A diretora do grupo Runnymede acredita que o panorama descrito
Leia o texto para responder a questão.
Minority ethnic Britons face ‘shocking’ job
discrimination
Haroon Siddique
Thu 17 Jan 2019 17.00 GMT Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 00.50 GMT
A study by experts based at the Centre for Social
Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford,
found applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds
had to send 80% more applications to get a positive
response from an employer than a white person of
British origin.
A linked study by the same researchers, comparing
their results with similar field experiments dating
back to 1969, found discrimination against black
Britons and those of south Asian origin – particularly
Pakistanis – unchanged over almost 50 years.
The research, part of a larger cross-national
project funded by the European Union and shared
exclusively with the Guardian before its official
launch, prompted concerns that race relations
legislation had failed.
It echoes findings published as part of the Guardian’s
Bias in Britain series that people from minority ethnic
backgrounds face discrimination when seeking a
room to rent. In a snapshot survey of online flatshare
ads the Guardian found that an applicant called
Muhammad was significantly less likely to receive a
positive response than an applicant called David.
Prof Anthony Heath, co-author and emeritus fellow
of Nuffield College, said: “The absence of any real
decline in discrimination against black British and
people of Pakistani background is a disturbing
finding, which calls into question the effectiveness
of previous policies. Ethnic inequality remains a
burning injustice and there needs to be a radical
rethink about how to tackle it.”
Dr Zubaida Haque, the deputy director of the race
equality thinktank Runnymede, described the findings as shocking. They demonstrated that “it’s
not just covert racism or unconscious bias that we
need to worry about; it’s overt and conscious racism,
where applicants are getting shortlisted on the basis
of their ethnicity and/or name”, she said.
“It’s clear that race relations legislation is not
sufficient to hold employers to account. There are
no real consequences for employers of racially
discriminating in subtle ways, but for BME* applicants
or employees it means higher unemployment, lower
wages, poorer conditions and less security in work
and life.”
<https://tinyurl.com/y9nohdte> Acesso em: 07.10.2019. Adaptado.
*BME – Black and Minority Ethnicity
Leia o texto para responder a questão.
Minority ethnic Britons face ‘shocking’ job discrimination
Haroon Siddique
Thu 17 Jan 2019 17.00 GMT Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 00.50 GMT
A study by experts based at the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, found applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds had to send 80% more applications to get a positive response from an employer than a white person of British origin.
A linked study by the same researchers, comparing their results with similar field experiments dating back to 1969, found discrimination against black Britons and those of south Asian origin – particularly Pakistanis – unchanged over almost 50 years.
The research, part of a larger cross-national project funded by the European Union and shared exclusively with the Guardian before its official launch, prompted concerns that race relations legislation had failed.
It echoes findings published as part of the Guardian’s Bias in Britain series that people from minority ethnic backgrounds face discrimination when seeking a room to rent. In a snapshot survey of online flatshare ads the Guardian found that an applicant called Muhammad was significantly less likely to receive a positive response than an applicant called David.
Prof Anthony Heath, co-author and emeritus fellow of Nuffield College, said: “The absence of any real decline in discrimination against black British and people of Pakistani background is a disturbing finding, which calls into question the effectiveness of previous policies. Ethnic inequality remains a burning injustice and there needs to be a radical rethink about how to tackle it.”
Dr Zubaida Haque, the deputy director of the race equality thinktank Runnymede, described the findings as shocking. They demonstrated that “it’s not just covert racism or unconscious bias that we need to worry about; it’s overt and conscious racism, where applicants are getting shortlisted on the basis of their ethnicity and/or name”, she said.
“It’s clear that race relations legislation is not sufficient to hold employers to account. There are no real consequences for employers of racially discriminating in subtle ways, but for BME* applicants or employees it means higher unemployment, lower wages, poorer conditions and less security in work and life.”
Gabarito comentado
Comentário da Questão – Interpretação de Texto em Inglês (Vestibular):
Tema central: A questão aborda discriminação racial no acesso ao mercado de trabalho britânico, com enfoque na análise crítica do impacto dessa discriminação sobre as minorias étnicas, conforme apontado por uma pesquisadora do grupo Runnymede.
Estratégia de interpretação aplicada: O texto exige atenção para detalhes das consequências mencionadas pela entrevistada. Ferramentas como ler expressões-chave, comparar causas e efeitos e inferir significados pelo contexto são fundamentais.
Análise da alternativa correta (B): A Dra. Zubaida Haque afirma que a discriminação traz consequências como “higher unemployment, lower wages, poorer conditions and less security in work and life”. Isso significa que a condição das minorias no mercado de trabalho é degradada — ou seja, pior para esses grupos — validando a alternativa B: degrada as condições trabalhistas das minorias.
Justificativa teórica: Na interpretação de textos em concursos, identificar trechos diretamente conectados ao comando da questão é crucial. Observe as consequências listadas (emprego, salários, segurança) que comprovam a assertiva.
Análise das alternativas incorretas:
A) Incita a violência e compromete a segurança do país: O texto não fala sobre violência ou segurança nacional.
C) Oferece segurança para os trabalhadores: Diz o oposto, mencionando “less security”.
D) Assusta trabalhadores e empregadores: “Shocking” refere-se ao resultado da pesquisa, não a assustar as pessoas.
E) Impede a criação de leis mais rigorosas: O texto questiona a eficácia das leis atuais, mas não afirma que é impossível criar novas leis.
Dicas para provas: Cuidado com expressões generalizantes (“tudo”, “nunca”) e atenção a palavras negativas ou positivas no enunciado e nas alternativas. Centralize sua interpretação nos fatos apresentados, desconfie de extrapolações e valores subjetivos.
Resumo: Ao analisar criticamente o depoimento da pesquisadora, identificamos nas palavras dela que a discriminação prejudica severamente as condições de trabalho das minorias, confirmando a alternativa B. Esta abordagem é essencial para acertar questões de interpretação nos concursos.
Gostou do comentário? Deixe sua avaliação aqui embaixo!
