4 ms·

> To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school

> To choose another characteristic - someone who went to an inner city school in a deprived neighbourhood getting a B+ vs someone who went to a private school getting an A-. The former far outperformed their relative expectation, and being within the same ballpark as the latter, would arguably make a better hire. But that is not what you are doing. If it was simply that I am sure people would be more on board. But what you are doing is looking at their skin color and gender. Completely different. Seeing how we are talking about race and gender I can only assume you are suggesting that if somebody of a given race enters the room they must have come from the inner city -- sounds raciest to me. That being said, I am 100% helping the poor find their way. And guess what? With the exception of gender it still hits most of the race targets that have affirmative action today. The support for the disadvantaged, and truly underrepresented -- the poor people -- of America is what we should e focusing on. Unilaterally poor people have less access to good education, tools and supplies to learn anything. And the problem self balances! Whoever is poor gets a equally opportunity for help, and when they are not poor they don't get help! And as I have said many times today, and all the time. You fix these problems at the start of somebodies life, not at the middle. You have to go to poor areas (yes, that means monitory races in a lot of cases) and make sure single parents have extra support and access to computers and tutoring. You need to pour the money in to low income areas and pay teachers a competitive rate to get THE BEST teachers in to those schools. Further more you need classes that teach far beyond the basics. You need basic finances, subsidized savings accounts to teach personal finance. Lessons on delayed gratification. Nobody likes being left out because of their race or sex. You can't change it, and you are stuck with it. That was the entire point of civil rights movement. The second you start inspecting race or gender for programs you are taking steps backwards. You are causing segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color. And judging by some of the sentiment of some groups today, resentment and hate is exactly what you are left with when you base decisions on race and sex. I don't expect the rich to get mad because some poor kid got a job, made a company and is now rich. I mean I guess it could be happen, but that would be silly.

wastedhours 8y ago
2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples. My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that is most often done, as you've referenced, from the perspective of parental income over and above anything else. My points around race and gender are definitely not an insinuation that someone of a particular race is from a specific socioeconomic background or location either. And again, it's not about giving undue preference to someone solely based on their protected characteristics either - in relation to the original point about how we ensure a diverse culture in an organisation, you don't get there without appreciating the context of the groups, and how they've had to perform to get there, in said organisation. In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I don't mean to just attack your argument, but I don't think "segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color" fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. If you agree contextual recruitment makes sense (which you have done), then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  > In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. It would make much more sense to support diversity if the top of line was boosted. Bottom of line efforts are usually employed to squeeze more cash out of the thing -- at least in a healthy company who was already running at decent margens. So it in my eyes it sounds like another tactic to exploit more out of workers. Not a good thing for the workers, awesome for the fat cats. Beyond that I am not convinced that diversity actually improves a organization over merit. Please don't take it anti diversity its just pro meritocracy. > fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. At the end of the day everybody wants special treatment, and when that special treatment can't be hand because of a feature you have no control over it never is a good feeling, unless you already feel yourself in such a superior position to take pity on those who received the special treatment. As a anecdotal, and maybe this is why I am so passionate about it. I grew up very poor. And my middle school had a program for issuing computers to low income students. The only problem was low income was not the only requirement. Upon request for one you find out the program is not offered to white students. It took me near 5 years to get my first computer that I could use for more than just a few moments in a computer lab. I had to make due with a typewriter and a calculator. You tell me why that is fair? I remember clearly they had tons of unissued laptops at the time, I walked past the stack in the computer lab every day. Again, tell me how denying somebody a public resource based off their color is fair? Now take that story and flip the requirement from can't be white to can't be black. If that rubs you wrong in any way then maybe, just maybe you could see how race based initiatives vs wealth based ounces can do more damage than good, because I am sure I am not the only person with such a story. Beyond that who are we to play god? And decide somebody's worthiness of effort -- based off skin color? History has shown what happened the last time that men did this, and it was not pretty. > then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession. I can agree, but again, it is not skin color or gender. I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. I think part of the problem is some people what change NOW, but fail to realize any sort of change is going to take generations, at least any sort of lasting change. People have to go through the paces All of america was not always rich, and much of america is built of very hard work and grit, and only now are we just seeing the fruits of the sacrifices past generations made.

wastedhours 8y ago

2 things here, I think we've argued down a path by using too many examples. My broader point is around the use of context of performance in recruitment - that is most often done, as you've referenced, from the perspective of parental income over and above anything else. My points around race and gender are definitely not an insinuation that someone of a particular race is from a specific socioeconomic background or location either. And again, it's not about giving undue preference to someone solely based on their protected characteristics either - in relation to the original point about how we ensure a diverse culture in an organisation, you don't get there without appreciating the context of the groups, and how they've had to perform to get there, in said organisation. In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I don't mean to just attack your argument, but I don't think "segregation and passably resent by those who were passed over for not having the right bits, or color" fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. If you agree contextual recruitment makes sense (which you have done), then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession.

mbrumlow 8y ago
> In the UK it's legal to use positive action with groups that have a record of low participation, and it's justifiable if your goal is to ensure a diverse workforce (which has been shown to improve the bottom line). I am not sure if you quoted this wrong, but it would suggest that a more diverse workforce is cheaper if the bottom line is what was improved. It would make much more sense to support diversity if the top of line was boosted. Bottom of line efforts are usually employed to squeeze more cash out of the thing -- at least in a healthy company who was already running at decent margens. So it in my eyes it sounds like another tactic to exploit more out of workers. Not a good thing for the workers, awesome for the fat cats. Beyond that I am not convinced that diversity actually improves a organization over merit. Please don't take it anti diversity its just pro meritocracy. > fits the points I've been making and feels like reactionary protectionism. Maybe, but I have seen the impact first hand in many cases. At the end of the day everybody wants special treatment, and when that special treatment can't be hand because of a feature you have no control over it never is a good feeling, unless you already feel yourself in such a superior position to take pity on those who received the special treatment. As a anecdotal, and maybe this is why I am so passionate about it. I grew up very poor. And my middle school had a program for issuing computers to low income students. The only problem was low income was not the only requirement. Upon request for one you find out the program is not offered to white students. It took me near 5 years to get my first computer that I could use for more than just a few moments in a computer lab. I had to make due with a typewriter and a calculator. You tell me why that is fair? I remember clearly they had tons of unissued laptops at the time, I walked past the stack in the computer lab every day. Again, tell me how denying somebody a public resource based off their color is fair? Now take that story and flip the requirement from can't be white to can't be black. If that rubs you wrong in any way then maybe, just maybe you could see how race based initiatives vs wealth based ounces can do more damage than good, because I am sure I am not the only person with such a story. Beyond that who are we to play god? And decide somebody's worthiness of effort -- based off skin color? History has shown what happened the last time that men did this, and it was not pretty. > then you must appreciate that relative wealth isn't the only barrier stopping different groups entering the profession. I can agree, but again, it is not skin color or gender. I think if you look closer subcultures hold groups of people back every day. And again, the fix is education early and often. I think part of the problem is some people what change NOW, but fail to realize any sort of change is going to take generations, at least any sort of lasting change. People have to go through the paces All of america was not always rich, and much of america is built of very hard work and grit, and only now are we just seeing the fruits of the sacrifices past generations made.