4 ms·

Not commenting about the merits of this specific probe, but here is a thought. African Americans are 13% of the US Population. Isn't it reasonable to aspire to

Not commenting about the merits of this specific probe, but here is a thought. African Americans are 13% of the US Population. Isn't it reasonable to aspire to have at least 13% of African American staff (proportionally adjusted per state/city populations)? This is a rhetoric question, what causes that to not be the case. The article doesn't mention the numbers but when a particular race is disproportionately less represented in corporations than its general population equivalent, then clearly there's a broken piece somewhere in the equation. I'm not even taking a political stance on this one. This is just the mathematical sound interpretation. If every person should have the same opportunities then the corporate populations should be a proxy of the general population proportions.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It depends what you're measuring the proportion against, and depends to such a huge degree that I really feel like we've gotta disregard the idea of detecting discrimination this way. For example, African Americans are only 4% of the population in Microsoft's home state.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  That's fair. I think my point is that a statistical representation allows you to see if one race is being favored over another one. But of course it's not a straight forward analysis as you correctly pointed with the WA black population example.
zaroth 6y ago
Why would you assume that the racial demographics of a particular corporate entity’s workforce should match the national average demographic breakdown? Can you think of any reasons why a specific workplace’s demographics might deviate from the mean that isn’t rooted in unequal opportunity?
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Yes, read my comment as it seems that nobody is fully reading it. I'm saying that if the final proportion doesn't reflect the demographics proportion then there's a bottleneck somewhere down the line that produces less black professionals.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    I think the crucial factor that will skew this is that racial demographics are strongly correlated with cultural demographics, and different cultures will place wildly varying value judgements on different lively pursuits. It seems to me that what this mathematical approach would be striving for—in trying to make workforce demographics equal population demographics—is total homogenization, which is to say, total destruction of cultural identity.
- defkev 6y ago
  Because that's how quotas work. So if the country is 13% black your employees should be 13% black. Then and only then you have archived true "diversity" Alternatively you can ofcourse always drop the whole affirmative action bullshit and just hire based on qualification. But then you no longer receive good boy points for wokeness.
run2arun 6y ago
It's not reasonable to use the general population as the reference. Should NBA players' races reflect the general population's? There are better references like the number of African Americans graduating with computer science degrees. And if that number is low, that's the one to boost.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Well that's exactly what I meant. I said that something in the downstream equation is broken if the outcome doesn't reflect a similar proportion.
  - run2arun 6y ago
    The tech population need not reflect a similar proportion ever. It depends on people's individual interests, who different cultures follow as role models etc. This question somehow only arises in tech. No one cares about making races equitable in other industries as much. What about farming? Or similar proportion of dentists, farmers, chess players?
    - whoisjuan 6y ago
      Where did I mention tech?. Seems that you're equating my statement to saying that 13% of the tech jobs should go to African Americans which is far from what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the proportions should always match if all citizens are receiving equal opportunities. Let's imagine a theoretical population somewhere where 80% of the people are white and 20% are black. Let's say 50% of all the population studies some tech related career and following one of your examples 10% of the population studies odontology. Let's assume the rest of the population studies or prepares for something else. Let's assume for a minute that unemployment is at 0%. Then 40% of tech employed population should be white, 10% should be black. 8% of the employed dentists are white. 2% are black. The rest of the employed population is 32% white and 8% black. That's it. That's all what I'm saying. I'm not even remotely trying or interested to argue politics here. I'm telling you in plain layman's terms that populations should downscale proportionally in an organized, civilized society. You're talking about whether or not this is a problem in other industries, and honestly I couldn't care less about that for the sake of this argument. I'm just telling you how society should work if it was unbiased and logical, not whether or not this works with whatever belief system or preconceptions of race or professional competency you have (or anyone has).

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It depends what you're measuring the proportion against, and depends to such a huge degree that I really feel like we've gotta disregard the idea of detecting discrimination this way. For example, African Americans are only 4% of the population in Microsoft's home state.

whoisjuan 6y ago
That's fair. I think my point is that a statistical representation allows you to see if one race is being favored over another one. But of course it's not a straight forward analysis as you correctly pointed with the WA black population example.

zaroth 6y ago

Why would you assume that the racial demographics of a particular corporate entity’s workforce should match the national average demographic breakdown? Can you think of any reasons why a specific workplace’s demographics might deviate from the mean that isn’t rooted in unequal opportunity?

whoisjuan 6y ago
Yes, read my comment as it seems that nobody is fully reading it. I'm saying that if the final proportion doesn't reflect the demographics proportion then there's a bottleneck somewhere down the line that produces less black professionals.
- zaroth 6y ago
  I think the crucial factor that will skew this is that racial demographics are strongly correlated with cultural demographics, and different cultures will place wildly varying value judgements on different lively pursuits. It seems to me that what this mathematical approach would be striving for—in trying to make workforce demographics equal population demographics—is total homogenization, which is to say, total destruction of cultural identity.
defkev 6y ago
Because that's how quotas work. So if the country is 13% black your employees should be 13% black. Then and only then you have archived true "diversity" Alternatively you can ofcourse always drop the whole affirmative action bullshit and just hire based on qualification. But then you no longer receive good boy points for wokeness.

run2arun 6y ago

It's not reasonable to use the general population as the reference. Should NBA players' races reflect the general population's? There are better references like the number of African Americans graduating with computer science degrees. And if that number is low, that's the one to boost.

whoisjuan 6y ago
Well that's exactly what I meant. I said that something in the downstream equation is broken if the outcome doesn't reflect a similar proportion.
- run2arun 6y ago
  The tech population need not reflect a similar proportion ever. It depends on people's individual interests, who different cultures follow as role models etc. This question somehow only arises in tech. No one cares about making races equitable in other industries as much. What about farming? Or similar proportion of dentists, farmers, chess players?
  - whoisjuan 6y ago
    Where did I mention tech?. Seems that you're equating my statement to saying that 13% of the tech jobs should go to African Americans which is far from what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the proportions should always match if all citizens are receiving equal opportunities. Let's imagine a theoretical population somewhere where 80% of the people are white and 20% are black. Let's say 50% of all the population studies some tech related career and following one of your examples 10% of the population studies odontology. Let's assume the rest of the population studies or prepares for something else. Let's assume for a minute that unemployment is at 0%. Then 40% of tech employed population should be white, 10% should be black. 8% of the employed dentists are white. 2% are black. The rest of the employed population is 32% white and 8% black. That's it. That's all what I'm saying. I'm not even remotely trying or interested to argue politics here. I'm telling you in plain layman's terms that populations should downscale proportionally in an organized, civilized society. You're talking about whether or not this is a problem in other industries, and honestly I couldn't care less about that for the sake of this argument. I'm just telling you how society should work if it was unbiased and logical, not whether or not this works with whatever belief system or preconceptions of race or professional competency you have (or anyone has).