You're a personnel manager, interviewing job applicants...

Assuming that they both cost the same, are equally housebroken, etc., and assuming a company like my current one, I hire the most qualified candidate.

whoever is most qualified gets the job, regardless of color. Now, if the white guy was a complete egomaniac, and the black woman was not, and the job called for someone who was not a complete eogomaniac, I'd hire the black woman.

I hire on talent!! Note I'm a female and have many black friends. I would never hire based on judgments other than talent. That would go against everything I've fought for!! How could I yell at others for favoring white males if I happily favored on basis of sex or race myself?

If I'm hiring strictly on the basis of skills, the white man. There are a lot of other factors that might come into play, however, not the least of which is "who do I think will be more comfortable/pleasant to work with". And the race/sex of the applicants just does NOT come into it at all.

Well, unless the woman is flirting with me in a serious way...

(that was a JOKE!! a JOKE!!!)

I would pick the on that I personally liked better - the one that I communicate with best. If that was equal (which it never is), I'd just go with qualified (though I can never tell if someone is qualified from an interview - I usually find that out a month or 2 later). If they were equally qualified, I'd pick the black woman just because I want more black people in my life.

Having already determined they're both capable, I hire whomever I like better.

Depends on personality. If they're both capable of doing the job, I want the person who will fit in with our team better. (But I kind of hope it's the black woman.)

if the white man is more qualified, he gets hired. if the black woman is more qualified she gets hired. the scenario says that the man is more qualified. skin color or sex don't even enter into it.

whichever one of them smells better.

*** daver at my company the management has not gotten rid of someone because he says he is being picked on because of his age rather than the fact that he is incompetent.

I think that affermative action does a dis-service to those who would benifit from it. certainly hiring a *less* qualified minority doesn't help anyone. Who can feel good about herself if she knows that she was hired because she's a black woman, and not because she's the most qualified. Who could respect a co-worker who was hired because she's black and female. Equality and equal opportunity across Gender/race/sexual orientation boundries is necessary for our socciety but equality means equality no matter if you're a white middle class man or a jewish black woman in a wheelchair who can't spell.

the way this is worded, you want us to make a choice between colors? there are more aspects to hiring than the MOST qualified person ... what kind of team do we have? is the person outgoing or introverted enough for the atmosphere? someone who'd be a GREAT Technical Writer might might make a LOUSY Technical Support Rep ... I don't choose based on the answers given and added comments even though you didn't ask for them. this question makes me cranky

The black woman. That way I cover my quota for women and minorities with the Labor Statistics people.

Qualifications don't always make the best employee. I would ask both questions that would give me an idea of their willingness to take directions, work as a team player, determine if they were in for the long haul or if the position was just a stepping stone to a better job elsewhere, etc.

I picked the white man because the question implied that I did consider him noticeably better qualified, meaning I thought from the evidence at hand that he would do a better job. But "more qualified" is a pretty loaded phrase...

umm, i guess if he's more qualified than she is and could better fill the position, he should get the job. if it must be filled immediately i don't think i'd have time to ponder the politics of the situation and would just hire whoever was more qualified...

my only determination for the position would not be their qualifications but also personal qualities, or personality found on the interview. so it is hard to say, but with the info given, the man.

If I can guantify his qualifications and prove he is better suited, I'd hire him. Color or sex should not matter, but personality should. As should the situation the person is going into.

Unless I were legally required to do so otherwise, I would hire the most qualified applicant.

I'd take the more qualified applicant.

It depends, I would normally say who ever is more qualified. But I am really more subjective then that, I look at personality, the way they present themselves, their attitude, many things. One thing I don't care about is sex and race. If I thought the black lady was a better choice I would choose her, if I thought the white guy was better I would choose him.

I'll hire the one who isn't overqualified. I don't want bored employees, I want low churn, I want to save money, and chances are I or someone else in my company wants the more-qualified candidate for something else.

The place for affirmative action is in encouraging job applications, not in the hiring decision process.

***Resy, Jody, emily, FateIsRandom, etc: The characteristics you mentioned wouldn't fall under the heading of "qualifications"??? You've interviewed these people and found one more qualified (suited, appropriate, whatever) for the job; this would certainly include how well they would work as a part of your team, etc. You're trying to add criteria that would already be part of any reasonable employer's definition of "qualifications". I apologize if I was too vague in the regard. Oh, and Resy, though it was not targeted at anyone in particular, I was hoping this question would make a few people cranky. It reveals an internal conflict that I find fascinating. Hope you don't feel manipulated

***daver: Yes, you stated my POV precisely; thank you.

***bill: Automatic comment linkage? That's awesome! What a tremendously useful feature!

***Jody: I disagree strongly; in fact I'm willing to go so far as to say that with all due respect, you're mistaken. Someone with a great deal of education and experience, but lousy interpersonal skills, would not be "qualified" for a team leader position, for example. This has more to do with personality, and would absolutely be considered under the umbrella of qualifications. Another example might include a brilliant aerospace engineer who is too tall to "qualify" for jet fighter training. Webster's Revised Unabridged 1913 says this about the word "qualification":

2) That which qualifies; any natural endowment, or any acquirement, which fits a person for a place, office, or employment, or which enables him to sustain any character with success; an enabling quality or circumstance; requisite capacity or possession.
There is no qualification for government but virtue
and wisdom, actual or presumptive. --Burke.

I rest my case.

***Jody: I am more than happy to agree to disagree. ...but why did you delete your entire half of our debate? I rather enjoyed it...

You hire the person who is more qualified, be it moderately or not.

It depends. On lots of things. On whether diversity in the workplace is important to my company. On their attitudes. On their references. On any word on the street I can pick up about how they REALLY are about work. On their salary requirements and what we can afford. On their ability to do the work required - particularly if it includes close teamwork. I believe qualifications are who you are on paper. Those are matched with job requirements when you are screened for interviewing. After that you are on your own.

***ron2112 - once I've made my point to the people I'm trying to make it to I often remove things unnecessary to my basic opinion. Increases the signal-to-noise ratio, brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. Also, I'm just not a debatey person by nature. So I get out of debates as fast as I can. I'm into harmony and consensus (I used to be a Quaker).

I _REFUSE_ to answer this survey as it is fatally, hopelessly flawed.

I would pick the more qualified person (in this case the white man) unless I have some government board second-guessing my hiring decisions to be sure that they are "fair". Then I would take both qualification and whether or not this will get me (and my company) sued into account. Sad, but true...
At a company I once worked for, our HR department did not allow my manager to fire someone who was grossly incompetent. Why? The person was a member of a minority. The HR dept. wanted to hire another minority person to "balance" the firing. This is equality? I don't think so...
**Not to put words into ron2112's mouth, but I get the feeling that he intended "more qualified" to mean that he is the better person for the job, in all respects. i.e. is better professionally, fits with the current team better, is sufficiently intro/extro-verted, will stay with the company, etc.
**elijahblue: Welcome back...you're agreeing with Atzilut? I never thought I'd see the day.

what Atzilut said. *daver: thank you.

thanks so much for the affirmative action b/s, but I really don't care!!! It's just reverse descrimination and speaking as a white woman I'm lower on the list than anyone else because of AA. the company will hire only the minimum number of minorities it needs to accomodate AA, if it can hire a minority woman that actually satisfies the number of minorities and women in that work place, then they will hire white males because they work better together....and us white females get the short end of the stick!

Too complex to answer this or that. What kind of job is it? How do I judge the people as people? Is the black woman easier to deal with? Then I'd hire her. There are a MILLION variables that go into hiring someone. Race should NEVER have anything to do with it.

if this were actually to happen to me, i'd hire which ever one seemed like a more interesting person to have as an acquaintance. if they are both personality-less drones, i'd have to go with the white man

Just based on the vague facts given, I'd hire the more qualified applicant. Race would never figure into my decision.

Is the white guy nice looking?

Just kidding. I might hire him for being "moderately more qualified" but I'm not sure. If the black woman seemed more personable, I might hire her. Sometimes a more qualified but less friendly person is worse for a company than a friendlier, less qualified one.