5 ms·

When the criteria for a job is aptitude, experience, etc then of course it's ability over diversity. When diversity is a qualification along with aptitude and

When the criteria for a job is aptitude, experience, etc then of course it's ability over diversity. When diversity is a qualification along with aptitude and experience, people are right to question. A parallel discussion (and recent litigation) for college admissions is happening as well. Many black people admitted to top schools are only admitted because they are black. The stats show that black people admitted to some top schools need much lower SAT scores, while Asians need much higher (vs whites). This might not be the most polite way to phrase the situation, but it is absolutely true.

kevingadd 10y ago
So you're saying the only reason they were admitted is the color of their skin and no other criteria were considered? What are the criteria that are normally used to evaluate a white student that were thrown out for these black students? Are their grades lower? What about their post-graduation job outcomes? Do they cost the campus more money? How much money do they make the campus by playing on basketball and football teams for the university? What do the on-campus crime and harassment statistics look like if broken down by race and gender - do the diverse students cause more trouble or less? If you're going to say something like 'they were only admitted because they are black' and then 'absolutely true' I hope you're prepared to back it up, otherwise you just sound racist - and I'm sure that's absolutely not true!
- candiodari 10y ago
  > So you're saying the only reason they were admitted is the color of their skin and no other criteria were considered? What are the criteria that are normally used to evaluate a white student that were thrown out for these black students? No, he's saying that they were selected over people who performed better in the interviews and other selection criteria because of the color of their skin/gender/religion/... Now in some way that's equivalent, in the sense that they would not have been selected if not for their skin color (they would have been third or fifth on the list where the top spot gets hired), but in other ways it's not. It does not mean they don't have any ability at all, for instance. Just less than would be required if they were white males. And I'm sure if executive compensation is tied to this, that there will in fact be cases of no ability at all, but I doubt it will be the common case. And we all know the methods executives will use to hit their targets while lying about this, for instance to make sure it looks fair, when it isn't. Going in and changing interview reports and scores after the fact to make sure they "didn't select based on skin color", except it'll be blatantly obvious for their colleagues that's exactly what happened. And in fact I bet those other team members will have to work more, harder and ... to compensate for the lower abilities.

kevingadd 10y ago

So you're saying the only reason they were admitted is the color of their skin and no other criteria were considered? What are the criteria that are normally used to evaluate a white student that were thrown out for these black students? Are their grades lower? What about their post-graduation job outcomes? Do they cost the campus more money? How much money do they make the campus by playing on basketball and football teams for the university? What do the on-campus crime and harassment statistics look like if broken down by race and gender - do the diverse students cause more trouble or less? If you're going to say something like 'they were only admitted because they are black' and then 'absolutely true' I hope you're prepared to back it up, otherwise you just sound racist - and I'm sure that's absolutely not true!

candiodari 10y ago
> So you're saying the only reason they were admitted is the color of their skin and no other criteria were considered? What are the criteria that are normally used to evaluate a white student that were thrown out for these black students? No, he's saying that they were selected over people who performed better in the interviews and other selection criteria because of the color of their skin/gender/religion/... Now in some way that's equivalent, in the sense that they would not have been selected if not for their skin color (they would have been third or fifth on the list where the top spot gets hired), but in other ways it's not. It does not mean they don't have any ability at all, for instance. Just less than would be required if they were white males. And I'm sure if executive compensation is tied to this, that there will in fact be cases of no ability at all, but I doubt it will be the common case. And we all know the methods executives will use to hit their targets while lying about this, for instance to make sure it looks fair, when it isn't. Going in and changing interview reports and scores after the fact to make sure they "didn't select based on skin color", except it'll be blatantly obvious for their colleagues that's exactly what happened. And in fact I bet those other team members will have to work more, harder and ... to compensate for the lower abilities.