3 ms·

Someone off-topic but: Laws forbidding sexual and racial discrimination in hiring are a waste for everyone's time involved. Do I really want to work alongside

Someone off-topic but: Laws forbidding sexual and racial discrimination in hiring are a waste for everyone's time involved. Do I really want to work alongside someone that "isn't racist" or sexist just because the law forbids it? No of course not. I'd rather work next to people that aren't racist and sexists regardless of if the law forbids it. I want to work at companies where people actually want me. How difficult is that to understand? =( Most people want less racism/sexism. But this is not the way to do it. I'm in favor of removing this law and letting discriminators be upfront about it. So that I can knowingly avoid them without wasting hours and potentially years of my life.

xenadu02 10y ago
You are clearly completely incorrect... Like so obviously incorrect I'm almost shocked to see such a comment here on HN. Making discrimination illegal sends a social signal that the behavior is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. It emboldens those who are slightly anti-discrimination (but part of the majority group) to speak out against it instead of following the herd. The few cases where actual discrimination cases are prosecuted serve to warn others that there are negative consequences to bad behavior. Over time this change in attitude transfers to younger generations that see it as normal. That leads to fewer and fewer racist/biased people in positions of power. Often institutionalized racism and sexism are enforced by a small group of busybodies... Take Cory Booker's family story where the Real Estate agent tried to enforce a "white only" town but once they bought the house (by using a white stand-in couple) all the neighbors were totally fine with a black family moving in. It took only one bad actor to effectively segregate an entire town. I have a suspicion (but no proof) that this is generally the case - a vocal minority wants to enforce the status quo but the majority would be fine with change. We can't stop some people from discriminating, but we can declare that we as a society think that is bad behavior and that declaration alone has positive consequences.
- hasenj 10y ago
  > You are clearly completely incorrect... Like so obviously incorrect I'm almost shocked to see such a comment here on HN. Your first line is terrible. Remove it and your comment would be a valuable contribution to the discussion. > Making discrimination illegal sends a social signal that the behavior is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. Does it? It only signals that the government doesn't like said behavior.
- randyrand 10y ago
  I disagree. I don't think by making it illegal very much is done to actually combat the way people feel. Look at Trump's success. If anything the social justice type movements over the past few decades have only increased Trump's success. So for questionable gain, you are forcing people to waste everyone's interview time, and -- god forbid if they are hired by racist/sexist people -- waste potentially months and years of their life. yes you can prosecute after the fact. But You will never get those years back. It would be much more preferable to have taken another job in the first place.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
I think you need to look at the history behind those laws before you can make that claim. More to the point, the penalty for discrimination makes it less likely that a company will keep someone who is prejudiced in a position where they hire people, as they're out big bucks if they get hit up with a law suit. You are correct that this may not do anything to change a racist culture, which is why many minorities leave certain companies after being hired, but if no one affected by a toxic culture ever gets hired, there's a very small chance that it will change on its own. And there's also the case you left out where the company itself isn't that toxic, but they left a racist in charge of the hiring and didn't realize it. This helps correct for that as well by discouraging having that kind of person in charge of hiring.

xenadu02 10y ago

You are clearly completely incorrect... Like so obviously incorrect I'm almost shocked to see such a comment here on HN. Making discrimination illegal sends a social signal that the behavior is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. It emboldens those who are slightly anti-discrimination (but part of the majority group) to speak out against it instead of following the herd. The few cases where actual discrimination cases are prosecuted serve to warn others that there are negative consequences to bad behavior. Over time this change in attitude transfers to younger generations that see it as normal. That leads to fewer and fewer racist/biased people in positions of power. Often institutionalized racism and sexism are enforced by a small group of busybodies... Take Cory Booker's family story where the Real Estate agent tried to enforce a "white only" town but once they bought the house (by using a white stand-in couple) all the neighbors were totally fine with a black family moving in. It took only one bad actor to effectively segregate an entire town. I have a suspicion (but no proof) that this is generally the case - a vocal minority wants to enforce the status quo but the majority would be fine with change. We can't stop some people from discriminating, but we can declare that we as a society think that is bad behavior and that declaration alone has positive consequences.

hasenj 10y ago
> You are clearly completely incorrect... Like so obviously incorrect I'm almost shocked to see such a comment here on HN. Your first line is terrible. Remove it and your comment would be a valuable contribution to the discussion. > Making discrimination illegal sends a social signal that the behavior is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. Does it? It only signals that the government doesn't like said behavior.
randyrand 10y ago
I disagree. I don't think by making it illegal very much is done to actually combat the way people feel. Look at Trump's success. If anything the social justice type movements over the past few decades have only increased Trump's success. So for questionable gain, you are forcing people to waste everyone's interview time, and -- god forbid if they are hired by racist/sexist people -- waste potentially months and years of their life. yes you can prosecute after the fact. But You will never get those years back. It would be much more preferable to have taken another job in the first place.

nikdaheratik 10y ago

I think you need to look at the history behind those laws before you can make that claim. More to the point, the penalty for discrimination makes it less likely that a company will keep someone who is prejudiced in a position where they hire people, as they're out big bucks if they get hit up with a law suit. You are correct that this may not do anything to change a racist culture, which is why many minorities leave certain companies after being hired, but if no one affected by a toxic culture ever gets hired, there's a very small chance that it will change on its own. And there's also the case you left out where the company itself isn't that toxic, but they left a racist in charge of the hiring and didn't realize it. This helps correct for that as well by discouraging having that kind of person in charge of hiring.