7 ms·

> No, no they really dont! Yes, they really do. I've explained the details my employers' hiring processes to white and asian men trying to get into tech, and t

> No, no they really dont! Yes, they really do. I've explained the details my employers' hiring processes to white and asian men trying to get into tech, and the majority feel like it is an overall benefit to diverse candidates - other discrimination in tech notwithstanding. Really, how can you write this? Do your claim to know the opinions of every white and asian man in this country? My point is, that the fact that diverse tech workers may face discrimination in other ways (e.g. slurs as you pointed out) doesn't necessarily "even out" discrimination in hiring that favors diverse candidates. Someone who can't land an interview may feel that the opportunity to get a job, even if it comes at the expense of other forms of hostility, is a net positive. > What a horrifying thing to say. Normalizing racial and sexual harassment is a large part of the problem. Are you going to claim you don't understand how the tech industry is so homogenous while simultaneously claiming that racial slurs are just some inconsequential price of admission in tech? The idea that discrimination in hiring is justified because of other forms of discrimination (such as slurs) is something you originally claimed: > Exaggerating the status of "diversity hires" just ignores the harsh reality of rampant discrimination in the tech industry. And not just on the basis of sex and race, but age and disability too. There wouldn't need to be such a hard push for underrepresented candidates if it were a more welcoming, diverse workforce in the first place. Your message here is that discrimination in hiring is necessary and justified because of other forms of discrimination. This seems like the "price of admission" mentality you refer to above. Whether or not this is "Horrifying" is up to you, but lets be clear: the idea that one form of discrimination justifies another form of discrimination is an idea that you originally brought up. For what it's worth, I'm of the mind that two wrongs don't make a right. If people are being treated with contempt on the basis of race, then the appropriate response is to curb that behavior - not discriminate in favor of the targeted demographic in hiring. Claiming that one slurs are okay because candidates are beneficiaries of discrimination is wrong. So is claiming that discrimination is okay because these people are subject to slurs, or other forms of hostility.

omar_a1 7y ago
> Also, the notion that racial slurs are "the price of admission" is something you seem to have brought up - not me > Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech. I'm still having trouble believing anyone who isn't a frothing racist can pass off "many" getting called racial slurs on the job as just business as usual. Or, "a small price to pay." Whereas what I was saying is that the policies which you cited incentivisng more diverse applicants to apply doesn't even begin to counter the ubiquitous prejudice in hiring and on the job. If it did, minorities and women would be over-represented in tech rather than under-represented. The whole "minority free pass" idea is what grates on me. Plenty of hiring managers have unconscious biases against women, minorities, older candidates, people with disabilities, etc. So, it's throwing more diverse candidates into a situation where diverse candidates are going to be disproportionately rejected. But the employers who actually incentivize diverse candidates are also frequently over-emphasized despite it being an uncommon practice. The boilerplate EEOC "we encourage diverse candidates to apply" statement is usually just that: an empty boilerplate put there for legal purposes, backed with zero action behind it. More often than not, it's nothing close to what you've described above
- manfredo 7y ago
  > I'm still having trouble believing anyone who isn't a frothing racist can pass off "many" getting called racial slurs on the job as just business as usual. I don't think it's business as usual, and looking back on my comments I never wrote this. Again, the first one of us bring this up was you when you justified discrimination in hiring as a means to offset discrimination elsewhere. What I wrote was, > But is the perspective of a white or asian man pursuing a coding boot-camp to try and break into tech going to have the same opinion on policies that greatly reduce or eliminate his chances of getting an interview as compared to if he was a woman or URM? Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech. that many white or Asian people struggling to get into tech see the employment opportunities conferred by diversity status as outweighing the other forms of discrimination that diverse workers may face - not that the latter is justified as "the price of admission". > The whole "minority free pass" idea is what grates on me. Plenty of hiring managers have unconscious biases against women, minorities, older candidates, people with disabilities, etc. So, it's throwing more diverse candidates into a situation where diverse candidates are going to be disproportionately rejected. But the employers who actually incentivize diverse candidates are also frequently over-emphasized despite it being an uncommon practice. The boilerplate EEOC "we encourage diverse candidates to apply" statement is usually just that: an empty boilerplate put there for legal purposes, backed with zero action behind it. It's just usually nothing close to what you described above First of all, it is a common practice at least as far as what I've experienced. Some companies, like Intel, went so far as withholding unless diversity quotas are met. And second, if the hiring managers have biases then eliminate those biases. If a company suspects that biases are causing women, minorities, etc. to not get offers then excluding white and Asian men to pad the former's representation doesn't create an equal hiring process. It just creates a hiring process that discriminates against both women, URM and White and Asian candidates. Furthermore, while it's common to see people cite unconscious biases against women and URM candidates in tech hiring studies trying to actually measure this often don't find this suspected bias. In fact, they often find bias in favor of diverse candidates. Interviewing.io experimented with blind hiring and actually found a slight preference in favor of women [1]. Studies in university STEM faculty recruiting found a 2:1 bias in favor of women [2]. 1. https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma... 2. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abs...

omar_a1 7y ago

> Also, the notion that racial slurs are "the price of admission" is something you seem to have brought up - not me > Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech. I'm still having trouble believing anyone who isn't a frothing racist can pass off "many" getting called racial slurs on the job as just business as usual. Or, "a small price to pay." Whereas what I was saying is that the policies which you cited incentivisng more diverse applicants to apply doesn't even begin to counter the ubiquitous prejudice in hiring and on the job. If it did, minorities and women would be over-represented in tech rather than under-represented. The whole "minority free pass" idea is what grates on me. Plenty of hiring managers have unconscious biases against women, minorities, older candidates, people with disabilities, etc. So, it's throwing more diverse candidates into a situation where diverse candidates are going to be disproportionately rejected. But the employers who actually incentivize diverse candidates are also frequently over-emphasized despite it being an uncommon practice. The boilerplate EEOC "we encourage diverse candidates to apply" statement is usually just that: an empty boilerplate put there for legal purposes, backed with zero action behind it. More often than not, it's nothing close to what you've described above

manfredo 7y ago
> I'm still having trouble believing anyone who isn't a frothing racist can pass off "many" getting called racial slurs on the job as just business as usual. I don't think it's business as usual, and looking back on my comments I never wrote this. Again, the first one of us bring this up was you when you justified discrimination in hiring as a means to offset discrimination elsewhere. What I wrote was, > But is the perspective of a white or asian man pursuing a coding boot-camp to try and break into tech going to have the same opinion on policies that greatly reduce or eliminate his chances of getting an interview as compared to if he was a woman or URM? Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech. that many white or Asian people struggling to get into tech see the employment opportunities conferred by diversity status as outweighing the other forms of discrimination that diverse workers may face - not that the latter is justified as "the price of admission". > The whole "minority free pass" idea is what grates on me. Plenty of hiring managers have unconscious biases against women, minorities, older candidates, people with disabilities, etc. So, it's throwing more diverse candidates into a situation where diverse candidates are going to be disproportionately rejected. But the employers who actually incentivize diverse candidates are also frequently over-emphasized despite it being an uncommon practice. The boilerplate EEOC "we encourage diverse candidates to apply" statement is usually just that: an empty boilerplate put there for legal purposes, backed with zero action behind it. It's just usually nothing close to what you described above First of all, it is a common practice at least as far as what I've experienced. Some companies, like Intel, went so far as withholding unless diversity quotas are met. And second, if the hiring managers have biases then eliminate those biases. If a company suspects that biases are causing women, minorities, etc. to not get offers then excluding white and Asian men to pad the former's representation doesn't create an equal hiring process. It just creates a hiring process that discriminates against both women, URM and White and Asian candidates. Furthermore, while it's common to see people cite unconscious biases against women and URM candidates in tech hiring studies trying to actually measure this often don't find this suspected bias. In fact, they often find bias in favor of diverse candidates. Interviewing.io experimented with blind hiring and actually found a slight preference in favor of women [1]. Studies in university STEM faculty recruiting found a 2:1 bias in favor of women [2]. 1. https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma... 2. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abs...