5 ms·

Anecdotal but at my previous employer, women and some racial minorities were given a higher score during interviews because of their gender or race (this was ex

by hudon 8y ago

Anecdotal but at my previous employer, women and some racial minorities were given a higher score during interviews because of their gender or race (this was explicit) and white men were de-prioritized. It was actually a disadvantage to be white.

bambamb 8y ago
Nothing anecdotal about that. This type of thing is pervasive in all major organizations in the US (and many other Western countries). It is textbook-definition systemic racism, in that it is systematized. There is literally a system in place to discriminate against white men (and often asian men too). And they justify this because of bold, sweeping, unsupported assumptions made about "white privilege" like the one made by the author of this article.
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  > Nothing anecdotal about that. This type of thing is pervasive in all major organizations in the US (and many other Western countries). I think it is entirely anecdotal unless you can point to a treasure trove of evidence. For what it's worth, I think there is actually a lot of merit to what you're saying, despite it being unconventional. But to talk about it as though it's just a given without concrete data seems like a poor approach for a meaningful conversation.
thrmsforbfast 8y ago
This is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as anything except a temporary, remedial, and aspirational policy (McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail, Steelworkers v. Weber, Johnson v. Santa Clara). We can probably expect the current SCOTUS to either introduce stricter tests or strengthen the current test. My own prediction is that, absent any sort of legislative action [1], SCOTUS will strengthen of the second prong of the Weber test ("not unnecessarily trammeled") to include the entire recruitment/hiring process. And probably also reaffirmations/broadening in scope of the "no quotas" rule. From what I can tell, this is also a fairly recent phenomenon in tech. This guy's career goes back to 2000, back when tech jobs didn't have the appeal (or paychecks) they do today and diversity wasn't front-and-center. So even if you and GP are 100% correct about today [2], that doesn't really say anything about the world 20 years ago. -- [1] which appears to be unlikely at the moment, but I'd be more confident saying so if Nov 7 fell within the edit window for this comment ;-) [2] I'm intentionally stating this is a hypothetical and reserving my own opinion on it, because I think arguments are especially constructive when we can identify ways in which conclusions might fail even when accepting premises from which the conclusion is claimed to follow. Otherwise, especially on issues like this one, we end up with an intractable duel between contradictory axioms and no one benefits/learns anything.
joshpearson 8y ago
Why the downvotes? The parent post claimed without any evidence that white males systemically take advantage of white privilege. This post gave a counterexample while being open about the fact that it's anecdotal
nielsbot 8y ago
Only true if you assume there are no advantages to being white.

by hudon 8y ago

bambamb 8y ago

Nothing anecdotal about that. This type of thing is pervasive in all major organizations in the US (and many other Western countries). It is textbook-definition systemic racism, in that it is systematized. There is literally a system in place to discriminate against white men (and often asian men too). And they justify this because of bold, sweeping, unsupported assumptions made about "white privilege" like the one made by the author of this article.

Judgmentality 8y ago
> Nothing anecdotal about that. This type of thing is pervasive in all major organizations in the US (and many other Western countries). I think it is entirely anecdotal unless you can point to a treasure trove of evidence. For what it's worth, I think there is actually a lot of merit to what you're saying, despite it being unconventional. But to talk about it as though it's just a given without concrete data seems like a poor approach for a meaningful conversation.

thrmsforbfast 8y ago

This is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as anything except a temporary, remedial, and aspirational policy (McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail, Steelworkers v. Weber, Johnson v. Santa Clara). We can probably expect the current SCOTUS to either introduce stricter tests or strengthen the current test. My own prediction is that, absent any sort of legislative action [1], SCOTUS will strengthen of the second prong of the Weber test ("not unnecessarily trammeled") to include the entire recruitment/hiring process. And probably also reaffirmations/broadening in scope of the "no quotas" rule. From what I can tell, this is also a fairly recent phenomenon in tech. This guy's career goes back to 2000, back when tech jobs didn't have the appeal (or paychecks) they do today and diversity wasn't front-and-center. So even if you and GP are 100% correct about today [2], that doesn't really say anything about the world 20 years ago. -- [1] which appears to be unlikely at the moment, but I'd be more confident saying so if Nov 7 fell within the edit window for this comment ;-) [2] I'm intentionally stating this is a hypothetical and reserving my own opinion on it, because I think arguments are especially constructive when we can identify ways in which conclusions might fail even when accepting premises from which the conclusion is claimed to follow. Otherwise, especially on issues like this one, we end up with an intractable duel between contradictory axioms and no one benefits/learns anything.

joshpearson 8y ago

Why the downvotes? The parent post claimed without any evidence that white males systemically take advantage of white privilege. This post gave a counterexample while being open about the fact that it's anecdotal

nielsbot 8y ago

Only true if you assume there are no advantages to being white.