12 ms·

Snowflake CEO Says Worker Merit Should Outweigh Diversity Goals

66 points by htrp 5y ago

influx 5y ago
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing.
- xedrac 5y ago
  And yet diversity goals by definition are discriminatory. Perhaps in positions where merit isn't so important, it seems less discriminatory for some reason.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    A lot of people are indeed arguing that there needs to be more "positive discrimination" to help groups who've so far (on average) suffered the effects of negative discrimination. I tend to agree that it's necessary. But understandably, someone who's part of "not going to get an advantage" group would complain of negative discrimination. IANAL, but yeah, in the cold hard logic of laws, positive discrimination is surely against that law. Now watch people misinterpret this comment and call me names...
    - gambiting 5y ago
      Positive discrimination is absolutely discrimination as well. You can't have a job offer that says "only women applicants", but there's nothing illegal about only ever advertising in say, women-targetted media or products, even if the position is open to everyone. That's not defined as descrimination in law(I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that by law that's not discrimination).
      - cm2187 5y ago
        Which is pretty much redlining
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - balls187 5y ago
        That isn't entirely true. There are instances where there is bona fide qualification for being a specific gender. It's not common, but does exist. Megan Fox will not likely win a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on EEO Law if I did not cast her in the role of Barack Obama in my HBO Miniseries on the Death of Osama bin Laden.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      One thing that I don't really like with positive discrimination is that you don't really know if and when it's going to end. I would be more confortable with it if the goal was clear from the start, and the discrimination was then automatically deduced from this. Another point is that when a group of people call for more diversity, which would be attained by employing more people from this group, I tend to see tribalism more than diversity. Of course in a way it's fine, it's the basis of human behavior, but it still feels weird to me.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      There is no such thing as positive discrimination.
    - tylerhou 5y ago
      In my opinion, much of the time "positive discrimination" is a misnomer. The most salient debate is in college admissions — some people believe that BIPOC have an "easier" time getting admitted to schools like Harvard with the same amount of "merit." ("Easier" and "merit" in quotes for reasons below.) Often, they justify this by claiming that Asian and white people have to score much higher on the SAT to gain admissions. But that's probably the wrong metric. The purpose of college is to grow students, which means a better metric of merit is not a snapshot of how proficient a student is at a particular moment in time, but by how much they have improved from some baseline. We also know that society puts BIPOC at a disadvantage because of their race. For example, historical and present day discrimination means that they have less economic power, which directly translates to educational disadvantage (worse schools, worse nutrition, less time interacting with parents who may work longer hours). BIPOC are also less likely to be recommended for gifted programs at the same level of skill. Therefore (because of society) their baseline is lower. So given the above two points, I don't really see admission of BIPOC as discrimination at if you shift the metric to "ability to grow." IMO this is also reflected in the admissions criteria; the ability to overcome adversity is sometimes cited, and adverse life events usually accompany some amount of growth. And even though the average SAT score is lower for BIPOC applicants, that average is not low enough for those people not to be able to handle the courseworks. That's not to say that all BIPOC applicants come from a lower baseline than all Asian/white applicants; of course there will be some distribution overlap. But using growth as a metric (instead of absolute score) could probably explain most of the test score/GPA discrepancy.
      - Manuel_D 5y ago
        I think this is getting into semantic mismatch at this point, it seems like you and the above commenter agree pretty much in entirety at a conceptual level just using different terms. Your comment describes the meaning encapsulated in the term "positive discrimination". Groups have been disadvantaged throughout history, so the institution is deliberately assigning advantages for members of the group to offset that. > And even though the average SAT score is lower for BIPOC applicants, that average is not low enough for those people not to be able to handle the courseworks. This is not entirely true. Lower SAT scores are correlated with dropping out of certain majors at much higher rates. This is a significant factor in lower URM representation in STEM graduates: https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/10/30/aa-arcidiacono/ https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/10/30/aa-arcidiacono...
  - ben_w 5y ago
    If your underlying assumption is that no protected group is more or less meritous than the general population, then in aggregate diversity goals eliminate discrimination. To give a toy example: If half the population has green hair, and the other half blue, and there is no difference between them other than hair colour, you should expect half the candidates to be of each hair colour, and half of the successful applicants of each hair colour. If you don’t see that, that should be a strong signal that your hiring process unreasonably discriminates.
    - mattigames 5y ago
      Unless of course, after a deeper research one discovers than the parts of town where blue hair people live have more access to tech tools and tech information growing up and therefore explains why after reaching working age there are more blue haired people working in tech companies.
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      > you should expect half the candidates to be of each hair colour, and half of the successful applicants of each hair colour. The issue we see is that the blue haired people simply aren't applying for our positions, despite the best efforts of the recruitment department who have been told to hire more blue haired people because it makes the green haired management look bad. The people doing the hiring are then told they are discriminatory and are sent on courses. The real issue of course is much more complex and has everything to do with culture, and genetics (women generally have differing interests to men for example - for evolutionary reasons).
      - ben_w 5y ago
        > The real issue of course is much more complex and has everything to do with culture, and genetics Why do you think I listed two fictional hair colours for my hypothetical? Also, why I chose to split into two clauses the fragment you quoted?
    - w-j-w 5y ago
      But what if merit depends on some other institution? Someone with no education/background in an area does not have merit. Employers may wind up hiring in skewed proportions if the talent pool has the same issues.
  - slg 5y ago
    Lets say you have two equally qualified candidates. It sounds like you believe that choosing the "diverse" candidate over the majority candidate is discriminatory. If that is the case, why isn't choosing the majority candidate discriminatory against the "diverse" candidate? Diversity goals are not created in order to encourage hiring less capable people. They are challenging companies to work harder on finding the capable "diverse" candidates, reevaluating what it means to be qualified, and whether those qualification criteria actually indicate a capability to perform the job.
    - xedrac 5y ago
      With two equally skilled candidates, defaulting to either candidate because of their race/gender/etc is still discrimination. Flipping a coin would be more fair. I honestly haven't encountered this situation though. You could argue that's because of bias, or my definition of qualified, but I have interviewed and hired some very skilled "diverse" candidates. And I've rejected countless "majority" candidates.
  - tylerhou 5y ago
    Diversity goals are only discriminatory if you assume that hiring practices (sans diversity goals) are not discriminatory. That's assumption probably isn't true, given that there numerous studies that show that e.g. black people have a harder time getting callbacks or passing resume screens solely because of the color of their skin, with all else (socioeconomic background, education, etc.) equal. In reality, diversity goals aim to compensate for otherwise discriminatory hiring practices. That's a good thing.
  - balls187 5y ago
    If I were to attend job fairs at a number of top Chinese Universities, with headcount to hire 10 students, would I be in violation of EEO Law? What if I had 2 head count, and I first posted to an internal job board before posting to our public careers page. Would I still be in violation of EEO Law? The point I'm making is while diversity goals are dumb sounding on the surface--in theory they force companies to examine innocuous policies and processes that skew hiring towards a certain group of people.
- balls187 5y ago
  It's really hard to prove that you were not hired based on your race.
rvz 5y ago
Sounds fair and I don't see anything wrong with that. If that's needed to succeed in a hyper-competitive market then I'll seek for the best and the brightest and keep them. Definitely has worked for the FAAMNG companies. Downvoters: How exactly is having some form of diversity quotas system more fairer than merit? I would rather hire the best regardless of their background than to have a fixed set amount of candidates because of the colour of their skin. The latter is extremely discriminatory. Get with the times man and quit being medieval. Relevant quote of the day. [0] [0] https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/1197869084479766529 https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/1197869084479766529
supergirl 5y ago
such a narrow view for a CEO. from what he says I take that he sees no value in a diverse workforce; he sees it only as a cost and he can't spare anything because he needs to deliver growth. > We can’t get distracted in that mission. he sees diversity as a distraction. I read somewhere an interview where he says some time ago he was rejected for a job because they gave it to a diverse candidate. this is his revenge I guess. edit: it was here https://archive.is/dMTEM https://archive.is/dMTEM > In 2019, during an all-hands meeting at Snowflake, Slootman told the story of how early in his career he was rejected for a job he was well qualified for because the company needed to fill a quota of hiring more minorities, a former senior Snowflake employee said.
- wreath 5y ago
  Only entitled people would be fine with a job that they got knowing it was due to their skin color, gender or other properties not related to their professional skills.
  - supergirl 5y ago
    that implies that there is no value at all in having a diverse workforce and hiring a minority candidate is just doing the person a favor. it also implies that people get hired based on professional skills alone. so if a minority person gets lower score it must mean that they don't have enough skill. but in fact, the whole discussion is about (unconscious) bias against minorities. so you can't really assume the interview is fair.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - matchbok 5y ago
      Everyone brings something to the table, regardless of their gender or ethnicity. It seems that you prefer to discriminate against certain people.
    - wreath 5y ago
      If by diverse you mean characteristics such as ethnicity or gender/sex for example, then you're right. The value it (may) add doesn't justify optimizing my hiring pipeline for to increase their representation in my organization. After all, I'm not interested in building a mosaic of all sorts of people. I'm interested in meeting goals of my business. Everyone who can contribute to that effectively is welcome. When we have a candidate who is from a "minority" group and we treat them differently because we assume they suffered more to get where they are so they paid their due and now are entitled to the job position, isn't that an unconscious bias too? When we look at white men and assume they had an easy ride in life, isn't that an unconscious bias too? Look, everyone belongs to different groups at the same time so they have more privileges and advantages in some areas, while in a minority group in another. How far should we go? should we also check who has the least privilege and representation within a minority group before we hire them? Do people in minority groups ever run out of privilege once they acquire it? This whole idea of treating people differently based on their race or other irrelevant attributes is discriminatory and racist. How the hell did we get here? I don't know.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
"Snowflake" is the actual name of the company. I'm so used to seeing that word used as an insult that I assumed the Bloomberg author was using a sassy and editorialized headline.
blakesterz 5y ago
I have no comment on the content of this at all, but I did find it odd they're calling this CEO a "snowflake" in the headline. Nope, "Snowflake Inc. Chief Executive Officer Frank Slootman said the cloud software maker..." he's not A snowflake, he's CEO OF Snowflake. That headlines reads different knowing the difference there.
- htrp 5y ago
  pretty standard AP style to use the company common name (HP vs Hewlett Packard etc) .... just unfortunate that the computer company named themselves Snowflake?
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    It's an innocent coincidence. But the author could have slightly rephrased things for clarity and still have used proper English: "CEO of Snowflake Says..."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Thought the exact thing… only in this timeline would this be a thing.
- nindalf 5y ago
  What a bizarre thing to take issue with. They're not calling the CEO a Snowflake. This is how news organisations commonly refer to CEOs of companies. Here are a few examples. - Facebook CEO reveals three new features WhatsApp is working (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/facebook-ceo-reveals-three-new-features-whatsapp-is-working-on/articleshow/83206452.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/facebook-ce...) - GM CEO Barra’s pay rose to $23.7 million in 2020 (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-ceo-barras-pay-rose-226-million-2020-2021-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-ceo...) - Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson explains why ... (https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-kevin-johnson-on-his-3-priorities-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-kevin-johnson-...)
Deestan 5y ago
While I agree in principle, a confounding factor is that "merit" has a high degree of subjectivity and bias. Diversity goals are meant to adjust for bias, not override merit. And it feels unfair, because bias is unconscious and we usually aren't aware of it. Unless you fully accept that you are a person with biases that are unconscious and invisible to yourself, it will feel like you're compromising on merit.
- dvt 5y ago
  > a confounding factor is that "merit" has a high degree of subjectivity and bias I'm not going to downvote you, but I really don't like this semantic maneuvering and I think it's disingenuous. By definition, merit is supposed to be free of bias and be the perfect correlate between qualification and result. If the argument is that humans are flawed and they sometimes don't reach this ideal because of prejudice or what-have-you, that's another discussion entirely. But no, merit does not have a high degree of subjectivity and bias associated with it.
  - locopati 5y ago
    "merit does not have a high degree of subjectivity and bias associated with it." really? how does that explain the tendency for white men to fail upwards while women and minorities face a higher standard once hired?
  - kjeetgill 5y ago
    I suspect the argument that you throw out as "another discussion entirely" is precisely what the poster sought to address.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"Unless you fully accept that you are a person with biases that are unconscious and invisible to yourself" I'm open to introspection, but at some point "bias" has to become something falsifiable. If it remains something unconscious and invisible, then how does one actually bear responsibility for it? In many ways your quote reminds me of Christianity. Simply replace the word 'bias' with 'sin'.
slg 5y ago
The overwhelming majority of people who push for diversity would agree with that sentiment. The disagreement comes from how people like the Slootman have a tendency to define "merit" in a way that is wildly biased.
- generalizations 5y ago
  Unfortunately that's not the case, when you look at the effect of so-called "diversity quotas."
  - octokatt 5y ago
    ... relevant user name above
    - generalizations 5y ago
      Everyone should always read the usernames. I picked it for a reason. :)
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Oh they don’t all read the usernames. I’ve had at least one person on here (years ago now) assume I must be a woman after I wrote something feminist.
- isoskeles 5y ago
  I could just as easily state that "people who push for diversity" have a tendency to define "merit" in a way that is wildly biased. What is biased or unbiased specifically in terms of hiring software engineers on their merit?
  - slg 5y ago
    >What is biased or unbiased specifically in terms of hiring software engineers on their merit? Nothing. It purely depends on how you define "merit"? For example a lot of tech companies only hire entry level people from elite colleges. That leads to a workforce that is largely white and largely middle to upper class. Sure, the average MIT grad is better than the average boot camp grad, but there are also plenty of boot camp grads that are better than plenty of MIT grads.
supergirl 5y ago
some CEOs want to "make the world a better place" and some CEOs just want to make money
- rvz 5y ago
  At the end of the day, everybody wants to make money. If '...to "make the world a better place"' means putting in diversity quotas, then it is completely pointless to this goal. Hiring the best and the brightest regardless of their race gets to this goal faster. As long as they are developing the tools that make the company money much faster and on time, I don't care about this 'diversity' nonsense.
slavapestov 5y ago
Merit and diversity are not in opposition to each other. In fact I'd say there is very little merit in hiring in tech today. It's statistically impossible that the best programmers in the world all happen to be 20 year old white dudes who live in San Francisco.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  That's like saying it's statistically impossible for all of the best fashion designers in the world to be 20 somethings that live in NY or Milan. Many of the best programmers in the world move to SF specifically because of the opportunity.
  - runako 5y ago
    Fashion doesn't claim to be a meritocracy. Fashion aims to be fashionable.
  - meatbundragon 5y ago
    And do many of the best programmers also choose to become white, male, and 20?
    - dzhiurgis 5y ago
      Whites are more portable
    - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
      Given the fact that Indian and East Asian men far exceed their US population ratios in the ranks of SF programmers, I'm baffled why you highlighted white.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dimes 5y ago
  Why is it statistically impossible? Where one chooses to live is likely highly correlated with the job market for their skillset in that region.
mgarfias 5y ago
What exactly is diversity anyway? For instance, me: 1/2 Mexican. Dad grew up picking cotton. Great aunts sister in law married Caesar Chavez. And yet, grew up with a computer, and access to tech, university, etc. Am I a diverse hire?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Am I a diverse hire? I feel like the problem started when diversity switched from a group measure to an individual label. Individuals aren't diverse. A 100% Black team isn't racially diverse. A 100% gay team isn't sexual orientation or gender diverse. Asking whether a bisexual Latina is "diverse" or a "diverse hire" should be meaningless.
  - mgarfias 5y ago
    “Am I diverse hire” == “do I check the ‘diversity’ box when these things are being counted”
peterbonney 5y ago
Ah yes, the old canard that hiring a more diverse workforce requires a lowering of standards, as opposed to the likelihood that targeting a more diverse candidate pool will bring in a greater proportion of highly qualified candidates (owing to their being under-recruited) and actually lead to a raising of hiring standards. But yes, let's just keep on doing things the way we've always done them. I'm sure it's working great.
- matchbok 5y ago
  Well, it's either that, or every company is extremely biased in hiring. Which is very, very unlikely as the numbers pretty much match the demographics of the talent pool.
bena 5y ago
Why do articles about this company and man all seem like carefully engineered PR pieces to make the myth they present true? Even the Wikipedia article on Snowflake reads like ad copy.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  When I was at a small startup, our Wikipedia article was written by our PR/sales guy, with all citations linking to puff announcements the same PR/sales guy sent to various startup-friendly "news" sites. It's not like random people disconnected from the startup cared enough to write or edit an article about it.
  - bena 5y ago
    How can the people in charge of that not see how insincere it comes across? Is it just a massive ego stroke for those in charge?
aluminum96 5y ago
These goals aren't in tension. Merit comes from who you hire. Diversity comes from who you interview. Cast a wide net, give opportunities to diverse candidates, and you'll end up right.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  This simply isn't true when the expectations are out of sync with the labor pool. For example, 90+% of programmers are male, so not all firms can meet a 50-50 gender balance. Top firms try, but that will pull from somewhere. The same goes for race/ethnicity.
  - slowmovintarget 5y ago
    Right. This is the fallacy of assuming the cause of disparate outcomes occurs in the place where the outcome is measured. The causal factors, in this case, occur before the candidates even apply.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  This is frequently proven wrong by actual numbers. Remember when ElectronConf was cancelled a few years back [1]? The process was completely open, and all judging was completely blind, and still there was a huge uproar when the accepted panels didn't match some folks' notions of what a diverse slate of speakers should be. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868
- stmfreak 5y ago
  Bingo. Diversity begins in schools.
legitster 5y ago
I don't think these statements are necessarily wrong, but I might push back a bit. On a smaller team, hiring high performers is obviously important. But for large organizations, there is a WIDE tolerance for incompetence. Hiring staff consistently underestimate how much can be learned on the job. Mid-managers are much, much more easily replaced than anyone wants to admit - and if you are already hiring lifestyle employees, you may as well be hiring a diverse set of project jockeys. I won't go so far as to say merit is a myth, but adequately assessing merit at scale during a hiring process does feel pretty fraught.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I wouldn't say so. I've done a lot hiring for programming positions at various seniority levels. I've never found it hard to determine if a person can write code and communicate clearly about code written. It usually takes no more than a handful of specific questions and a 5-10min live coding exercise. I find 90%+ of candidates are unable to meet a basic standard. The candidate could have no video and obfuscated audio, and I'd still enthusiastically hire them if they fell into the 10%. Most people I've spoken to have the same experience. Programming is an employee's market and stands to be into the future. As such, I don't think anyone who can code is at a significant disadvantage.
  - davidbanham 5y ago
    Live coding during an interview is a particularly stressful environment that bears little relation to the day to day work of building software. Have you considered that if 90% of your vetted applicants are failing your test that there might be something wrong with your methodology?
    - stmfreak 5y ago
      Nope. You can live code with very simple questions. Very simple. Then explore what they wrote and why. If they cannot build rapport and have a conversation with you, how are they going to build rapport and have conversations with the other coders on your team?
iandanforth 5y ago
So as far as I can tell the only way to do diversity hiring legally, and not 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' legally, is to change the distribution of your pipeline through demographically informed advertising. If someone enters your funnel and you use race etc as a decision making factor then you're probably breaking the law (1). If you advertise a role as for a specific gender or race you're definitely breaking the law. So to get the change at the end of the hiring pipeline you want you need to make sure the top of the pipeline are skewed strongly in the direction you want to move the company. Maybe I'm off base but this takes two things: 1. Stop advertising in forums / regions / services that don't match the target demographics you need at the top of the pipeline. 2. Start advertising in ones that do. (1) Don't get me wrong, I would support changing laws to make it easier to explicitly correct historical iniquities.
- break_the_bank 5y ago
  Is this an advertisement problem? Does google have to advertise jobs? Does Snowflake? I’d assume that any CS grad would apply to all these firms. I certainly did when I was in university.
- ardit33 5y ago
  No, it is racist and discriminatory.... We end up with bizzare scenarios, where someone form Nepal, or Palestine, is considered as 'privileged', as they are asian, and weirdly arabs are counted as 'white'. While someone from Argentina or Chile, is considered as unprivileged as they are Latinos. Which is ridiculous, as Nepal's gpd is just 1k USD per capita, while Argentina and Chile are 10x and 14x that. Also, some South American/Latino countries are actually richer than many Eastern European countries, (countries like Moldova and Bosnia are poorer than Mexico). Separating people by race/ethnicity feels deeply wrong.
golemiprague 5y ago
Why everybody accept the assumption that diversity, as defined by American progressives, i.e. diversity of skin colour and gender, is a good thing? There is a lot of counter evidence to that, homogeneous teams or groups seems to function better in many cases and for many tasks. A lot of interesting things in this world were developed by homogeneous groups, like nintendo or hiphop, who said being in a diverse group will instill the same state of mind and cultural understanding and flow that helped creating those phenomenons? No to mention that a lot of tasks are bog standart and having a cohesive and homogenous team with good communication and understanding of each other is much more important than some skin colour or gender and dealing with all the sensitivities and different approaches. One day this diversity stupidity will go the same way as UML, an unnecessary complication that doesn't help and doesn't solve any problem. I don't see any problem with different groups in society clustering around certain occupations, it is natural and in some way it creates the actual diverse outcomes rather than forcefully mixing people together to create a large big pile of boring grey blob
GoodJokes 5y ago
Merit is incredibly subjective usually code for professional or something else classist. Being diverse is a merit u to itself for a team. Americans hate messy or squishy topics. Like, who to hire. A lot of this is due to an unworkable hierarchical system of worker exploitation that creates u healthy behaviors. We fall into this or that frameworks. Merit or diversity. It isn’t either/or. You can have both. Only snowflakes think you can’t.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
I'm surprised by how much people seem to have accepted "diversity goals", and that anyone pushing back is seen rather suspiciously. Do people go around office and then think "Oh we don't have anyone blonde in the team, we should hire a blonde person"? Of course not, nobody cares. There should be no "diversity goals". Roles should be filled on merit (that means whatever objective criteria were set when defining the role). Race, gender, etc. should be totally irrelevant. That's the ideal. "Diversity goals" are a symptom of a problem but they also perpetuate the problem by labelling people. The goal should be colour-blindness, gender-blindness, etc. and we won't get there by continuously caring a lot about these attributes and keeping tabs on them.

66 points by htrp 5y ago

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing.

xedrac 5y ago
And yet diversity goals by definition are discriminatory. Perhaps in positions where merit isn't so important, it seems less discriminatory for some reason.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  A lot of people are indeed arguing that there needs to be more "positive discrimination" to help groups who've so far (on average) suffered the effects of negative discrimination. I tend to agree that it's necessary. But understandably, someone who's part of "not going to get an advantage" group would complain of negative discrimination. IANAL, but yeah, in the cold hard logic of laws, positive discrimination is surely against that law. Now watch people misinterpret this comment and call me names...
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Positive discrimination is absolutely discrimination as well. You can't have a job offer that says "only women applicants", but there's nothing illegal about only ever advertising in say, women-targetted media or products, even if the position is open to everyone. That's not defined as descrimination in law(I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that by law that's not discrimination).
    - cm2187 5y ago
      Which is pretty much redlining
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - balls187 5y ago
      That isn't entirely true. There are instances where there is bona fide qualification for being a specific gender. It's not common, but does exist. Megan Fox will not likely win a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on EEO Law if I did not cast her in the role of Barack Obama in my HBO Miniseries on the Death of Osama bin Laden.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    One thing that I don't really like with positive discrimination is that you don't really know if and when it's going to end. I would be more confortable with it if the goal was clear from the start, and the discrimination was then automatically deduced from this. Another point is that when a group of people call for more diversity, which would be attained by employing more people from this group, I tend to see tribalism more than diversity. Of course in a way it's fine, it's the basis of human behavior, but it still feels weird to me.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    There is no such thing as positive discrimination.
  - tylerhou 5y ago
    In my opinion, much of the time "positive discrimination" is a misnomer. The most salient debate is in college admissions — some people believe that BIPOC have an "easier" time getting admitted to schools like Harvard with the same amount of "merit." ("Easier" and "merit" in quotes for reasons below.) Often, they justify this by claiming that Asian and white people have to score much higher on the SAT to gain admissions. But that's probably the wrong metric. The purpose of college is to grow students, which means a better metric of merit is not a snapshot of how proficient a student is at a particular moment in time, but by how much they have improved from some baseline. We also know that society puts BIPOC at a disadvantage because of their race. For example, historical and present day discrimination means that they have less economic power, which directly translates to educational disadvantage (worse schools, worse nutrition, less time interacting with parents who may work longer hours). BIPOC are also less likely to be recommended for gifted programs at the same level of skill. Therefore (because of society) their baseline is lower. So given the above two points, I don't really see admission of BIPOC as discrimination at if you shift the metric to "ability to grow." IMO this is also reflected in the admissions criteria; the ability to overcome adversity is sometimes cited, and adverse life events usually accompany some amount of growth. And even though the average SAT score is lower for BIPOC applicants, that average is not low enough for those people not to be able to handle the courseworks. That's not to say that all BIPOC applicants come from a lower baseline than all Asian/white applicants; of course there will be some distribution overlap. But using growth as a metric (instead of absolute score) could probably explain most of the test score/GPA discrepancy.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      I think this is getting into semantic mismatch at this point, it seems like you and the above commenter agree pretty much in entirety at a conceptual level just using different terms. Your comment describes the meaning encapsulated in the term "positive discrimination". Groups have been disadvantaged throughout history, so the institution is deliberately assigning advantages for members of the group to offset that. > And even though the average SAT score is lower for BIPOC applicants, that average is not low enough for those people not to be able to handle the courseworks. This is not entirely true. Lower SAT scores are correlated with dropping out of certain majors at much higher rates. This is a significant factor in lower URM representation in STEM graduates: https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/10/30/aa-arcidiacono/ https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/10/30/aa-arcidiacono...
- ben_w 5y ago
  If your underlying assumption is that no protected group is more or less meritous than the general population, then in aggregate diversity goals eliminate discrimination. To give a toy example: If half the population has green hair, and the other half blue, and there is no difference between them other than hair colour, you should expect half the candidates to be of each hair colour, and half of the successful applicants of each hair colour. If you don’t see that, that should be a strong signal that your hiring process unreasonably discriminates.
  - mattigames 5y ago
    Unless of course, after a deeper research one discovers than the parts of town where blue hair people live have more access to tech tools and tech information growing up and therefore explains why after reaching working age there are more blue haired people working in tech companies.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    > you should expect half the candidates to be of each hair colour, and half of the successful applicants of each hair colour. The issue we see is that the blue haired people simply aren't applying for our positions, despite the best efforts of the recruitment department who have been told to hire more blue haired people because it makes the green haired management look bad. The people doing the hiring are then told they are discriminatory and are sent on courses. The real issue of course is much more complex and has everything to do with culture, and genetics (women generally have differing interests to men for example - for evolutionary reasons).
    - ben_w 5y ago
      > The real issue of course is much more complex and has everything to do with culture, and genetics Why do you think I listed two fictional hair colours for my hypothetical? Also, why I chose to split into two clauses the fragment you quoted?
  - w-j-w 5y ago
    But what if merit depends on some other institution? Someone with no education/background in an area does not have merit. Employers may wind up hiring in skewed proportions if the talent pool has the same issues.
- slg 5y ago
  Lets say you have two equally qualified candidates. It sounds like you believe that choosing the "diverse" candidate over the majority candidate is discriminatory. If that is the case, why isn't choosing the majority candidate discriminatory against the "diverse" candidate? Diversity goals are not created in order to encourage hiring less capable people. They are challenging companies to work harder on finding the capable "diverse" candidates, reevaluating what it means to be qualified, and whether those qualification criteria actually indicate a capability to perform the job.
  - xedrac 5y ago
    With two equally skilled candidates, defaulting to either candidate because of their race/gender/etc is still discrimination. Flipping a coin would be more fair. I honestly haven't encountered this situation though. You could argue that's because of bias, or my definition of qualified, but I have interviewed and hired some very skilled "diverse" candidates. And I've rejected countless "majority" candidates.
- tylerhou 5y ago
  Diversity goals are only discriminatory if you assume that hiring practices (sans diversity goals) are not discriminatory. That's assumption probably isn't true, given that there numerous studies that show that e.g. black people have a harder time getting callbacks or passing resume screens solely because of the color of their skin, with all else (socioeconomic background, education, etc.) equal. In reality, diversity goals aim to compensate for otherwise discriminatory hiring practices. That's a good thing.
- balls187 5y ago
  If I were to attend job fairs at a number of top Chinese Universities, with headcount to hire 10 students, would I be in violation of EEO Law? What if I had 2 head count, and I first posted to an internal job board before posting to our public careers page. Would I still be in violation of EEO Law? The point I'm making is while diversity goals are dumb sounding on the surface--in theory they force companies to examine innocuous policies and processes that skew hiring towards a certain group of people.
balls187 5y ago
It's really hard to prove that you were not hired based on your race.

rvz 5y ago

Sounds fair and I don't see anything wrong with that. If that's needed to succeed in a hyper-competitive market then I'll seek for the best and the brightest and keep them. Definitely has worked for the FAAMNG companies. Downvoters: How exactly is having some form of diversity quotas system more fairer than merit? I would rather hire the best regardless of their background than to have a fixed set amount of candidates because of the colour of their skin. The latter is extremely discriminatory. Get with the times man and quit being medieval. Relevant quote of the day. [0] [0] https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/1197869084479766529 https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/1197869084479766529

supergirl 5y ago

such a narrow view for a CEO. from what he says I take that he sees no value in a diverse workforce; he sees it only as a cost and he can't spare anything because he needs to deliver growth. > We can’t get distracted in that mission. he sees diversity as a distraction. I read somewhere an interview where he says some time ago he was rejected for a job because they gave it to a diverse candidate. this is his revenge I guess. edit: it was here https://archive.is/dMTEM https://archive.is/dMTEM > In 2019, during an all-hands meeting at Snowflake, Slootman told the story of how early in his career he was rejected for a job he was well qualified for because the company needed to fill a quota of hiring more minorities, a former senior Snowflake employee said.

wreath 5y ago
Only entitled people would be fine with a job that they got knowing it was due to their skin color, gender or other properties not related to their professional skills.
- supergirl 5y ago
  that implies that there is no value at all in having a diverse workforce and hiring a minority candidate is just doing the person a favor. it also implies that people get hired based on professional skills alone. so if a minority person gets lower score it must mean that they don't have enough skill. but in fact, the whole discussion is about (unconscious) bias against minorities. so you can't really assume the interview is fair.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - matchbok 5y ago
    Everyone brings something to the table, regardless of their gender or ethnicity. It seems that you prefer to discriminate against certain people.
  - wreath 5y ago
    If by diverse you mean characteristics such as ethnicity or gender/sex for example, then you're right. The value it (may) add doesn't justify optimizing my hiring pipeline for to increase their representation in my organization. After all, I'm not interested in building a mosaic of all sorts of people. I'm interested in meeting goals of my business. Everyone who can contribute to that effectively is welcome. When we have a candidate who is from a "minority" group and we treat them differently because we assume they suffered more to get where they are so they paid their due and now are entitled to the job position, isn't that an unconscious bias too? When we look at white men and assume they had an easy ride in life, isn't that an unconscious bias too? Look, everyone belongs to different groups at the same time so they have more privileges and advantages in some areas, while in a minority group in another. How far should we go? should we also check who has the least privilege and representation within a minority group before we hire them? Do people in minority groups ever run out of privilege once they acquire it? This whole idea of treating people differently based on their race or other irrelevant attributes is discriminatory and racist. How the hell did we get here? I don't know.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

"Snowflake" is the actual name of the company. I'm so used to seeing that word used as an insult that I assumed the Bloomberg author was using a sassy and editorialized headline.

blakesterz 5y ago

I have no comment on the content of this at all, but I did find it odd they're calling this CEO a "snowflake" in the headline. Nope, "Snowflake Inc. Chief Executive Officer Frank Slootman said the cloud software maker..." he's not A snowflake, he's CEO OF Snowflake. That headlines reads different knowing the difference there.

htrp 5y ago
pretty standard AP style to use the company common name (HP vs Hewlett Packard etc) .... just unfortunate that the computer company named themselves Snowflake?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  It's an innocent coincidence. But the author could have slightly rephrased things for clarity and still have used proper English: "CEO of Snowflake Says..."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Thought the exact thing… only in this timeline would this be a thing.
nindalf 5y ago
What a bizarre thing to take issue with. They're not calling the CEO a Snowflake. This is how news organisations commonly refer to CEOs of companies. Here are a few examples. - Facebook CEO reveals three new features WhatsApp is working (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/facebook-ceo-reveals-three-new-features-whatsapp-is-working-on/articleshow/83206452.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/facebook-ce...) - GM CEO Barra’s pay rose to $23.7 million in 2020 (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-ceo-barras-pay-rose-226-million-2020-2021-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-ceo...) - Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson explains why ... (https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-kevin-johnson-on-his-3-priorities-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-kevin-johnson-...)

Deestan 5y ago

While I agree in principle, a confounding factor is that "merit" has a high degree of subjectivity and bias. Diversity goals are meant to adjust for bias, not override merit. And it feels unfair, because bias is unconscious and we usually aren't aware of it. Unless you fully accept that you are a person with biases that are unconscious and invisible to yourself, it will feel like you're compromising on merit.

dvt 5y ago
> a confounding factor is that "merit" has a high degree of subjectivity and bias I'm not going to downvote you, but I really don't like this semantic maneuvering and I think it's disingenuous. By definition, merit is supposed to be free of bias and be the perfect correlate between qualification and result. If the argument is that humans are flawed and they sometimes don't reach this ideal because of prejudice or what-have-you, that's another discussion entirely. But no, merit does not have a high degree of subjectivity and bias associated with it.
- locopati 5y ago
  "merit does not have a high degree of subjectivity and bias associated with it." really? how does that explain the tendency for white men to fail upwards while women and minorities face a higher standard once hired?
- kjeetgill 5y ago
  I suspect the argument that you throw out as "another discussion entirely" is precisely what the poster sought to address.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"Unless you fully accept that you are a person with biases that are unconscious and invisible to yourself" I'm open to introspection, but at some point "bias" has to become something falsifiable. If it remains something unconscious and invisible, then how does one actually bear responsibility for it? In many ways your quote reminds me of Christianity. Simply replace the word 'bias' with 'sin'.

slg 5y ago

The overwhelming majority of people who push for diversity would agree with that sentiment. The disagreement comes from how people like the Slootman have a tendency to define "merit" in a way that is wildly biased.

generalizations 5y ago
Unfortunately that's not the case, when you look at the effect of so-called "diversity quotas."
- octokatt 5y ago
  ... relevant user name above
  - generalizations 5y ago
    Everyone should always read the usernames. I picked it for a reason. :)
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Oh they don’t all read the usernames. I’ve had at least one person on here (years ago now) assume I must be a woman after I wrote something feminist.
isoskeles 5y ago
I could just as easily state that "people who push for diversity" have a tendency to define "merit" in a way that is wildly biased. What is biased or unbiased specifically in terms of hiring software engineers on their merit?
- slg 5y ago
  >What is biased or unbiased specifically in terms of hiring software engineers on their merit? Nothing. It purely depends on how you define "merit"? For example a lot of tech companies only hire entry level people from elite colleges. That leads to a workforce that is largely white and largely middle to upper class. Sure, the average MIT grad is better than the average boot camp grad, but there are also plenty of boot camp grads that are better than plenty of MIT grads.

supergirl 5y ago

some CEOs want to "make the world a better place" and some CEOs just want to make money

rvz 5y ago
At the end of the day, everybody wants to make money. If '...to "make the world a better place"' means putting in diversity quotas, then it is completely pointless to this goal. Hiring the best and the brightest regardless of their race gets to this goal faster. As long as they are developing the tools that make the company money much faster and on time, I don't care about this 'diversity' nonsense.

slavapestov 5y ago

Merit and diversity are not in opposition to each other. In fact I'd say there is very little merit in hiring in tech today. It's statistically impossible that the best programmers in the world all happen to be 20 year old white dudes who live in San Francisco.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
That's like saying it's statistically impossible for all of the best fashion designers in the world to be 20 somethings that live in NY or Milan. Many of the best programmers in the world move to SF specifically because of the opportunity.
- runako 5y ago
  Fashion doesn't claim to be a meritocracy. Fashion aims to be fashionable.
- meatbundragon 5y ago
  And do many of the best programmers also choose to become white, male, and 20?
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    Whites are more portable
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Given the fact that Indian and East Asian men far exceed their US population ratios in the ranks of SF programmers, I'm baffled why you highlighted white.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dimes 5y ago
Why is it statistically impossible? Where one chooses to live is likely highly correlated with the job market for their skillset in that region.

mgarfias 5y ago

What exactly is diversity anyway? For instance, me: 1/2 Mexican. Dad grew up picking cotton. Great aunts sister in law married Caesar Chavez. And yet, grew up with a computer, and access to tech, university, etc. Am I a diverse hire?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Am I a diverse hire? I feel like the problem started when diversity switched from a group measure to an individual label. Individuals aren't diverse. A 100% Black team isn't racially diverse. A 100% gay team isn't sexual orientation or gender diverse. Asking whether a bisexual Latina is "diverse" or a "diverse hire" should be meaningless.
- mgarfias 5y ago
  “Am I diverse hire” == “do I check the ‘diversity’ box when these things are being counted”

peterbonney 5y ago

Ah yes, the old canard that hiring a more diverse workforce requires a lowering of standards, as opposed to the likelihood that targeting a more diverse candidate pool will bring in a greater proportion of highly qualified candidates (owing to their being under-recruited) and actually lead to a raising of hiring standards. But yes, let's just keep on doing things the way we've always done them. I'm sure it's working great.

matchbok 5y ago
Well, it's either that, or every company is extremely biased in hiring. Which is very, very unlikely as the numbers pretty much match the demographics of the talent pool.

bena 5y ago

Why do articles about this company and man all seem like carefully engineered PR pieces to make the myth they present true? Even the Wikipedia article on Snowflake reads like ad copy.

saalweachter 5y ago
When I was at a small startup, our Wikipedia article was written by our PR/sales guy, with all citations linking to puff announcements the same PR/sales guy sent to various startup-friendly "news" sites. It's not like random people disconnected from the startup cared enough to write or edit an article about it.
- bena 5y ago
  How can the people in charge of that not see how insincere it comes across? Is it just a massive ego stroke for those in charge?

aluminum96 5y ago

These goals aren't in tension. Merit comes from who you hire. Diversity comes from who you interview. Cast a wide net, give opportunities to diverse candidates, and you'll end up right.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
This simply isn't true when the expectations are out of sync with the labor pool. For example, 90+% of programmers are male, so not all firms can meet a 50-50 gender balance. Top firms try, but that will pull from somewhere. The same goes for race/ethnicity.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  Right. This is the fallacy of assuming the cause of disparate outcomes occurs in the place where the outcome is measured. The causal factors, in this case, occur before the candidates even apply.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
This is frequently proven wrong by actual numbers. Remember when ElectronConf was cancelled a few years back [1]? The process was completely open, and all judging was completely blind, and still there was a huge uproar when the accepted panels didn't match some folks' notions of what a diverse slate of speakers should be. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868
stmfreak 5y ago
Bingo. Diversity begins in schools.

legitster 5y ago

I don't think these statements are necessarily wrong, but I might push back a bit. On a smaller team, hiring high performers is obviously important. But for large organizations, there is a WIDE tolerance for incompetence. Hiring staff consistently underestimate how much can be learned on the job. Mid-managers are much, much more easily replaced than anyone wants to admit - and if you are already hiring lifestyle employees, you may as well be hiring a diverse set of project jockeys. I won't go so far as to say merit is a myth, but adequately assessing merit at scale during a hiring process does feel pretty fraught.

thegrimmest 5y ago
I wouldn't say so. I've done a lot hiring for programming positions at various seniority levels. I've never found it hard to determine if a person can write code and communicate clearly about code written. It usually takes no more than a handful of specific questions and a 5-10min live coding exercise. I find 90%+ of candidates are unable to meet a basic standard. The candidate could have no video and obfuscated audio, and I'd still enthusiastically hire them if they fell into the 10%. Most people I've spoken to have the same experience. Programming is an employee's market and stands to be into the future. As such, I don't think anyone who can code is at a significant disadvantage.
- davidbanham 5y ago
  Live coding during an interview is a particularly stressful environment that bears little relation to the day to day work of building software. Have you considered that if 90% of your vetted applicants are failing your test that there might be something wrong with your methodology?
  - stmfreak 5y ago
    Nope. You can live code with very simple questions. Very simple. Then explore what they wrote and why. If they cannot build rapport and have a conversation with you, how are they going to build rapport and have conversations with the other coders on your team?

iandanforth 5y ago

So as far as I can tell the only way to do diversity hiring legally, and not 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' legally, is to change the distribution of your pipeline through demographically informed advertising. If someone enters your funnel and you use race etc as a decision making factor then you're probably breaking the law (1). If you advertise a role as for a specific gender or race you're definitely breaking the law. So to get the change at the end of the hiring pipeline you want you need to make sure the top of the pipeline are skewed strongly in the direction you want to move the company. Maybe I'm off base but this takes two things: 1. Stop advertising in forums / regions / services that don't match the target demographics you need at the top of the pipeline. 2. Start advertising in ones that do. (1) Don't get me wrong, I would support changing laws to make it easier to explicitly correct historical iniquities.

break_the_bank 5y ago
Is this an advertisement problem? Does google have to advertise jobs? Does Snowflake? I’d assume that any CS grad would apply to all these firms. I certainly did when I was in university.
ardit33 5y ago
No, it is racist and discriminatory.... We end up with bizzare scenarios, where someone form Nepal, or Palestine, is considered as 'privileged', as they are asian, and weirdly arabs are counted as 'white'. While someone from Argentina or Chile, is considered as unprivileged as they are Latinos. Which is ridiculous, as Nepal's gpd is just 1k USD per capita, while Argentina and Chile are 10x and 14x that. Also, some South American/Latino countries are actually richer than many Eastern European countries, (countries like Moldova and Bosnia are poorer than Mexico). Separating people by race/ethnicity feels deeply wrong.

golemiprague 5y ago

Why everybody accept the assumption that diversity, as defined by American progressives, i.e. diversity of skin colour and gender, is a good thing? There is a lot of counter evidence to that, homogeneous teams or groups seems to function better in many cases and for many tasks. A lot of interesting things in this world were developed by homogeneous groups, like nintendo or hiphop, who said being in a diverse group will instill the same state of mind and cultural understanding and flow that helped creating those phenomenons? No to mention that a lot of tasks are bog standart and having a cohesive and homogenous team with good communication and understanding of each other is much more important than some skin colour or gender and dealing with all the sensitivities and different approaches. One day this diversity stupidity will go the same way as UML, an unnecessary complication that doesn't help and doesn't solve any problem. I don't see any problem with different groups in society clustering around certain occupations, it is natural and in some way it creates the actual diverse outcomes rather than forcefully mixing people together to create a large big pile of boring grey blob

GoodJokes 5y ago

Merit is incredibly subjective usually code for professional or something else classist. Being diverse is a merit u to itself for a team. Americans hate messy or squishy topics. Like, who to hire. A lot of this is due to an unworkable hierarchical system of worker exploitation that creates u healthy behaviors. We fall into this or that frameworks. Merit or diversity. It isn’t either/or. You can have both. Only snowflakes think you can’t.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

I'm surprised by how much people seem to have accepted "diversity goals", and that anyone pushing back is seen rather suspiciously. Do people go around office and then think "Oh we don't have anyone blonde in the team, we should hire a blonde person"? Of course not, nobody cares. There should be no "diversity goals". Roles should be filled on merit (that means whatever objective criteria were set when defining the role). Race, gender, etc. should be totally irrelevant. That's the ideal. "Diversity goals" are a symptom of a problem but they also perpetuate the problem by labelling people. The goal should be colour-blindness, gender-blindness, etc. and we won't get there by continuously caring a lot about these attributes and keeping tabs on them.