3 ms·
The argument for diversity is that by not actively working for diversity, we will reflexively hire people like ourselves, which for the most part are white male
by sgustard 9y ago
The argument for diversity is that by not actively working for diversity, we will reflexively hire people like ourselves, which for the most part are white males. In addition, we are talking about groups which have been historically discriminated against. Affirmative action is about fairness (of opportunity), more so than goodness (for the company).
- meowface 9y agoI think that's a solid argument, but shouldn't the goal be to hire based on merit, not "hire people like ourselves" or "try to avoid hiring people like ourselves by erring towards hiring people not like ourselves"? I think blinding as much as possible in the interview process is fairer and, in the long run, simpler for everyone involved.
- threatofrain 9y agoBlinding your hiring process may actually make things more lopsided sometimes; i.e., technical screenings without seeing identity. You may find even less minorities hired.
- meowface 9y agoIsn't technical screenings without seeing identity helping to remove bias and discrimination, which is our goal in the first place? I don't think I understand your comment.
- DanBC 9y agoYes, the goal is to hire on merit. By only hiring people who look like us we're both hiring people who lack merit purely because they're white men, and failing to hire people who have merit purely because they're not white men. The "but we want to hire on merit" argument is clearly fucking bullshit if you've ever had any involvement in recruitment and seen how flawed it is.
- meowface 9y agoI never said people who want to hire on merit necessarily achieve their goals, just that we should actually remember the original goal and try to achieve it. It's much harder for white men to preferentially hire white men if as much of the interview process as possible is blinded.