6 ms·

Any company that has diversity hiring numbers that they are supposed to hit is discriminating based on factors outside of performance if it influences their hir

Any company that has diversity hiring numbers that they are supposed to hit is discriminating based on factors outside of performance if it influences their hiring process at all.

lalos 6y ago
I would assume that diversity hiring numbers are based on demographics, if not they would be almost impossible to meet.
wayoutthere 6y ago
Diversity numbers are measured after the fact. Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently.
- ifokiedoke 6y ago
  > Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently. I don't think people realize how important this is. I certainly didn't until I had a random meeting with the recruiting team at $OLDJOB. It's basic statistics, when you think about it. By the definition of "under-represented group", you know that there is a much higher likelihood that the over-represented group will make up the majority of the first X resumes you receive. This means that even if you're completely unbiased and will hire based on merit (whatever that means), simply choosing the best of the first X applications will lead you to fail at diversity hiring anyway. Companies say they want to hire the best person but this is subject to reality and part of reality is wanting to hire this person as quick as possible. So it really is paramount that the pipeline is front-loaded, or you'll be thwarted by the reality of statistical majority.
ojnabieoot 6y ago
The hypothetical you’re clearly referring to here is a high-performing white or Asian applicant who regrettably has to be rejected to make room for a mediocre black applicant. This concern is 1% based in reality and 99% based in racist resentment. Companies make hiring decisions based on all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with performance. Two extremely problematic ones are: 1) soft “skills” like charisma, rapport, etc, which are much more about social identity than social ability, and in particular discriminate against nonwhites, women, and many LGBT people 2) Unvarnished and criminal Klan-style racism, such as turning down a well-qualified job applicant because his name is Jamal, or assuming a black woman must have lied about her 3.9 GPA, which is still rampant in all 50 United States, and an enormous reason for the black-white wealth and income disparity. This sort of blatant discrimination has been repeatedly observed in the 21st century and is a plain fact. These two practices are not only widespread and illegal, they also deprive companies of good talent. The reason for diversity quotas isn’t to distort a (nonexistent) meritocratic hiring process, but instead to correct grotesque violations in actually existing hiring practices.
- km3r 6y ago
  Do you have any sources to back this up? I figured that may have been the case a few decades ago but I imagined nowadays the affirmative action outweighs those factors on a macro scale.
  - wayoutthere 6y ago
    Coming from someone who used to be seen as a white man and is now seen as a white woman, it matters. Noticing that it mattered for me made me take notice when it happens to others. Spoiler: it happens a lot. I shut it down real fast when it happens in front of me, but I used to be part of the problem as well. It's (usually) not malice; people genuinely don't realize that "cultural fit" is usually code for "like me". That ability to be blind to things like that is essentially the nature of what people call "privilege". Doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you should probably listen to other perspectives before you interject your own. "Affirmative action" isn't a thing. It never really was. All it ever meant was ensuring that opportunities were offered to minorities to interview, but those opportunities still paid out at a below-average rate relative to straight / white / male people. Your company won't share diversity numbers outside of HR, but if you have a friend you can usually get them off the record. They don't share them because the numbers are bad.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    I am sorry to keep being uncharitable about this but I am angry and frustrated: the reason you “figured” it may have been the case a long time ago but you “imagine” that nowadays we have the reverse problem is because you are an ignorant racist who is filling your gaps in knowledge with white resentment. I will try to alleviate some of the ignorant side of this: March 2020, results from a field experiment demonstrating persistent unambiguous racist discrimination: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26861 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26861 This is a recent example of a famous series of experiments, where otherwise identical fictitious resumes are given “black-sounding” or “white-sounding” names (or addresses, alma maters, etc), and the researchers count how many callbacks the resumes get. If the black resumes get significantly less callbacks there is no alternative explanation than illegal racism. The classic experiment is “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” from 2003: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 A 2016 retrospective of similar labor discrimination field experiments: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22022 https://www.nber.org/papers/w22022 Evidence of improving but ongoing racist discrimination against black business owners seeking credit: https://www.nber.org/papers/w13972 https://www.nber.org/papers/w13972 2011 paper estimating that 1/3rd of the black-white wage gap is due solely to employment discrimination: https://www.nber.org/papers/w17462 https://www.nber.org/papers/w17462 (it has been established elsewhere that about ~1/2 the wage gap is due to the education/credentials gap) An interesting 2019 paper finding virtually no discrimination against Native Americans and Hawaiians: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25849 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25849 (this is relevant to the sociological view that American racial stratification is anti-black more than pro-white, or rather that “white” really means “not black”) This is just from one google search of the NBER archives on my phone. This evidence exists in spades.

Any company that has diversity hiring numbers that they are supposed to hit is discriminating based on factors outside of performance if it influences their hiring process at all.

lalos 6y ago

I would assume that diversity hiring numbers are based on demographics, if not they would be almost impossible to meet.

wayoutthere 6y ago

Diversity numbers are measured after the fact. Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently.

ifokiedoke 6y ago
> Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently. I don't think people realize how important this is. I certainly didn't until I had a random meeting with the recruiting team at $OLDJOB. It's basic statistics, when you think about it. By the definition of "under-represented group", you know that there is a much higher likelihood that the over-represented group will make up the majority of the first X resumes you receive. This means that even if you're completely unbiased and will hire based on merit (whatever that means), simply choosing the best of the first X applications will lead you to fail at diversity hiring anyway. Companies say they want to hire the best person but this is subject to reality and part of reality is wanting to hire this person as quick as possible. So it really is paramount that the pipeline is front-loaded, or you'll be thwarted by the reality of statistical majority.

ojnabieoot 6y ago

The hypothetical you’re clearly referring to here is a high-performing white or Asian applicant who regrettably has to be rejected to make room for a mediocre black applicant. This concern is 1% based in reality and 99% based in racist resentment. Companies make hiring decisions based on all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with performance. Two extremely problematic ones are: 1) soft “skills” like charisma, rapport, etc, which are much more about social identity than social ability, and in particular discriminate against nonwhites, women, and many LGBT people 2) Unvarnished and criminal Klan-style racism, such as turning down a well-qualified job applicant because his name is Jamal, or assuming a black woman must have lied about her 3.9 GPA, which is still rampant in all 50 United States, and an enormous reason for the black-white wealth and income disparity. This sort of blatant discrimination has been repeatedly observed in the 21st century and is a plain fact. These two practices are not only widespread and illegal, they also deprive companies of good talent. The reason for diversity quotas isn’t to distort a (nonexistent) meritocratic hiring process, but instead to correct grotesque violations in actually existing hiring practices.

km3r 6y ago
Do you have any sources to back this up? I figured that may have been the case a few decades ago but I imagined nowadays the affirmative action outweighs those factors on a macro scale.
- wayoutthere 6y ago
  Coming from someone who used to be seen as a white man and is now seen as a white woman, it matters. Noticing that it mattered for me made me take notice when it happens to others. Spoiler: it happens a lot. I shut it down real fast when it happens in front of me, but I used to be part of the problem as well. It's (usually) not malice; people genuinely don't realize that "cultural fit" is usually code for "like me". That ability to be blind to things like that is essentially the nature of what people call "privilege". Doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you should probably listen to other perspectives before you interject your own. "Affirmative action" isn't a thing. It never really was. All it ever meant was ensuring that opportunities were offered to minorities to interview, but those opportunities still paid out at a below-average rate relative to straight / white / male people. Your company won't share diversity numbers outside of HR, but if you have a friend you can usually get them off the record. They don't share them because the numbers are bad.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  I am sorry to keep being uncharitable about this but I am angry and frustrated: the reason you “figured” it may have been the case a long time ago but you “imagine” that nowadays we have the reverse problem is because you are an ignorant racist who is filling your gaps in knowledge with white resentment. I will try to alleviate some of the ignorant side of this: March 2020, results from a field experiment demonstrating persistent unambiguous racist discrimination: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26861 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26861 This is a recent example of a famous series of experiments, where otherwise identical fictitious resumes are given “black-sounding” or “white-sounding” names (or addresses, alma maters, etc), and the researchers count how many callbacks the resumes get. If the black resumes get significantly less callbacks there is no alternative explanation than illegal racism. The classic experiment is “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” from 2003: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 A 2016 retrospective of similar labor discrimination field experiments: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22022 https://www.nber.org/papers/w22022 Evidence of improving but ongoing racist discrimination against black business owners seeking credit: https://www.nber.org/papers/w13972 https://www.nber.org/papers/w13972 2011 paper estimating that 1/3rd of the black-white wage gap is due solely to employment discrimination: https://www.nber.org/papers/w17462 https://www.nber.org/papers/w17462 (it has been established elsewhere that about ~1/2 the wage gap is due to the education/credentials gap) An interesting 2019 paper finding virtually no discrimination against Native Americans and Hawaiians: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25849 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25849 (this is relevant to the sociological view that American racial stratification is anti-black more than pro-white, or rather that “white” really means “not black”) This is just from one google search of the NBER archives on my phone. This evidence exists in spades.