Race and gender and ethics
The issue of race or gender, making part of the criteria in hiring employees, can be controversial especially in situations where the assumptions made are that the job environment ought to have a certain proportion of its workers consisting of certain gender or race to be more productive. Actually, the idea tends to stem from the political pressure on the need for representation of every group in the work environment, hence it immediately passes as a politically correct criterion. It can thus be said to be politically ethical. It only comes under contention as a valid criteria when other more competitive criteria are overlooked; for instance hiring an employee because she is a woman rather than because she has the right qualifications for the particular job. From another point of view, it can be argued to be discrimination on the basis of gender for those males who had equal or even better qualification but were denied the opportunity just because of their gender.
So, if we look at it professionally, it is not ethical to base the hiring process on gender or race since it may even be a start of a new feud between the genders or between the co-existing races. But given the need to promote diversity in the job place, different gender and different races should be hired, but the criteria should be based on qualifications and suitability for the job, with gender or race consideration coming last and not as the main criteria. Actually, making employment decisions based on gender alone or race, gives a distorted view of the potential employee, which can only be well evaluated if the other factors like education and job experience are considered.
Test score and suitable personality as criteria for hiring
As to whether hiring of a person depends on how they score in test scores or their personality depends on the nature of the job for which the employee is looking for. For instance, mass communication industries are keen to hire employees who have a good sense of humor and a great personality in handling people since such a person is expected to meet people when collecting news and also to present the news to the viewers or listeners in a way that they will enjoy the news and watch or listen to the station again. Thus, it is ethical for them to consider the personality of the potential employee when hiring since this is closely related to her / his suitability for the job. Equally, it would be ethically wrong to hire a shy person as a news anchor, knowing very well that such a job description is close to torture since the person can never enjoy let alone perform the work optimally with the knowledge that people all over the nation or world are watching him. If, on the other hand, the company hiring the person is not entirely into businesses where there is interaction with many people; for instance a financial firm, it is ethical to hire somebody with the requisite know how in financial matters. Thus, such a company will be acting ethically if they do not hire the employee with a lower test score despite the potential employee having a better personality.
The second case of choosing not to hire the employee is, from the academic side of it correct and tends to happen in many companies where the only contact between the potential employee and the company is first made via CV and written test. The first case, where the company decides to hire the employee despite lower test scores, can be contentious from an academic point of view given the current emphasis in academic prowess in the corporate world, and may be viewed by others as unethical. But if the personality is what makes the candidate suitable for the job, then it is wholly ethical to take it as the major criteria over test scores.
Discrimination and ethical obligation
Despite the company that employed her discriminating against Hispanics, it is ethical that she stays with the company as long as she does not also become discriminative against Hispanics. This is because she has a moral obligation to perform according to the terms of the contract she signed but is not compelled to be discriminative. This remains her own choice, and if she is ethically upright then she can easily change the perspective of the company on Hispanics by the way she relates with them. To run away just because the company is discriminative is to boycott her moral and ethical obligation since it shall not have solved the problem of discrimination. But if, on the other hand, she is put in a position, either by job description or by her superiors, where she is the direct perpetrator of the discrimination, then it is ethical that she leaves the company or she can take an initial step by letting her superiors know that she does not consider it right to do that to the victims. If there is no change and her superiors or employer insists on her discriminating against the Hispanics, then it is ethical for her to leave the company and look for work elsewhere. The main ethical obligation here is that she should not be the perpetrator of the vice that she stands against or act in any way that undermines the professional ethics and professional conduct. But in case she is not pushed to the wall to be discriminative, then she has an ethical obligation to stay and try to change the perspective of the company on the Hispanics.
References
Buchholtz, A. K., & Carroll, A. B. (2011). Business and Society: Ethics: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Castilla, E. J. (2005). GENDER, RACE, AND MERITOCRACY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CAREERS. Academy of Management, G1-G6.
Demuijnck, G. (2009). Non-Discrimination in Human Resource Management as a Moral Obligation. Journal of Business Ethics, 83-101.
Guion, R. M. (2008). Employment Tests and Discriminatory Hiring. A Journal of Economy and Society, 20-37.
