1st January 2006, 05:04 PM
There are two sides to this question.
Prejudice is where you discriminate against someone because they belong to an ethnic/linguistic/political/religious/other group that you don't like, where their membership of that group is not relevant to their ability to do their job.
On the other hand, a 'background in British archaeology' is potentially a valid criterion to discriminate between people, as it can affect their competence. Not because standards are necessarily lower elsewhere, but because knowledge of our own archaeological background is essential to be able to interpret what we find.
I have known quite a lot of non-British archaeologists working in Britain, some in senior positions, and generally been impressed with them. One thing that united them was that they were all very knowledgeable about British archaeology, but that knowledge was enriched by a good knowledge of the archaeology of their own country and of the differences between archaeological practice in the two countries.
If I were recruiting for a job whose holder would be required to make judgements about the relative importance of different archaeological sites, or about the appropriate archaeological response in a given situation, I would discriminate in favour of people who do have a good background in British archaeology. Their nationality, ethnic origin, etc. would not be a factor in establishing that background.
I would point out in this context that in recent years I have appointed two Irish archaeologists to jobs like the one I describe above, and shortlisted a Spaniard.
If I were recruiting for a job that did not require making those kinds of judgements, I would discriminate on other criteria that indicate an ability to do the job, but not including a good knowledge of British archaeology. In that context I have previously appointed both French and German archaeologists to British jobs.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Prejudice is where you discriminate against someone because they belong to an ethnic/linguistic/political/religious/other group that you don't like, where their membership of that group is not relevant to their ability to do their job.
On the other hand, a 'background in British archaeology' is potentially a valid criterion to discriminate between people, as it can affect their competence. Not because standards are necessarily lower elsewhere, but because knowledge of our own archaeological background is essential to be able to interpret what we find.
I have known quite a lot of non-British archaeologists working in Britain, some in senior positions, and generally been impressed with them. One thing that united them was that they were all very knowledgeable about British archaeology, but that knowledge was enriched by a good knowledge of the archaeology of their own country and of the differences between archaeological practice in the two countries.
If I were recruiting for a job whose holder would be required to make judgements about the relative importance of different archaeological sites, or about the appropriate archaeological response in a given situation, I would discriminate in favour of people who do have a good background in British archaeology. Their nationality, ethnic origin, etc. would not be a factor in establishing that background.
I would point out in this context that in recent years I have appointed two Irish archaeologists to jobs like the one I describe above, and shortlisted a Spaniard.
If I were recruiting for a job that did not require making those kinds of judgements, I would discriminate on other criteria that indicate an ability to do the job, but not including a good knowledge of British archaeology. In that context I have previously appointed both French and German archaeologists to British jobs.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished