4 ms·

I'd say if you have two people that are in the same ballpark technically but one is from a disadvantaged background, that one probably showed more grit to get w

I'd say if you have two people that are in the same ballpark technically but one is from a disadvantaged background, that one probably showed more grit to get where they are and will be a better producer. So I'm with you there. But that's still about hiring the best person. What I can't get behind is the idea that making blatant 'diversity hires' is going to fix broader societal problems.

wastedhours 8y ago
Again, someone makes a much better TL;DR of my point :) I'd say though that your second point is actually part of the first, the desire to look for and help those from disadvantaged backgrounds is really just a sourcing strategy to find that "best person". Quota filling and box ticking isn't good for anyone and that's a BS strategy any way you look at it. But if you're in it for the right reasons and the candidate's in the right ballpark, is capable, and can also serve as a role model to attract more people like them - it's a win-win. Especially in tech, recruitment pipelines across the board are so screwed if we only limit ourselves to attracting white, middle class, men as the need for knowledge workers booms. Just to fill future jobs we're going to need people from across the spectrum to feel as they though should be heading for those roles.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  So you're happy to discriminate against "white, middle class, men" then? I hope you're not under any illusion that this is anything other than racist and sexist. IMO you don't defeat racism and sexism by deciding to be racist and sexist.
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    > So you're happy to discriminate against "white, middle class, men" then? Erm, no. My points, to avoid confusion: 1) contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success. That's not any more discriminatory than putting a mental weight to a particular university someone studied at, and is the basis for pretty much every "best practice" recruitment process out there. 2) we need white, middle class men, + a load more other people as well. How is that not clear?
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      >contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success // Now you're bullshitting, you've just decided that all people who aren't middle-class white males are inferior, and based it solely on those characteristics. It seems like, in common with many that you hold to an idea of "positive discrimination", that's what your comment attests to at least. That's still discrimination, if you select on race/sex when it's not relevant then that's racism/sexism. Many people, the majority it seems, are fine with that. We don't need white middle class men at all, we need people [who can perform job roles]. Those people have a sex and colour, for sure, but that's (mostly) entirely irrelevant to their worth/suitability.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
The problem there is people then assume "X && Y == not disadvantaged" because they already have their quota of people with those characteristics, hence discriminating against that student purely based on X and Y.

wastedhours 8y ago

Again, someone makes a much better TL;DR of my point :) I'd say though that your second point is actually part of the first, the desire to look for and help those from disadvantaged backgrounds is really just a sourcing strategy to find that "best person". Quota filling and box ticking isn't good for anyone and that's a BS strategy any way you look at it. But if you're in it for the right reasons and the candidate's in the right ballpark, is capable, and can also serve as a role model to attract more people like them - it's a win-win. Especially in tech, recruitment pipelines across the board are so screwed if we only limit ourselves to attracting white, middle class, men as the need for knowledge workers booms. Just to fill future jobs we're going to need people from across the spectrum to feel as they though should be heading for those roles.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
So you're happy to discriminate against "white, middle class, men" then? I hope you're not under any illusion that this is anything other than racist and sexist. IMO you don't defeat racism and sexism by deciding to be racist and sexist.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  > So you're happy to discriminate against "white, middle class, men" then? Erm, no. My points, to avoid confusion: 1) contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success. That's not any more discriminatory than putting a mental weight to a particular university someone studied at, and is the basis for pretty much every "best practice" recruitment process out there. 2) we need white, middle class men, + a load more other people as well. How is that not clear?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    >contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success // Now you're bullshitting, you've just decided that all people who aren't middle-class white males are inferior, and based it solely on those characteristics. It seems like, in common with many that you hold to an idea of "positive discrimination", that's what your comment attests to at least. That's still discrimination, if you select on race/sex when it's not relevant then that's racism/sexism. Many people, the majority it seems, are fine with that. We don't need white middle class men at all, we need people [who can perform job roles]. Those people have a sex and colour, for sure, but that's (mostly) entirely irrelevant to their worth/suitability.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

The problem there is people then assume "X && Y == not disadvantaged" because they already have their quota of people with those characteristics, hence discriminating against that student purely based on X and Y.