3 ms·

How is this not illegal?

eganist 9y ago
Because they're not declining candidates because of their gender. They're hiring from talent pools where both genders are more properly represented. None of this stops a candidate from applying to duolingo directly. There's no discrimination going on against humans, and discriminating against a school is totally fine so long as there's no suspect reason to do so (e.g. discriminating against Howard because they've got primarily African-descended students). Not a lawyer. Would welcome a legal opinion.
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  This seems to be some double speak.
  - eganist 9y ago
    Interesting. What didn't you understand?
    - adamnemecek 9y ago
      You misunderstand. I'm saying you just restated something illegal in a way that might make it seem less illegal when it fact it's not.
      - fixermark 9y ago
        Does title IX dictate where a company is required to focus its talent recruiting process?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- trendia 9y ago
  > Not a lawyer. Would welcome a legal opinion. I would highly recommend reading at least the Wikipedia article on "Disparate Impact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> Because they're not declining candidates because of their gender. They very clearly make the case that they are biased in favor of women -> over men. You might think that 50/50 means equality, but up front they state that there are only 18 percent women in the field. In order to achieve 50% women in their workforce they have to be biasing the hiring process. It seems strange to go out and write publicly about doing so.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 9y ago
Probably because they aren't actually preventing men from applying or disadvantaging them if they do apply. See https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html It actually makes sense. Assume men and women are equally competent on average (probably true or at least close). If your applicants are 18% women and the applicants are randomly sampled from the talent pool and your interview is totally unbiased you should get 18% women hires. If you convince a lot of (randomly sampled) women to apply so you have 50% female applications, you should still get 50% female hires. I don't think this is unfair on men as long as your outreach activities don't at all affect interview chances. In particular they shouldn't give an "inside track" to bypass HR. Sounds like they've at least thought about that and made the first stage blind.
- jon_e_pizza 9y ago
  > Sounds like they've at least thought about that and made the first stage blind. Then your reading comprehension needs work since at no point did Duolingo say they made the first stage blind. What they said was: > They also came up with other great ideas, including adding a tool that automates the first coding task and removes a candidate’s identifying information. Based on the feedback, we’ve implemented a number of changes to our internal process for recruiting. That this 'great idea' to remove identifying information was come up with, and that they 'implemented a number of changes' are two separate statements. The post already told you, when they tried to hire just based on merit they got all men. There's nothing blind about their 'corrective' path.
denverkarma 9y ago
I suspect there are a lot of current hiring practices in tech that are going to be ruled illegal over time. I know first hand the university recruiting policy of at least one major tech company is specifically not to recruit anyone who is male or white, as they want to use recruiting to change the companies racial and gender make up. This is very similar to redlining and other implicitly discriminatory practices in the past, and the longer it goes on the more likely I suspect it will end up in court.

Because they're not declining candidates because of their gender. They're hiring from talent pools where both genders are more properly represented. None of this stops a candidate from applying to duolingo directly. There's no discrimination going on against humans, and discriminating against a school is totally fine so long as there's no suspect reason to do so (e.g. discriminating against Howard because they've got primarily African-descended students). Not a lawyer. Would welcome a legal opinion.

adamnemecek 9y ago
This seems to be some double speak.
- eganist 9y ago
  Interesting. What didn't you understand?
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    You misunderstand. I'm saying you just restated something illegal in a way that might make it seem less illegal when it fact it's not.
    - fixermark 9y ago
      Does title IX dictate where a company is required to focus its talent recruiting process?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
trendia 9y ago
> Not a lawyer. Would welcome a legal opinion. I would highly recommend reading at least the Wikipedia article on "Disparate Impact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
phkahler 9y ago
>> Because they're not declining candidates because of their gender. They very clearly make the case that they are biased in favor of women -> over men. You might think that 50/50 means equality, but up front they state that there are only 18 percent women in the field. In order to achieve 50% women in their workforce they have to be biasing the hiring process. It seems strange to go out and write publicly about doing so.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

IshKebab 9y ago

Probably because they aren't actually preventing men from applying or disadvantaging them if they do apply. See https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html It actually makes sense. Assume men and women are equally competent on average (probably true or at least close). If your applicants are 18% women and the applicants are randomly sampled from the talent pool and your interview is totally unbiased you should get 18% women hires. If you convince a lot of (randomly sampled) women to apply so you have 50% female applications, you should still get 50% female hires. I don't think this is unfair on men as long as your outreach activities don't at all affect interview chances. In particular they shouldn't give an "inside track" to bypass HR. Sounds like they've at least thought about that and made the first stage blind.

jon_e_pizza 9y ago
> Sounds like they've at least thought about that and made the first stage blind. Then your reading comprehension needs work since at no point did Duolingo say they made the first stage blind. What they said was: > They also came up with other great ideas, including adding a tool that automates the first coding task and removes a candidate’s identifying information. Based on the feedback, we’ve implemented a number of changes to our internal process for recruiting. That this 'great idea' to remove identifying information was come up with, and that they 'implemented a number of changes' are two separate statements. The post already told you, when they tried to hire just based on merit they got all men. There's nothing blind about their 'corrective' path.

denverkarma 9y ago

I suspect there are a lot of current hiring practices in tech that are going to be ruled illegal over time. I know first hand the university recruiting policy of at least one major tech company is specifically not to recruit anyone who is male or white, as they want to use recruiting to change the companies racial and gender make up. This is very similar to redlining and other implicitly discriminatory practices in the past, and the longer it goes on the more likely I suspect it will end up in court.