7 ms·
I'm not the user you are responding to, but the general view of people who make this comment is that it discriminates against people are who are well-represente
by intopieces 7y ago
I'm not the user you are responding to, but the general view of people who make this comment is that it discriminates against people are who are well-represented on the boards of financial and technology firms.
Which is true, because all forms of hiring are discrimination. Business discriminate against people who don't have the qualifications that they believe will positively impact their business.
If the user you responded to has reason to believe that a certain company has hired certain individuals who are not qualified to do the job they were hired for, I encourage her to say that. But it's not enough to say the practice is blanket good or bad. There are just too many variables to account for.
- rosege 7y agoI believe the discrimination that thatoneuser is objecting to is discrimination based on things that someone has no control over such as gender and skin color. This is typically whats used as the basis when people say they want to increase diversity. I would guess that thatoneuser does not have an issue with discrimination and diversity based on what someone can change such as their education and experience.
- thatoneuser 7y agoThis seems pretty accurate to what I had in mind
- thatoneuser 7y agoQualifications are fine. That's merit based hiring. Saying you don't have the right genitals or your skin isn't the right color and thus you don't deserve the job is wrong. Assuming that's what op meant by adversity as I rarely hear adversity referring to learned skills.