.
ex: All black people living in Africa do not share the same culture, yet Americans reduce black people to a single ethnic group.
> Well the US definition of diverse is much more picky about what diverse means.
Yes, in US the definition of "diverse" is politically loaded, implying you subscribe to a specific partisan ideology. It's so loaded that you can't talk about diversity as "diversity of opinion", it has to be racial
I am not conflating anything. I have had a very similar experience in EU and Singapore and while the case of Singapore is ethnic preference in EU it's about the language even if the working language is english.
> I am not conflating anything. I have had a very similar experience in EU and Singapore and while the case of Singapore is ethnic preference in EU it's about the language even if the working language is english.
Are you complaining that people in Europe talk their native language instead of English and that a company located somewhere prefers hiring locally? Whether a company is international or not is irrelevant.
You are certainly implying that 2 distinct situations are equivalent and it's "a problem" for you. I don't see where the problem is, personally.
Now if you have witnessed specific instances of racism or racial discrimination at work or during the hiring process, then you should report it to HR or the proper local authorities.
You have an international company located in Europe where daily business is conducted using english. There are naturally diverse teams with people from different countries (as is the case in Europe) and then there's one team where a hungarian manager decides to hire only hungarians.
You dont find this to be problematic in any way?
The same applies to Singapore where the pool of candidates is large and diverse but a certain for example indian manager decides to hire only indians.
"On its face" is commonly used when a person does not have the capacity to explain something. I see this is the case here. Further, your invocation of "apartheid" is a straw man.
The fact that a team is monoethnic is in itself not necessarily a good or bad, and thus not in itself "praiseworthy" - and yet people are constantly praised for building non-monoethnic teams as if that is a good in itself. A team should be measured by their meeting of objectives/goals rather than on their ethnic makeup.
Basically I think it comes down to freedom of association.
> How do you distinguish "deliberately monoethnic" from "apartheid"
Apartheid is characterized by for example withholding of human rights from a group based on race. Being hired onto a specific team is not a human right. Building a "deliberately monoethnic" team is distinguished from an "apartheid" in that the former is not withholding of human rights from a group based on race. I would argue that freedom of association is a human right - one which is being withheld from those particularly in the west.
