Diversity hire is baseless and unscientific - a complete joke at best

Microsoft FibonacciN
Jun 16, 2018 57 Comments

Let’s face it - everyone of us is unique, different in many ways from everyone else. Diversity hire based on race, sex, or any other orientation is baseless and unscientific. Any hire brings in a person of his/her own kind. So why the propaganda?

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 57 Comments
  • Google Google3
    Whenever I meet someone stupid at Google, I assume they’re a diversity hire regardless of their race.
    Jun 16, 2018 14
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      Must be hard to think for yourself with all that racist diverse propaganda shoved down your throat @goingtovwf
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Microsoft Goingtovwf
      @WRyY10 and so says the racist/sexist.
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      How am I racist or sexist?
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Microsoft Goingtovwf
      You talk like one. You probably don’t understand the -isms in the workplace that the sexes and the races have to deal with if you call diversity hiring a propaganda. What did I say that sounds like propaganda to you??
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Facebook Eirne
      Equality of outcome is evil. Equality of opportunity is worth pursuing. Understand this, and we’ll have no argument @Goingtovwf
      Jul 23, 2018
  • Yahoo Lord Vader
    I don't get how diversity hiring works - you do interviews, if you do well, you move forward else, you are rejected. So are you saying Google interviewers are being told that of the candidate race/gender/enthnicity is from a minority group, you need to give them better pos-interview feedback? I get that at a Hiring Committee this kind of thing would be taken into consideration but if you cannot even make it there because you sucked at the interviews, how can you enforce such 'diversity' goals?
    Jun 16, 2018 13
    • PeerStreet / Other
      Ju63vNQa

      PeerStreet Other

      PRE
      Amazon
      Ju63vNQamore
      @rcno01 do you really think in this political climate anyone would even dare to launch a study looking into how the bar is lowered for diversity candidates?

      Given that most social science researchers are incredibly fragile and who can lose their jobs on the slightest controversy, who would even look into this issue? That’s not even mentioning companies who would stand to gain nothing from this research, other than a huge negative PR backlash.

      If you look at the backgrounds of diversity candidates vs non-diversity candidates it’s pretty clear that the bar was lowered, obviously you don’t have information on how they performed on their interview but past experience (university, previous jobs, projects, etc.) are all strong indicators of lowering the bar
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Salesforce rcno01
      @PeerStreet I know diversity candidates who have similar backgrounds than non diversity ones, except in some cases, they went to different colleges and that makes sense. We can talk about anecdotal cases all day if you want, even for non diversity candidates.

      Also, if you can pass the interviews, I couldn't care less if you went to Stanford or ABC University in CS if both have a valid CS program. If you are a self taught, I cannot care less if you are a decent SWE and a proven track of success.
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      Similar backgrounds can easily get called into question even with the same university due to literally lower bars and affirmative action systems in university. It is well known now bars are straight up lower for universities.
      Jun 17, 2018
    • PeerStreet / Other
      Ju63vNQa

      PeerStreet Other

      PRE
      Amazon
      Ju63vNQamore
      Yes but the question is how did they even get the interview in the first place with their less than stellar background? Presumably it’s because they are a minority, and thus the bar for “interviewing” candidates is lowered
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Facebook Eirne
      @rcno01 basic statistics: every hiring process has false positives and false negatives. Reducing false negatives for a racial or gendered group of people is also a form of discrimination. Not to mention increasing the false positive rate, which also happens. There’s evidence that this happens at a policy level - diversity candidates are given additional interviews, more coaching and fast tracked after interviews.

      On the other hand, encouraging more people to interview is good and I’m all for it. Not the other stuff though.
      Jul 23, 2018
  • Square / Eng nom🍔
    There is science that diversity in race and gender increases success in large businesses. I agree that gender, race etc are not the best predictors of diversity, but they're still effective. The way that corporations dance around the "pushing for diversity without decreasing the hiring bar" is both funny and sad though.

    BTW, same science also shows diversity decreases success in small businesses, but that tends to be ignored.
    Jun 16, 2018 7
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      Doesn’t sound like science to me. Sounds like nonsense
      Jun 16, 2018
    • Square / Eng nom🍔
      Of course, if peer reviewed research papers appearing in scientific journals "don't sound like science" to WRyY10, I guess science is broken. Good thing we have you to set things straight.
      Jun 16, 2018
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      I was commenting on op of this thread, not you
      Jun 16, 2018
    • PeerStreet / Other
      Ju63vNQa

      PeerStreet Other

      PRE
      Amazon
      Ju63vNQamore
      Or maybe large successful businesses can engage in virtue signalling through diversity hiring? Remember, correlation does not equal causation.
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      Large companies just want to make money. If they don’t engage in the political discourse they become open to lawsuits. Extreme care has to be taken to avoid expensive lawsuits. This is the major reason why we see these shitty diversity programs in certain companies — so they can virtue signal. And rightly so, lest they become a political target. It is basically extortion; hire diversity police to run diversity programs or become a diversity target.

      All this shitty propaganda and diversity bullshit, in the end, is about unhappy people trying to take stuff from hard working profitable people, by using a racist mechanism. It’s abhorrent. It’s like a racist implementation of communism.

      No matter how good the original intentions are, diversity quotas and other racially discriminatory systems always result in extreme harm, especially to those the system tries to help.

      Instead it would be great if American culture could shift to helping the economically challenged, or uneducated. Focusing on tackling these problems is not going to result in harmful racist affirmative action system, or racist diversity quotas that destroy the reputation of qualified candidates.
      Jun 17, 2018
  • Genentech
    JDvN13

    Genentech

    PRE
    JPMorgan Chase
    JDvN13more
    we don’t all start out in this world with equal footing and equal opportunity. Until that is resolved, things like this will exist. And as someone else stated we often hire people like us without realizing that bias...so we’ll always need analysis and tools to correct it. Companies that reflect the diversity of society...their customer base...perform better...so part of “diversity” is about the bottom line. That doesn’t mean you hire someone purely for their race or gender or whatever but you broaden your approach to welcome anybody who is qualified and find a way to remove or correct your own bias or a company’s systemic bias. If in the end everyone looks like you, etc. you have failed and your bottom line will suffer.
    Jun 16, 2018 1
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      Everybody likes the idea of equal opportunity. We don’t like the idea of using a racist metric to bias hiring. It calls into question the merit of “diverse” hires. It does more harm than good.
      Jun 16, 2018
  • Daimler Myofb
    That’s the problem! It should be the best person for the best job. The only reason this needs to be done is because people hire people of there own kind and people of the other kind don’t get a job. Ergo a kind that is dominant, cast other people out. It creates place like SV where everybody is white and male or like South Africa where Black always have to be hired before whites. There is no reason to not hire the best for the job, regardless of color, sex or orientation. Why would you hire somebody just because he is of the same kind, instead of somebody that actually contributes to the success of your business.
    Jun 16, 2018 1
    • Deloitte PVaQ48
      Blacks are not hired over YTs in South Africa. That is 100% not true.
      Jun 16, 2018
  • Cruise Automation / Eng
    Tc:trefity

    Cruise Automation Eng

    PRE
    eHarmony
    BIO
    If it’s not broken it doesn’t have enough features.
    Tc:trefitymore
    Diversity in the workplace is actually pretty nice. Y’all need to calm the fuck down and go back to being code monkeys.
    Jun 16, 2018 2
    • Amazon / Eng WRyY10
      We don’t like racist policies or political propaganda. Diversity quotas and affirmative action are systematically racist. I doubt anyone here (besides the pro diversity neo liberal nuts) actually cares about race and just wants to work with qualified candidates, and is eager for diversity of *ideas*.
      Jun 17, 2018
    • Cruise Automation / Eng
      Tc:trefity

      Cruise Automation Eng

      PRE
      eHarmony
      BIO
      If it’s not broken it doesn’t have enough features.
      Tc:trefitymore
      Guess you missed the part about having no say in the matter.
      Jun 17, 2018
  • FireEye R"><{} ^
    The Germans conquered a massive portion of Europe with zero diversity.

    The Japanese conquered massive portions of the pacific and east Asia with zero diversity.

    The British empire conquered massive potions of the globe with zero diversity

    The Russians sent up sputnik with zero diversity.

    The value of diversity is waaaaaaay overrated. There isn't zero value though. But it's definitely overrated.
    Jun 21, 2018 6
    • FireEye R"><{} ^
      No.
      They won. They won a lot.

      Until they lost.

      No person, organization, or nation has ever won forever and never lost.

      Is that the standard?
      I need to provide an example of a nation or organization winning in perpetuity until the end of time?
      Jun 21, 2018
    • Starbucks / Eng LeOops
      They lost so bad they were eradicated 😂😂😂 . Big difference there 😂😂😂. Diversity keeps people from effing up. Just think how many times companies have lost millions or even went out of business because they didn’t have a minority in the organization to say “yo I don’t think I’d do that shit” 😂😂😂.

      Everyone is equal so there wouldn’t be a difference in capabilities but you can get some very interesting insights that can change outcomes.
      Jun 21, 2018
    • FireEye R"><{} ^
      So a diverse nation or organization that wins, will never ever fuck up and lose?

      This is actually good news.
      It means that the US will always win over China, now and forever, since China virtually has zero diversity, and the US is highly diverse.
      Jun 21, 2018
    • FireEye R"><{} ^
      Japan, Germany, and Britain were eradicated?

      Jun 21, 2018
    • Starbucks / Eng LeOops
      😂😂😂 funniest argument I’ve seen in awhile. Please continue 😂😂😂😂
      Jun 21, 2018
  • OpenText / Eng no_scrubs
    Is it easier for a female to get into Microsoft? I heard hiring events are required to have 50% of its candidates be female.
    Jun 16, 2018 0
  • Google / Eng
    lena33

    Google Eng

    PRE
    Salesforce
    lena33more
    Diversity is better for business, consider looking at law claims, not necessarily revenue. What if your ml model is biased against black? Easy to prove. However that was not intentional and overall it increases revenue. Right?

    However diversity in my mind is bad for science, really bad. Oh well, let US enjoy the results in 10-30 years
    Jun 16, 2018 0
  • Starbucks / Eng LeOops
    Most of the people who make posts like this don’t even know how “diversity” hiring works. It just means getting minorities in the pipeline. You still have to perform at the same standard. You do not get a free pass on anything.

    I’m so tired of this theyre incompetent and only got hired because they are in group X misinformation.
    Jun 19, 2018 2
    • Microsoft FibonacciN
      OP
      Most of the companies have jobs posted online where anyone can apply. What do you mean by “getting minorities in the pipeline”? If they were not in the pipeline previously, that’s because they didn’t apply. To get additional minorities into the pipeline, what kind of bait needs to be used to lure them in? Isn’t it a hidden lower bar? If not, what else?
      Jun 19, 2018
    • Starbucks / Eng LeOops
      Reaching outside of the go to colleges would be one. Bring awareness of job opportunities to people who wouldn’t typical take a job in SF (like someone living on the east coast)

      Same bait that would make anyone work for a company. Good environment, compensation, etc.

      There is no hidden lower bar. Sorry to disappoint. That’s why so many affirmative action cases get thrown out. The plaintiffs often discover that they have scored LESS than the diversity candidate. Most recent one i can think of is the university of Texas one where the white lady actually scored lower on her tests than a majority or the applicants she was attempting to claim disenfranchised her.

      That’s actually showcases why you companies and institutions wouldn’t have lower bars it would be a free for all in lawsuits.
      Jun 20, 2018
  • Says the priviledged white male
    Jun 23, 2018 0

Salary
Comparison

    Real time salary information from verified employees