6 ms·

> 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

> 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
  How many times do I have to re-quote your own words to yourself? Did you not say the following? > Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech. Because that's a breath-takingly racist assertion. And I did not say that. I suggest re-reading your post so that you understand that you wrote those words. > First of all, it is a common practice at least as far as what I've experienced. Funny, because I've literally never experienced or even heard of this practice at a single place I've worked at. So I guess that makes it a very uncommon practice? > Studies in university STEM faculty recruiting found a 2:1 bias in favor of women I'm referring to tech hiring in the private sector. Your citation is about tenure-track academic hiring in STEM, which encompasses a broad range of fields including ones that aren't male-dominated and is a very different can of worms than SV tech. But go ahead and continue to minimize the very real, disparate impact that discrimination in tech has, while insisting that trying to rectify that problem is, in fact, the real bias in hiring.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Because that's a breath-takingly racist assertion. And I did not say that. I suggest re-reading your post so that you understand that you wrote those words. Let's reread the sentence in context: > 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. Say you have two people in a coding boot camp. One is a woman, the other a white or asian man. They get the same scores and are just as capable. At my current and previous employers, only the former would get a chance to interview. If the latter looked at this situation, and concluded that they would have better career opportunities if they were a woman - even if it meant additional discrimination in other forms, like being subject to slurs - then they're "breath-takingly racist"? I'm also confused as to why you're calling me racist for pointing out the fact that many white and asian men feel like the tech industry's treatment towards them on the basis of race and gender is a net negative. Again, these are the opinions of people other than myself. The fact that you're exclusively quoted this sentence without the preceding one suggests that you either forgot this fact, or are deliberately attempting to conceal it. > I'm referring to tech hiring in the private sector. Good thing I cited a source studying hiring the private sector as well.

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
How many times do I have to re-quote your own words to yourself? Did you not say the following? > Many see getting called slurs as a small price to pay to get a chance to break into tech. Because that's a breath-takingly racist assertion. And I did not say that. I suggest re-reading your post so that you understand that you wrote those words. > First of all, it is a common practice at least as far as what I've experienced. Funny, because I've literally never experienced or even heard of this practice at a single place I've worked at. So I guess that makes it a very uncommon practice? > Studies in university STEM faculty recruiting found a 2:1 bias in favor of women I'm referring to tech hiring in the private sector. Your citation is about tenure-track academic hiring in STEM, which encompasses a broad range of fields including ones that aren't male-dominated and is a very different can of worms than SV tech. But go ahead and continue to minimize the very real, disparate impact that discrimination in tech has, while insisting that trying to rectify that problem is, in fact, the real bias in hiring.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Because that's a breath-takingly racist assertion. And I did not say that. I suggest re-reading your post so that you understand that you wrote those words. Let's reread the sentence in context: > 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. Say you have two people in a coding boot camp. One is a woman, the other a white or asian man. They get the same scores and are just as capable. At my current and previous employers, only the former would get a chance to interview. If the latter looked at this situation, and concluded that they would have better career opportunities if they were a woman - even if it meant additional discrimination in other forms, like being subject to slurs - then they're "breath-takingly racist"? I'm also confused as to why you're calling me racist for pointing out the fact that many white and asian men feel like the tech industry's treatment towards them on the basis of race and gender is a net negative. Again, these are the opinions of people other than myself. The fact that you're exclusively quoted this sentence without the preceding one suggests that you either forgot this fact, or are deliberately attempting to conceal it. > I'm referring to tech hiring in the private sector. Good thing I cited a source studying hiring the private sector as well.