12 ms·

Companies can have both a diversity policy and a policy to make sure the top talents don't go elsewhere. University too, can have a diversity policy as well as

• nostromo 9y ago
  Sure, but don’t lie about it. If it’s not need-based, don’t insist it’s need-based.
  • jknz 9y ago
    Ok, lies are unacceptable. To play devil's advocate here: the press and the public do not want to hear that tech companies pay 7 digits of monthly salary to attract some talent. Nor do they want to hear that Universities have to offer merit based scholarships to attract top students, otherwise these students will go elsewhere. Companies advertise their diversity efforts but not the salaries of their executives. Stanford said what the public wanted to hear.
    • crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
      Our society is culturally configured to promote lying here. Instead of addressing the issue openly like adults, people decide to operate covertly, driven by competition and fear of missing out. It'll be nice when we start to culturally grow up a bit and begin trusting the world. Collaboration/hybridization is much quicker than competition when it comes to genetic evolution & I suspect the same holds for cultural evolution.
      • mcguire 9y ago
        So, to start with, shut down the rules against discussing salaries or university costs with coworkers and other students, respectively.
        • asimpletune 9y ago
          I don’t know if there are rules against that. I think it’s more an unspoken rule that may have consequences if violated, although I’m fairly certain that’s illegal. The impetus is more on us to be open with each other about salary. It’s only in the company’s best interest for us not to do so.
          • mcguire 9y ago
            According to the article, "[Allcock’s report] says the school also tells applicants not to reveal to their classmates the size of their discount." Unwritten or unspoken, it does need to go.
            • sabujp 9y ago
              that seems as illegal as telling your employees that they can't share salaries
              • fjsolwmv 9y ago
                Seems as wrong, not as illegal. Legal is a specific technical standard.
        • namelezz 9y ago
          > So, to start with, shut down the rules against discussing salaries or university costs with coworkers and other students, respectively. No, this will expose evidences of institutional and systemic racism and question people about the country name. Should it be United State or Segregated State?
      • jamesrcole 9y ago
        One issue I think we need to address is how society basically judges things based on sound-bite descriptions of them. This is an area where I think IT can contribute, by trying to find ways to bias our communication technologies against such practices.
        • crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
          I think this is a result of design methodologies and motivations geared toward talking advantage of human attention instead of respecting/cultivating it. We need a design theory based on mindfulness.
    • throw2016 9y ago
      How can any individual claim to 'know' what the press and public want to hear? This is a comically self serving assertion and anyone making this kind of claim is acting in a political and manipulative manner. This is the best apologism for a liar, because apparently that's what the person lied to 'wanted to hear', according to the liar. Integrity does not depend on what people want to hear. Stanford can articulate their view point and do their own thing. Lying betrays a lack of belief in their view point and a lack of integrity.
    • tankenmate 9y ago
      Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made. -- John Godfrey Saxe It would appear that scholarships follow a similar vein.
    • bradleyjg 9y ago
      > Stanford said what the public wanted to hear. There's a bait and switch that colleges do. Also hospitals, but mostly colleges. On the one hand they go out and tell people what a value driven organization it is, how their passion is making the world a better place -- when they are asking for money from people almost of whom have far less in the bank than they already do and when they are defending things like very adventagous tax rates. On the other hand when they get caught doing something that looks unprincipled or rapacious they all of a sudden become economists lecturing you about how of course every organization acts as an interest maximizier and what are you naive? Well maybe we were naive. But now that everyone knows what the deal is maybe they can lay off the disingenuous appeals for donations and tax expenditures. Fool me once and all that.
      • ramzyo 9y ago
        I agree. I think universities can be both, but they should just be honest about it! There’s nothing wrong with being both a for profit institution that needs to turn a profit and a value driven organization. Be up front though, and don’t make outsiders feel in the wrong when they call you out for mixed messaging.
    • fjsolwmv 9y ago
      Exec pay is reported and published, required by law.
  • trentnix 9y ago
    The narrative must be maintained, comrade!
    • NotableAlamode 9y ago
      To paraphrase Brecht: Who fights for XYZ must be able to fight and not to fight, to say the truth and not to say the truth, to render and to deny service, to keep a promise and to break a promise, to go into danger and to avoid danger, to be known and to be unknown. Who fights for XYZ has of all the virtues only one: that he fights for XYZ.
    • CapacitorSet 9y ago
      A private university, especially privileging students from finance backgrounds, is about as far from communism as it gets.
      • TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Actually, no. This reveals the extent to which the US financial industry operates with similar quasi-aristocratic political dynamics - especially covert privilege based on perceived conformity and career potential - as the old Soviet Communist Party.
        • CapacitorSet 9y ago
          Aristocracy and privilege are about as far from communism as it gets.
          • jack9 9y ago
            > Aristocracy and privilege are about as far from communism as it gets. In theory. In practice (history is full of it), the castes develop overnight. A group of individuals has to make decisions and manage the oversight and record keeping, etc. This leads to corruption and a de-facto aristocracy.
            • 9y ago
  • obastani 9y ago
    It is need based -- it goes to the students least in need! /s
• notyourday 9y ago
  If that's the case, why are we surprised that execs are lying? Or shall I say "creatively refining terms"? They start by going to schools that lie, teach how to lie and get away with it. In some ideal world alums of that school would immediately turn around and tell the school "You will not get a penny until you terminate everyone who participated in approving and carrying out this program for lying and do so publicly" but instead what we are going to get is more pieces about "how the school needs to get better".
• Kinnard 9y ago
  >Companies can have both a diversity policy and a policy to make sure the top talents don't go elsewhere. Those should be one policy, the diversity policy is about making sure top talent doesn't go elsewhere . . . your comment implies that people from "diverse" backgrounds are not top talent, whether that's what you meant or not.
  • eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    One of the chief points in this article was that "diversity" is often an excuse to hire/admit people who will bring in a lot of money, connections, and prestige but aren't necessarily the most meritorious candidate. Malia Obama is Diverse. John Dorsey from the wrong side of Chicago is just an Urban Youth.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • fjsolwmv 9y ago
    No one can define "top"
  • holbrad 9y ago
    >the diversity policy is about making sure top talent doesn't go elsewhere From what I know that doesn't seem to be the case at all, it's about projecting a positive image of your company (The candidates skills are secondary) (Though in theory the standards should be identical) The hiring practices should be based upon who would be the best candidate (Experience, technical skills, personality, Education) When you simply focus on what objective skills you need as an employer, you should find "Diverse"/minority candidates in proportion to what percentage of top candidates they occupy. This surely creates the most level playing field?