3 ms·
>One is legal, to avoid breaking a law or facing a lawsuit. I don't really understand this. Isn't any kind of race based discrimination going to potentially ca
by traverseda 6y ago
>One is legal, to avoid breaking a law or facing a lawsuit.
I don't really understand this. Isn't any kind of race based discrimination going to potentially cause legal liability? At the end of the day you're advocating for a policy of race/gender based discrimination, and I don't really get why you'd think it wouldn't be opening yourself up to liability with programs like these?
Have you actually talked to a lawyer about this? I've looked into in the the past, and while it seems to have a stronger case in Canada (where I live) I haven't really seen anything to suggest it's legal in the US unless you're a school.
Admittedly you're probably not going to be the case the brings it tumbling down, but it still seems like explicitly basing your hiring decisions on race open you up to a whole lot of potential liability.
- tonystubblebine 6y agoI don’t know anything about IBMs situation. But for me, a much smaller company, there’s a difference between saying you will only hire a Native American and saying you have intentionally chosen to put up a hiring booth at a Native American conference. In practice they have similar outcomes but the first is illegal, as you say, and the second isn’t. Every hiring pipeline will have demographic biases in it. And there is no law saying you have to investigate every single pipeline. But in practice how you choose your pipelines plays a big role in the demographics of your hires. I think too that this is not discrimination because it is merit based. I’m saying that because of other people’s discrimination you could probably operate on a valid business ROI hypothesis that choosing more diverse pipelines is a better use of a hiring managers time and money.