3 ms·

The other question is for people who side with the proposal: what would be considered 'too much effort' when it comes to inclusion and equitability?

malvosenior 8y ago
It’s not about effort. It’s aboit discriminating against people to fill quotas and turning away qualified candidates when they’re not the “correct” gender or race.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- diminoten 8y ago
  It's wrong to claim that qualified candidates are being rejected in favor of less qualified, but diverse, candidates. No position in this argument supports anything like that.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    https://www.fastcompany.com/40538483/youtube-sued-for-limiting-white-asian-male-hires-for-diversity-purposes https://www.fastcompany.com/40538483/youtube-sued-for-limiti...
    - diminoten 8y ago
      At no point in that article does it mention hiring unqualified candidates. To be a bit blunter, there are plenty of great engineers out there, and some of them happen to not be white/Asian. I don't know if what YouTube did was right or wrong, but pretending like only white/Asian people can be good at computers is quite insane.
      - adamnemecek 8y ago
        If you reject candidates based on race, the probability of that having happened is very high.
        diminoten 8y ago
        Sorry, but that's simply not true. There are plenty of qualified candidates, all of whom can do any given engineering job. The probability of hiring an under qualified candidate is entirely unaffected by refusing to interview white/Asian people. Edit: Replying here, since I'm now rate limited... I can see how you might think you're not selecting the "most qualified candidate" by limiting who you interview based on diversity criteria, if you believed hiring was very precise, but in my experience, hiring is much fuzzier than that. "The most qualified candidate" is not an objective number you reach after plugging values into a formula (please, show me the formula that can accurately calculate "fit"), and saying there is a singular objective "most qualified candidate" isn't actually how the hiring process works. Further, if you identify a competitive disadvantage among your teams related to diversity, hiring someone who doesn't diversify your team (though is otherwise qualified) may actually hurt your ability to meet team goals and deliver (in this case) quality software. That "most qualified candidate" may not be qualified to provide the viewpoints you need for you team to thrive.
        adamnemecek 8y ago
        That is how that works. Like if you look at the possible distributions and the outcomes, you'll see it.
        manfredo 8y ago
        > The probability of hiring an under qualified candidate is entirely unaffected by refusing to interview white/Asian people. But the probability of false negatives for white and Asian candidates rises drastically. There is a very high probability that the most qualified candidate was rejected immediate on the basis of race.
lixtra 8y ago
The answer to this question I usually get is that you cannot oversteer because a) we are still far away from a fair state and b) even if you oversteer it’s fair to make up for past injustice.

malvosenior 8y ago

It’s not about effort. It’s aboit discriminating against people to fill quotas and turning away qualified candidates when they’re not the “correct” gender or race.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
diminoten 8y ago
It's wrong to claim that qualified candidates are being rejected in favor of less qualified, but diverse, candidates. No position in this argument supports anything like that.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  https://www.fastcompany.com/40538483/youtube-sued-for-limiting-white-asian-male-hires-for-diversity-purposes https://www.fastcompany.com/40538483/youtube-sued-for-limiti...
  - diminoten 8y ago
    At no point in that article does it mention hiring unqualified candidates. To be a bit blunter, there are plenty of great engineers out there, and some of them happen to not be white/Asian. I don't know if what YouTube did was right or wrong, but pretending like only white/Asian people can be good at computers is quite insane.
    - adamnemecek 8y ago
      If you reject candidates based on race, the probability of that having happened is very high.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        Sorry, but that's simply not true. There are plenty of qualified candidates, all of whom can do any given engineering job. The probability of hiring an under qualified candidate is entirely unaffected by refusing to interview white/Asian people. Edit: Replying here, since I'm now rate limited... I can see how you might think you're not selecting the "most qualified candidate" by limiting who you interview based on diversity criteria, if you believed hiring was very precise, but in my experience, hiring is much fuzzier than that. "The most qualified candidate" is not an objective number you reach after plugging values into a formula (please, show me the formula that can accurately calculate "fit"), and saying there is a singular objective "most qualified candidate" isn't actually how the hiring process works. Further, if you identify a competitive disadvantage among your teams related to diversity, hiring someone who doesn't diversify your team (though is otherwise qualified) may actually hurt your ability to meet team goals and deliver (in this case) quality software. That "most qualified candidate" may not be qualified to provide the viewpoints you need for you team to thrive.
        adamnemecek 8y ago
        That is how that works. Like if you look at the possible distributions and the outcomes, you'll see it.
        manfredo 8y ago
        > The probability of hiring an under qualified candidate is entirely unaffected by refusing to interview white/Asian people. But the probability of false negatives for white and Asian candidates rises drastically. There is a very high probability that the most qualified candidate was rejected immediate on the basis of race.

lixtra 8y ago

The answer to this question I usually get is that you cannot oversteer because a) we are still far away from a fair state and b) even if you oversteer it’s fair to make up for past injustice.