4 ms·

Who cares? If the Asians are equally qualified as whites then they are only hurting themselves by excluding them. And they aren't really excluding them. They st

Who cares? If the Asians are equally qualified as whites then they are only hurting themselves by excluding them. And they aren't really excluding them. They still hire vastly more Asians than expected by the proportion of general population.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Who cares? The government, because its a violation of an executive order that applies to all government contracting, and Palantir is a government contractor. (Hence why one of the proposed remedies is cancelling all of Palantir's government contracts and subcontracts, and banning them from future contracting.) > If the Asians are equally qualified as whites then they are only hurting themselves by excluding them. If they are only equally (and not more) qualified, and they have to narrow the pool anyway to get a manageable pool for later stages of the hiring process, then they actually aren't hurting themselves, before considering the consequences of enforcement actions like this one.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Well obviously the government cares, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't. And yes technically you are correct. But that assumes they are exactly equal. If you exclude a bunch of people for arbitrary reasons then you necessarily get worse results. Some of the best candidates may be excluded.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Well obviously the government cares, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't. There may be an argument that the government shouldn't require non-discrimination by government contractors, but I don't think that there is a particularly good argument, that, given the existence of the requirement as a term of every government contract, that the government should not care that a government contractor is just casually disregarding the terms of its contract with the government and expecting to continue to be paid. > If you exclude a bunch of people for arbitrary reasons then you necessarily get worse results. Some of the best candidates may be excluded. Since Palantir is a government contractor, the argument that they would be hurting the quality of work they do (which is valid, just not supported by mere equality of qualifications) is another reason the government should be concerned. Remember, this isn't an enforcement action under general anti-discrimination law, its an enforcement action under the specific rules that apply to government contractors.
- sib 10y ago
  Even if they are only equally qualified, Palantir would be hurting themselves, because, if they had more candidates (larger supply) to choose from, they could make more offers at lower compensation, live with lower acceptance rates, still fill all their open positions, and increase profit margins.
colmvp 10y ago
Replace "Asians" with "Blacks" or "Women" in that sentence and see how much support you'll get with that statement.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  It's not equivalent, because those are traditionally oppressed groups. Whereas Asians are not oppressed and are fantastically successful relative to their tiny portion of the general population. Based on the report above, they were hiring between 20%-40% asians, which is 5-9 times their rate in the general population! You could make an equally strong case that they are disparately impacting whites!
  - toraforms 10y ago
    Internement Camps, Chinese Exclusion Act, the Asian massacre of 1871, low representation in sports and the media.
    - Fomite 10y ago
      I'm sure the Hmong will be thrilled to know they've had it so easy.
  - swampthing 10y ago
    I don't think you can judge whether someone is oppressed based on how successful they are. If they're successful, it might mean they weren't oppressed, or it could just mean they overcame the oppression.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Who cares? The government, because its a violation of an executive order that applies to all government contracting, and Palantir is a government contractor. (Hence why one of the proposed remedies is cancelling all of Palantir's government contracts and subcontracts, and banning them from future contracting.) > If the Asians are equally qualified as whites then they are only hurting themselves by excluding them. If they are only equally (and not more) qualified, and they have to narrow the pool anyway to get a manageable pool for later stages of the hiring process, then they actually aren't hurting themselves, before considering the consequences of enforcement actions like this one.

Houshalter 10y ago
Well obviously the government cares, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't. And yes technically you are correct. But that assumes they are exactly equal. If you exclude a bunch of people for arbitrary reasons then you necessarily get worse results. Some of the best candidates may be excluded.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Well obviously the government cares, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't. There may be an argument that the government shouldn't require non-discrimination by government contractors, but I don't think that there is a particularly good argument, that, given the existence of the requirement as a term of every government contract, that the government should not care that a government contractor is just casually disregarding the terms of its contract with the government and expecting to continue to be paid. > If you exclude a bunch of people for arbitrary reasons then you necessarily get worse results. Some of the best candidates may be excluded. Since Palantir is a government contractor, the argument that they would be hurting the quality of work they do (which is valid, just not supported by mere equality of qualifications) is another reason the government should be concerned. Remember, this isn't an enforcement action under general anti-discrimination law, its an enforcement action under the specific rules that apply to government contractors.
sib 10y ago
Even if they are only equally qualified, Palantir would be hurting themselves, because, if they had more candidates (larger supply) to choose from, they could make more offers at lower compensation, live with lower acceptance rates, still fill all their open positions, and increase profit margins.

colmvp 10y ago

Replace "Asians" with "Blacks" or "Women" in that sentence and see how much support you'll get with that statement.

Houshalter 10y ago
It's not equivalent, because those are traditionally oppressed groups. Whereas Asians are not oppressed and are fantastically successful relative to their tiny portion of the general population. Based on the report above, they were hiring between 20%-40% asians, which is 5-9 times their rate in the general population! You could make an equally strong case that they are disparately impacting whites!
- toraforms 10y ago
  Internement Camps, Chinese Exclusion Act, the Asian massacre of 1871, low representation in sports and the media.
  - Fomite 10y ago
    I'm sure the Hmong will be thrilled to know they've had it so easy.
- swampthing 10y ago
  I don't think you can judge whether someone is oppressed based on how successful they are. If they're successful, it might mean they weren't oppressed, or it could just mean they overcame the oppression.