5 ms·

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

by 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.

by influx 5y ago

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.