*this post doesn’t pertain to just uber*
Can someone explain how diversity and inclusion doesn’t violate the equal employment act? From how I’ve seen hiring done personally, it seems today’s dialogue is to hire as many under represented minorities as we can by giving them preference over over represented races and gender.
Personally I’ve seen asian/white male applicants in the hiring process be discounted (discriminated) because of something they are born with (race and gender).
Before my fellow liberals scoff at this post...I’m a liberal too. This is an honest question because I feel angered by how asian/white males have been victimized by diversity and inclusion, yet opening this dialogue publicly is seen as wildly unpopular and may have repercussions. But this doesn’t make sense to me.
- Microsoft gfba68I've never seen an Asian or white male discrimated against. If the white male candidate is obviously stronger, the white male is always hired. It's only when candidates are more or less equal that D&I comes into play. I don't see find that could be construed as discrimination. As a white male myself, I've had it very easy in tech.
- Unlikely to have that many cases of “equally qualified”. Actually it is almost impossible, but you can conduct an extra interview for each. Problem solved. The reality is that race is being considered as a factor for hiring AND promotions more often and more aggressively than “equally qualified” case
- Race has been considered in hiring for hundreds of years, almost exclusively in the white direction. You seem against undoing that, although you may not realize that's what you're arguing against. And not only is equally qualified common, it happens in most hiring cases because "qualified" is subjective. Does it bother you that as as white man you likely got your job at least partially as a result of your race and gender? Because that's what happened.
- Dropbox drl/foodIt's okay to be racist against whites and asians in California, it's in the state Constitution.
- Don’t be an ass. I’m aware that being white comes with certain privileges, like not having to worry about racial profiling or being pulled over for driving while being black...but now a days it also comes with a target on your back in the workforce. If you’re a high paid and high performing middle aged white male you’re on the algorithm for lay-off... say what you want but it’s true. A person should be hired/fired/laid off strictly because of their performance of their duties or their potential in the case of hiring and not because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background in ANY direction.
- Companies are not transparent about how this works and this opens the door wide open for rumors and speculations. All we get is contradicting statements from unknown people on Blind.
But I think if the D&I mechanisms were legal and innocent then companies won’t be so secretive about them, nor would they make it a taboo and a fireable act if you open this for discussion
- Fair point on transparency. I think some companies are transparent and do the right thing, just as I agree that there are companies that definitely do the wrong thing. It’s also tough because stuff like this can be easily misinterpreted, even with all of the information laid out. I do agree on transparency, though.
- The thing I find most interesting about this stuff is that the D&I people have decided race and gender are such important divisions between people that we must actively rebalance on it.
The alternative is to say race and gender are irrelevant - people are people. And then fight against any discriminatory practices that may already be in place.
- Historically, under-represented races and genders have been on the receiving end of that discrimination. Asian/white males were the ones getting the attention, others were passed over regardless of skill. In an attempt to level the playing field, it's going to feel "unfair." The goal is to have enough people of diverse types represented so everyone is hired for their qualifications alone. I doubt any qualified Asian/white males are sitting around unable to find good jobs in tech. If it's a little harder for them to land that first job they come across, let's welcome them to a small piece of finally understanding exactly how it's been for everyone else all this time.
- I’ve seen this argument come up before with the recent Harvard lawsuit. Imo there are other ways to to achieve these goals that don’t involve discrimination (more programs that encourage URMs to join computer science at a younger age, more accessibility to an computer science education for schools of lower income). This method at the occupational level doesn’t improve the quality of diverse employees, it just lowers the hiring bar. It’s figuratively a band aid over a much deeper problem.
The statement “I doubt any qualified asian/white males are sitting around unable to find good jobs in tech” is a prototypical assumption that I find disheartening.
- Perhaps. The whole situation is disheartening on both sides. No one should be discriminated against. It's terrible. But I also think there are times where it feels like discrimination to hire an atypical candidate when it really isn't. There are people out there applying the letter of the "D&I Law" improperly and it's hurting the movement. I agree wholeheartedly. But hopefully it's growing pains toward a better balance. If discrimination happens, it shouldn't be allowed to continue. But it's not always discrimination to hire someone different who appears "less qualified" -- just like it's not always discrimination to hire a typical candidate.
- Google AASJWWWOver 80% of the candidates I interview for SWE jobs are white or Asian males. Tell me again about how they're being discriminated against.
- Workday PolihhfdIt’s about expanding your hiring scope to source for talent in areas that have been traditionally looked over (underrepresented groups). Many companies hire from specific colleges or regions (which aren’t diverse themselves) and by referral (which can inhibit the hiring of diverse people too).
A D&I program should increase the number of diverse schools and communities you recruit from to give people who may be very qualified but ignored a chance to interview. If they don’t interview well, then don’t hire them.
It’s not enough too source for diverse talent, you also have to alter your culture to be more inclusive. A culture that is not inclusive, culturally aware, and accepting will drive out all the people you spent time and money searching for because they won’t feel like they belong.
None of this is racist or illegal. It is strategic. It is finding creative ways to improve the diversity of a company for the sake of better serving diverse consumers.
Also, I think the real subconscious reason many white males hate this is because diversity and inclusion is a direct threat to white mediocrity, which is what many of you have been sailing along on unchallenged for most of your careers in this industry
- "It’s not enough too source for diverse talent, you also have to alter your culture to be more inclusive."
People love to shit on FANG about diversity but these are by far most the most inclusive and progressive companies in the world. Try working in any other industries anywhere else in the world to compare.
- No they aren’t. They are big organizations that don’t do the right thing until they have to.
Take Facebook for example, they intentionally didn’t add any recognition for same-sex relationships to the product for well over a decade, “it’s complicated” was the only option available.
- And OP, I see you updated your post with an example. It’s absolute bullshit, and if you see that happening, blow it wide open. That’s not okay. The most qualified candidate should always be hired.
- That supports my point on another chain the people aren’t perfect, and people are the issue—not necessarily a legal, equitable process. D&I is multifaceted and includes internal bias training as well. If you really believe no one at your company will care is discriminatory hiring is happening (including your legal department), you’re either talking to the wrong people, or complicit in the inequity.
- New / EngUndefined.moreWhat people failed to understand is that not any underrepresented minority in a company is a diversity hire. Some aced the interviews and are hired in the same bar as you!
- Although largely anecdotal, I’ve personally worked with some URMs who have met the same hiring bar that everyone else faces and I don’t take any issue to that. I do agree tho companies are extremely vague here...and I think in large part it’s because many of these mechanics tread so closely to discrimination.
- If you’re not making a hiring decision based on protected class characteristics, and if you’re not holding openings specifically for underrepresented minorities (quotas), you are more than able to interview a diverse slate prior to making a hiring decision. It’s no different than wanting to see more than one candidate before making a hire based on skills/qualifications from a legal standpoint. You just shouldn’t hire someone BECAUSE of their race, gender, religion, etc.
- You should still always hire the best qualified person, regardless of protected class. Not hiring the best person doesn’t only happen to underrepresented minorities, either. How many people do you know at work that are incompetent but get along well with their bosses? People are terrible about interviewing and hiring qualified employees in general because we’re human.Dec 14
- Google wowbaggerBut if you fill your slate based on such criteria, how is it "equal opportunity"?
Imagine two pools, with identical gaussian distribution of quantity q. Each slate is filled randomly by 25% from pool A, the rest from B. Now pick the best candidate according to q. Now, two candidates with identical q in different pools do not have the same likelihood of getting hired.
- Google JzQe48I think these two fundamentally conflict. There are primarily two logical arguments to prefer the gender/racial-equitable process to the gender/racial-blind:
1. These two processes will yield the same result, if each group is statistically equal in term of actual skills. Whether this condition holds is more about a belief, and today our society believes so (and it is considered unethical to argue against this belief).
2. In the long run, the equitable process will help rebalance between different groups even if there are temporary differences , which will keep the society to be inclusive and diversified.
- I strongly disagree that it is considered unethical to argue against that belief. It isn't. What is true is that 99.9% of arguments against it are racist in nature, so it's a natural knee-jerk reaction to assume racist intent. Once you demonstrate your intent isn't racist, debate is on this topic is quite common and helpful.
- Both of those arguments are false.
1. This argument is false because by limiting the number of applicants in any way you limit the width of the bell curve (of competence) that you get. The goal is not to hire from the middle but the right side of the curve, so by limiting your candidate pool you get less candidates from the extremes on the curve.
2. This argument is false because by hiring less competent minorities (argument 1) you perpetuate negative stereotypes because the minorities did not meet the same high bar as everyone else. This hurts the very people you are trying to help.
1.) No you don't, not if your sample is representative wrt to skill, which companies make an attempt to do and isn't even particularly difficult. I also disagree that companies do or should target the right tail of the distribution. They generally don't, nor is it necessarily in their best interests to do so.
2.) Less competent minorities aren't hired, though. You can empirically verify this at most companies.
- 1. If you have 10 random people you will have less people in the 90th percentile than a group of 100 people, it’s just basic statistics man. Hiring on the right tail of the distribution just means hiring the most qualified people because the distribution is whatever characteristics are valued for that role.
2. This is because most companies don’t hire races preferentially.
- Where did you get 100 people vs 10 People? There are 100 people in each pool. And only hiring the right tail is explicitly NOT the goal of most hiring strategies. You have much to learn about business, young grasshopper. Let me be more specific: less competent minorities are not hired EVEN AT companies with D&I policies . It just isn't done. Anywhere.
- Minority groups are smaller, which is why it’s 100 vs 10. It’s not a minority if the groups are the same size. Even if the groups are the same size, the combined pool is greater than the parts so...
If the distribution is measuring “ability to succeed at the job” why would anyone not hire from the right tail? Am I missing something? Under what circumstance would you want someone that is less able to do the job?
- As an Asian, we just suck it up and work harder. No whining is allowed.
I also dont mind if a black or latino takes a potential spot over me.
- Are you implying a URM automatically adds diversity to a team based purely off of race. that Asian/white males are largely homogeneous and that there is no diversity amongst Asians and white males? Why not use other signals that are not innate to identify diverse ideas? Such as background in career, education, etc.
- It can be if done incorrectly by an incompetent HR. Oracle was sued successfully for this I believe
- New tLFu71Liberal scum encourage this diversity garbage because it brings in low performing losers which lowers the average bar and expectations for themselves. Qualified and intelligent hiring managers hire the most qualified candidate for the position and don't take any of this crap into consideration whatsoever beyond entertaining a forced interview or two with loser diversity candidates since they are shoved down a HM's throat by HR to check a box.
We are not better with diversity, we are better with high performing winners and news flash they happen to be by majority white or asian.
- D&I is about looking for candidates where the underrepresented are, rather than where the over represented are.
If the company is making hiring decisions on the basis of a protection classification, that is unlawful.
How many of you that whine on here about unlawful hiring have bothered to report it?