I work in talent acquisition. I support diversity recruiting as along as it’s done legally and doesn’t infringe on reverse discrimination. I’m all about providing equal opportunity for all people to apply and be considered for our opportunities. What I’m seeing these days at tech companies in the valley are some questionable practices regarding the prioritization and hiring of diverse candidates. Most companies define diverse candidates as Female (any ethnicity), Black, Latino, LGTB, Veterans, or Disabled. Recruiting leaders are giving diversity hiring related performance goals/metrics to recruiters. I was given “off the record” (not written down anywhere) goals of hiring X% of my hires needed to be Black, Y% Latino, Z% Female etc. Also, we have select opportunities/roles that we only review and consider diverse candidates for (not advertised this way). It feels awkward to be instructed to review and consider diverse applicants when there are qualified non-diverse candidate applications as well. I’m curious what people’s thoughts and reactions are here. I’d love to hear from engineers what their thoughts are on diversity hiring and if they feel pressured to diversify their teams etc? Again, I’m all for diversity recruiting. However, I think we need to be careful to not become hyper focused on reactively hiring diverse candidates for the wrong reasons, while at the same time potentially discriminating against non diverse candidates. Instead, we should focus on engaging with diverse populations, providing them access to apply for our roles, then hiring the most qualified candidate despite race, ethnicity, or gender.
This happens in many companies today. Its no longer qualified candidate game
What's an example of a role where the instructions are too hire a diverse candidates? Are they roles like sugars engineers or noon tech as well?
Sugar engineers? Lmao
I think it is unfair and might even be illegal to hire based on race or gender. This is a clear conscious bias that leads to hiring people based on criteria other than merits and business needs and it does make it harder for qualified candidates to get in I think it also has the reverse of the intended effect. I now have a good reason to think that a diversity colleague may not be as competent as others.
It is 100% illegal to hire based on any protected class including race and gender. That includes only hiring women, or minorities and excluding others. That being said, I've worked at many companies where it was hinted as that is what should be done. Sometimes more overtly than others. I never followed that instruction - no matter who suggested it.
Do the diversity hires get an easier interview? Is there a questionnaire asking if you are LGTB? What if I say I’m LGTB so I can get hired, will I get fired later on if I’m not?
How do you think I got the job ?
Yes. They are being coached by internal employees with the exact questions they would be asked during an interview
You shouldn’t care about race or sexual preference; it’s pointless and is a thin political pat on your own back. Your candidates should love tech. It’s to the point where it’s blatant discrimination. We’re hiring unqualified folks because of the way they look or who they sleep with; not technical prowess so we can say “we’re soooo inclusive “
Sometimes I think I doesn't make sense to be conservative.. but being too liberal is what pushing people go back to their conservative tent.. not discriminating is good.. but reverse discrimination is as bad as it gets
The idea was to don't dicriminate them based on there ethinicity, sexual orientation and gender. But now it seems Reverse is happening. Time to go for some operation and join the gang
I was on a hiring loop to interview college students for internships. One boy was really shy, but he showed passion and work through a interview question and coded android apps for fun. Seems like a good hire for internship. Interviewed a girl that didn’t know what she wanted to do and thought she would give this a try, no real passion, no coding skills, no trying. She was a good talker. We interviewers got together to rate them. The boy and girl rated the same so we were on the fence, only 1 gets in. The mediators handling the interviewing event said to choose the girl. I opposed!!! They told me this hiring event was to bring more girls into tech. If that was the case, why bring boys to the interviews if they stand no chance!!! I was mad and disgusted!!! I refused to participate in another hiring event like that again!!!
I think that was a hard choice... Sometimes women are not exposed to programming as much as guys are so maybe this could have been a good opportunity to expose her to it. Agree if they only wanted to hire females why bother interviewing males.
What were they rated the same?
From EEOC website: “Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” Sit down with your manager and ask them to help you understand.
This seems like a hot mess and reverse discrimination. Talent Acquisition, HR and Hiring Leads need to be schooled on what diversity hiring is. Last thing you want is someone to file an EEO complaint that they were discounted because of their race/gender (being a white male for example). The best any recruiting team can do is present a diverse slate of candidates. Perhaps of the 5 presented, 2 must be diverse based upon whatever metric your organization or LOB categorized as diverse. It’s the responsibility of Talent Acquisition to leverage recruitment channels that have a high likelihood of attracting diverse candidates. We’ve tried things like removing First/Last Names and Education from resumes and presenting to hiring leads to remove bias. We’ve also tried not sharing a resume at all, where recruiters write candidate summaries instead. Some of these tactics have worked.
Write a memo and circulate.
Jesus^
@Moomooo - this is why I want the Damore case to go to trial. I don't care if he wins or loses the discovery process and open court testimony will bring sunlight to this practice. A one dollar verdict and the truth coming out in trial is the best case scenario I see. This is also why I expect our lawyers to front load the case as hard as they can, to kill the case before a jury hears it.