4 ms·

What exactly is the function of a diversity head?

CydeWeys 5y ago
Increasing diversity of the employees of the company to better match the demographics of the country of the whole. In other words, doing a better job of outreach to the underrepresented groups, particularly African Americans and Latinos.
- simondotau 5y ago
  Matching the demographics of the country as a whole? Hopefully the Google team is diverse enough to include an appropriate spread of nonagenarians and toddlers. Especially in senior leadership.
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    These kinds of snarky, unserious comments are tiresome.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      I’m being perfectly serious, even if it’s not conveyed in the dry, literal manner you evidently prefer. If you want to have demographics that “represent” the country, you need to be clear about which demographic axes are being privileged with special consideration. Peel back the covers of prejudice and you’ll find a lot more than sex and race.
      - benwad 5y ago
        But you see why hiring people of colour is different from hiring toddlers right? In one case you're expanding your talent pool to a group who haven't had the same chance to contribute as other groups, and in the other case you're hiring a toddler.
        CydeWeys 5y ago
        And, crucially, no one on any side of the issue is seriously endorsing child labor, so it's a spurious suggestion. Strawmen arguments don't merit refutation, they just merit ignoring.
        simondotau 5y ago
        I’m sorry that you thought I actually advocated for hiring toddlers. I wasn’t expecting anyone to interpret an obviously absurd point literally, rather than as reductio of a bigger point. Let me be more literal for you. Does Google employ short people at a rate consistent with community demographics? What about paraplegics? People on the autism spectrum? People whose family heritage is from Ghana? People with a strong “southern” accent? You might argue that some of these cohorts aren’t facing discrimination, but are you sure? Currently we only concern ourselves with axes of discrimination that are loud and obvious. Is the discrimination any less real if its victims don't know to be angry about it? Or does discrimination only occur when its victims are aware of it? At what point do we declare one person’s discrimination more important than another? At what point do we declare that one person's discrimination is worthy of upending the default behaviour of billion dollar companies, and others can be dismissed as equally ridiculous to demanding a toddler join senior leadership?
        simondotau 5y ago
        If you have evidence that people of colour were being overlooked for reasons of racism, then you'd be right. But if you're merely concerned about optics and giving special dispensation to hire for reasons other than qualifications, you're not expanding your talent pool, you're tarnishing all minorities in your company with the potential tag of being a diversity hire. Here's another reductio: Imagine if the NFL (that's American Football right?) started doing the exact same thing—requiring teams to work towards reflecting the demographics of their communities. There would cause outrage for obvious and correct reasons. And yet it's a direct parallel. To be clear, I agree with the principle of applying active introspection to how your hiring outcomes compare with demographics. This is a good thing. But I don't agree with the argument that private employers should be responsible for fixing (or more precisely, compensating for) problems which exist upstream of the hiring process. Because it doesn't fix the problem. In fact it can make it harder to fix the problem. It papers over the actual problems so that society has greater license to ignore them.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  Increasing diversity at any tech company means drastically decreasing Asian to make room for AA and Hispanic people (even white people are under-represented in software jobs). I can't help but chuckle imagining how diversity leads juggle those conversations
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Easy. Asians are "white adjacent" and are beneficiaries of "white supremacist model minority ideology". Therefore, they may be treated as white for the purposes of "antiracist" hiring.
chitowneats 5y ago
Grift

Increasing diversity of the employees of the company to better match the demographics of the country of the whole. In other words, doing a better job of outreach to the underrepresented groups, particularly African Americans and Latinos.

simondotau 5y ago
Matching the demographics of the country as a whole? Hopefully the Google team is diverse enough to include an appropriate spread of nonagenarians and toddlers. Especially in senior leadership.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  These kinds of snarky, unserious comments are tiresome.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    I’m being perfectly serious, even if it’s not conveyed in the dry, literal manner you evidently prefer. If you want to have demographics that “represent” the country, you need to be clear about which demographic axes are being privileged with special consideration. Peel back the covers of prejudice and you’ll find a lot more than sex and race.
    - benwad 5y ago
      But you see why hiring people of colour is different from hiring toddlers right? In one case you're expanding your talent pool to a group who haven't had the same chance to contribute as other groups, and in the other case you're hiring a toddler.
      - CydeWeys 5y ago
        And, crucially, no one on any side of the issue is seriously endorsing child labor, so it's a spurious suggestion. Strawmen arguments don't merit refutation, they just merit ignoring.
        simondotau 5y ago
        I’m sorry that you thought I actually advocated for hiring toddlers. I wasn’t expecting anyone to interpret an obviously absurd point literally, rather than as reductio of a bigger point. Let me be more literal for you. Does Google employ short people at a rate consistent with community demographics? What about paraplegics? People on the autism spectrum? People whose family heritage is from Ghana? People with a strong “southern” accent? You might argue that some of these cohorts aren’t facing discrimination, but are you sure? Currently we only concern ourselves with axes of discrimination that are loud and obvious. Is the discrimination any less real if its victims don't know to be angry about it? Or does discrimination only occur when its victims are aware of it? At what point do we declare one person’s discrimination more important than another? At what point do we declare that one person's discrimination is worthy of upending the default behaviour of billion dollar companies, and others can be dismissed as equally ridiculous to demanding a toddler join senior leadership?
      - simondotau 5y ago
        If you have evidence that people of colour were being overlooked for reasons of racism, then you'd be right. But if you're merely concerned about optics and giving special dispensation to hire for reasons other than qualifications, you're not expanding your talent pool, you're tarnishing all minorities in your company with the potential tag of being a diversity hire. Here's another reductio: Imagine if the NFL (that's American Football right?) started doing the exact same thing—requiring teams to work towards reflecting the demographics of their communities. There would cause outrage for obvious and correct reasons. And yet it's a direct parallel. To be clear, I agree with the principle of applying active introspection to how your hiring outcomes compare with demographics. This is a good thing. But I don't agree with the argument that private employers should be responsible for fixing (or more precisely, compensating for) problems which exist upstream of the hiring process. Because it doesn't fix the problem. In fact it can make it harder to fix the problem. It papers over the actual problems so that society has greater license to ignore them.
silicon2401 5y ago
Increasing diversity at any tech company means drastically decreasing Asian to make room for AA and Hispanic people (even white people are under-represented in software jobs). I can't help but chuckle imagining how diversity leads juggle those conversations
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Easy. Asians are "white adjacent" and are beneficiaries of "white supremacist model minority ideology". Therefore, they may be treated as white for the purposes of "antiracist" hiring.

chitowneats 5y ago

Grift