4 ms·

That's exactly whats happening - people in the right "diversity" bucket are being hired while others who are qualified are being passed over.

notacoward 9y ago
And how is that worse than before? Qualified women and minorities were being passed over before. Qualified women and minorities are still being passed over, despite diversity efforts, unless you want to make the somewhat circular argument that 81:19 (men:women) reflects qualifications. Is it just bad that more white men are now being affected? I contend that qualified people will always be passed over, in every demographic group. Making that number zero for any group is not a goal. Making it proportional is. Do you have any evidence that a higher percentage of qualified men are being passed over than of qualified women? I highly doubt that you do, because everything I've seen suggests that women are still more likely than men to be passed over. There's a word for the attitude that one's own group should be immune to phenomena that affect others. It's called privilege, and we could do with less of it.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  It's not worse, it's exactly as bad. > It's called privilege You missed an important part: that only ones own group should be immune. If you believe all groups shouldn't face discrimination, then it is no such thing.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    The "phenomenon that affects others" in my comment was that some qualified people get passed over for promotions. That's not the same as your "shouldn't face discrimination" so your response is a non sequitur. It is not possible to eliminate the phenomenon of qualified people being passed over for hiring/promotions, for all groups. The decision-making processes involved are just not that precise or perfect. The only way one group can be immune to that effect is in the presence of systemic bias that outweighs the vicissitudes of that imperfect decision making ... and that is indeed privilege. You're not going to prove otherwise by twisting other people's words.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      It's not a non sequitur, by "discrimination" I mean unjustified discrimination. I didn't "twist words", so stop making bad-faith accusations. You have setup a strawman of your own, deciding that by "face no discrimination" I must mean an extreme level of literally no negative bias, even at random or by error. I disagree that "Making it proportional is [a target]". Hiring should not be based on sex/race, but that doesn't mean it can't be based, justifiably, on things that correlate with sex/race. The issue is here is that there is no direct insight into the factors hiring decisions, other than broad hiring statistics than do not distinguish between e.g correlation and cause.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

notacoward 9y ago

And how is that worse than before? Qualified women and minorities were being passed over before. Qualified women and minorities are still being passed over, despite diversity efforts, unless you want to make the somewhat circular argument that 81:19 (men:women) reflects qualifications. Is it just bad that more white men are now being affected? I contend that qualified people will always be passed over, in every demographic group. Making that number zero for any group is not a goal. Making it proportional is. Do you have any evidence that a higher percentage of qualified men are being passed over than of qualified women? I highly doubt that you do, because everything I've seen suggests that women are still more likely than men to be passed over. There's a word for the attitude that one's own group should be immune to phenomena that affect others. It's called privilege, and we could do with less of it.

Chris2048 9y ago
It's not worse, it's exactly as bad. > It's called privilege You missed an important part: that only ones own group should be immune. If you believe all groups shouldn't face discrimination, then it is no such thing.
- notacoward 9y ago
  The "phenomenon that affects others" in my comment was that some qualified people get passed over for promotions. That's not the same as your "shouldn't face discrimination" so your response is a non sequitur. It is not possible to eliminate the phenomenon of qualified people being passed over for hiring/promotions, for all groups. The decision-making processes involved are just not that precise or perfect. The only way one group can be immune to that effect is in the presence of systemic bias that outweighs the vicissitudes of that imperfect decision making ... and that is indeed privilege. You're not going to prove otherwise by twisting other people's words.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    It's not a non sequitur, by "discrimination" I mean unjustified discrimination. I didn't "twist words", so stop making bad-faith accusations. You have setup a strawman of your own, deciding that by "face no discrimination" I must mean an extreme level of literally no negative bias, even at random or by error. I disagree that "Making it proportional is [a target]". Hiring should not be based on sex/race, but that doesn't mean it can't be based, justifiably, on things that correlate with sex/race. The issue is here is that there is no direct insight into the factors hiring decisions, other than broad hiring statistics than do not distinguish between e.g correlation and cause.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]