4 ms·

>their efforts to have a more gender diverse workforce The employers are not supposed to discriminate based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation. An

>their efforts to have a more gender diverse workforce The employers are not supposed to discriminate based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation. An externally enforced gender diversity is discrimination. If a company has 100 programming jobs, decides to keep 50 for one specific gender, the company has created discriminatory hiring practice. It has discriminated based on gender. Damore challenged this discrimination and got sacked. I think he can easily make a legal case for discrimination. If Google had said that they wanted 50/50 gender based representation at the level above Damore's title, then he clearly has a standing. Any male who was denied employment at Google has a standing to know if he was denied because of gender quotas. Damore's argument is to not take gender into account in hiring practices at all. "Diversity" policies are, at the base of their argument, asking for discriminatory hiring practices. There is no "diversity" law or mandate. If Google can define a diversity goal for some chosen slicing of the population into groups, may be based on race, may be based on gender, may be based on sexual orientation, may be based on height, and then goes on to seek equality of representation between those groups, then would it OK if some other company define equality based on if you are right handed or left handed? What if someone claims that all major religions should be equally represented in the workforce? Is the 50/50 split based on gender mean that the company is done with being "diverse"? Which new grouping would then stake claim at equality? Does Google believe in gender fluidity or do they believe in being cis-gendered? What if male engineers claim to be a female at the time of hiring, claiming gender fluidity, is Google going to get into business of keeping someone honest about what their gender is? Treat everyone as individual, based on the individuals abilities and choices. Assuming "diversity" goals to ensure equality of outcome by some arbitrary definition of a "group" is by definition discrimination. Individuals, not "group" based on race, religion or gender. Should Disney be forced to make movies with equal prince and princess lead roles? How about equal number of movies across all religions? Equal number of movies across all races? Please show me where I am wrong on this. I would like to have correct view on this issue.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
To try and correct for built-in bias by setting a goal is a reasonable response. Its self-serving to say "Hey! Sure men have all the jobs, but to give any to women is to hurt me! That's just as bad!" What if women actually deserved 80% of the jobs, by skill and temperament? Then the 50% goal is way under reality. I'd like to see passive processes produce an equitable result too. But in the mean time, the car is pulling to the left, so I steer slightly right to compensate. Its a reasonable short-term response. Lesser of evils.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >What if women actually deserved 80% of the jobs, by skill and temperament? Then the 50% goal is way under reality. You are not hiring "women" as a group. You are hiring an individual to feel in a role, gender should not be looked at, at all. I would prefer if google conducts all interview in written format without disclosing name, hiding gender, or where the voice is scrambled so that you can't make out the gender of the interviewee. If you claim that you know that a group based on gender deserved certain representation (80%), you are the one discriminating based on gender. What's your opinion about representation of Samoans in Google ranks? What % should they get? You have no way to back up your 80% claim. >I'd like to see passive processes produce an equitable result too. This is the problem. I don't think it is achievable, or worthy, to seek equitable results. Results can vary based on many factors, picking one aspect of an individual, their gender, and then asking to make it equal across the group equal to that aspect of the individual, is only going to give advantage to certain individuals of that group, individuals who may not be as handicapped by the group identity as you think. E.g. does a multi-millionaire African American lawyer's son deserve a seat at Medical school based on his race? Do the individual women who qualify at Google really represent the disadvantaged representatives of groups based on "gender"? Is Dianne Green who heads Google Cloud part of this disadvantaged group? Equity in access to opportunity is what I can definitely agree. Let's strive to make education needed to qualify for a job at Google available at fingertips of as many kids as we can across the entire globe. >But in the mean time, the car is pulling to the left, so I steer slightly right to compensate. The corporate america and its leaders with their fiefdoms already exercise high control over the fate of the individual employees to work there. What if you are wrong and you over correct the car and crash it? Do not discriminate at all. Define job requirements for what makes a good candidate for the job and then hire for those skills and abilities, no matter what race, gender or religion.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    I claim no special knowledge. I think that's true of both of us. I speculate, what if the existing bias is actually excluding 80% of the women. A reasonable response is, "Yeah that would be awful, we should do something about it in that case". Instead I'm accused of being discriminatory. I fear that this argument is 'arguing toward a goal'. No real attempt to understand the situation is present. Instead, whatever supports a viewpoint is thrown into a paragraph. Cherry picking, straw men and fud result. Discrimination is a problem; trying to counter it with goals is a praiseworthy attempt. Consider: to do nothing now means we're ok with the existing bias. Why is that, do you think? Because 'idealism'? I think its more insidious: Its 'ok' for men to have all the jobs now, because that's normal and right. Its scary to change.
InitialLastName 9y ago
There's a difference between attempting to have a more diverse workforce and externally enforcing diversity. There are lots of places you can add to diversity without hurting anyone else's chances unfairly For example, you can widen the diversity of your applicant pool by reaching out to the groups you want to increase. If a company makes sure to have a booth at the major Society of Women Engineers job fairs, is that discrimination? Men are only being hurt in that there are more people applying for the same positions. As another option, one could argue that there is a societal imbalance in the development of the talent pool, and attempt to correct that. If a company puts effort into encouraging women to go into engineering and, as an outcome, their pool of qualified applicants is more diverse, is that employment discrimination? What I'm saying is that a company can put effort into expanding the diversity of their employee base in ways other than strict quotas and hiring discrimination, and without lowering the standard of the employees they hire. Is that really so bad?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >For example, you can widen the diversity of your applicant pool by reaching out to the groups you want to increase. If a company makes sure to have a booth at the major Society of Women Engineers job fairs, is that discrimination? Men are only being hurt in that there are more people applying for the same positions. Nobody would object to a company seeking candidates by turning over every rock out there. More power to you. The objection is using gender as a criteria in hiring decisions. >one could argue that there is a societal imbalance in the development of the talent pool, and attempt to correct that. But, it doesn't. It actually incentivizes keeping the imbalance because it guarantees advantage in outcome based on that imbalance in development of the talent pool. One shouldn't "attempt" something that affects lives in this significant way. You better be 100% sure about it. If there is doubt then fall back to individuality, not "group" think. >What I'm saying is that a company can put effort into expanding the diversity of their employee base in ways other than strict quotas and hiring discrimination, and without lowering the standard of the employees they hire. Is that really so bad? You haven't given an example of "expanding diversity" without "quotas". When you say you want to "expand", by definition you are not happy with existing representations and want to change it to another higher % point. That higher % is what I call quota. Let's imagine 70/30 split between women and men at Google. You would like it to be 50/50. You would like it to be 50/50 in five years. That means hiring has to be lopsided for next five years, may be 10/90 in favor of women to get to 50/50 in 5 years. Don't you think it is discriminatory to the male engineering students who are graduating in next 5 years? Should Google fire existing male employees to keep it fair to the students who are graduating in next 5 years?

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

To try and correct for built-in bias by setting a goal is a reasonable response. Its self-serving to say "Hey! Sure men have all the jobs, but to give any to women is to hurt me! That's just as bad!" What if women actually deserved 80% of the jobs, by skill and temperament? Then the 50% goal is way under reality. I'd like to see passive processes produce an equitable result too. But in the mean time, the car is pulling to the left, so I steer slightly right to compensate. Its a reasonable short-term response. Lesser of evils.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>What if women actually deserved 80% of the jobs, by skill and temperament? Then the 50% goal is way under reality. You are not hiring "women" as a group. You are hiring an individual to feel in a role, gender should not be looked at, at all. I would prefer if google conducts all interview in written format without disclosing name, hiding gender, or where the voice is scrambled so that you can't make out the gender of the interviewee. If you claim that you know that a group based on gender deserved certain representation (80%), you are the one discriminating based on gender. What's your opinion about representation of Samoans in Google ranks? What % should they get? You have no way to back up your 80% claim. >I'd like to see passive processes produce an equitable result too. This is the problem. I don't think it is achievable, or worthy, to seek equitable results. Results can vary based on many factors, picking one aspect of an individual, their gender, and then asking to make it equal across the group equal to that aspect of the individual, is only going to give advantage to certain individuals of that group, individuals who may not be as handicapped by the group identity as you think. E.g. does a multi-millionaire African American lawyer's son deserve a seat at Medical school based on his race? Do the individual women who qualify at Google really represent the disadvantaged representatives of groups based on "gender"? Is Dianne Green who heads Google Cloud part of this disadvantaged group? Equity in access to opportunity is what I can definitely agree. Let's strive to make education needed to qualify for a job at Google available at fingertips of as many kids as we can across the entire globe. >But in the mean time, the car is pulling to the left, so I steer slightly right to compensate. The corporate america and its leaders with their fiefdoms already exercise high control over the fate of the individual employees to work there. What if you are wrong and you over correct the car and crash it? Do not discriminate at all. Define job requirements for what makes a good candidate for the job and then hire for those skills and abilities, no matter what race, gender or religion.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  I claim no special knowledge. I think that's true of both of us. I speculate, what if the existing bias is actually excluding 80% of the women. A reasonable response is, "Yeah that would be awful, we should do something about it in that case". Instead I'm accused of being discriminatory. I fear that this argument is 'arguing toward a goal'. No real attempt to understand the situation is present. Instead, whatever supports a viewpoint is thrown into a paragraph. Cherry picking, straw men and fud result. Discrimination is a problem; trying to counter it with goals is a praiseworthy attempt. Consider: to do nothing now means we're ok with the existing bias. Why is that, do you think? Because 'idealism'? I think its more insidious: Its 'ok' for men to have all the jobs now, because that's normal and right. Its scary to change.

InitialLastName 9y ago

There's a difference between attempting to have a more diverse workforce and externally enforcing diversity. There are lots of places you can add to diversity without hurting anyone else's chances unfairly For example, you can widen the diversity of your applicant pool by reaching out to the groups you want to increase. If a company makes sure to have a booth at the major Society of Women Engineers job fairs, is that discrimination? Men are only being hurt in that there are more people applying for the same positions. As another option, one could argue that there is a societal imbalance in the development of the talent pool, and attempt to correct that. If a company puts effort into encouraging women to go into engineering and, as an outcome, their pool of qualified applicants is more diverse, is that employment discrimination? What I'm saying is that a company can put effort into expanding the diversity of their employee base in ways other than strict quotas and hiring discrimination, and without lowering the standard of the employees they hire. Is that really so bad?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>For example, you can widen the diversity of your applicant pool by reaching out to the groups you want to increase. If a company makes sure to have a booth at the major Society of Women Engineers job fairs, is that discrimination? Men are only being hurt in that there are more people applying for the same positions. Nobody would object to a company seeking candidates by turning over every rock out there. More power to you. The objection is using gender as a criteria in hiring decisions. >one could argue that there is a societal imbalance in the development of the talent pool, and attempt to correct that. But, it doesn't. It actually incentivizes keeping the imbalance because it guarantees advantage in outcome based on that imbalance in development of the talent pool. One shouldn't "attempt" something that affects lives in this significant way. You better be 100% sure about it. If there is doubt then fall back to individuality, not "group" think. >What I'm saying is that a company can put effort into expanding the diversity of their employee base in ways other than strict quotas and hiring discrimination, and without lowering the standard of the employees they hire. Is that really so bad? You haven't given an example of "expanding diversity" without "quotas". When you say you want to "expand", by definition you are not happy with existing representations and want to change it to another higher % point. That higher % is what I call quota. Let's imagine 70/30 split between women and men at Google. You would like it to be 50/50. You would like it to be 50/50 in five years. That means hiring has to be lopsided for next five years, may be 10/90 in favor of women to get to 50/50 in 5 years. Don't you think it is discriminatory to the male engineering students who are graduating in next 5 years? Should Google fire existing male employees to keep it fair to the students who are graduating in next 5 years?