4 ms·
A more reasonable metric to use seems to be whether a group is over/underrepresented in a company compared to the available workforce (not overall population),
by tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
A more reasonable metric to use seems to be whether a group is over/underrepresented in a company compared to the available workforce (not overall population), and I'm not sure whether neurodiverse people are overrepresented by that metric.
However, even more important would be to try to give everyone a fair chance, as opposed to trying to meet some metrics which can often lead to discrimination (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590346891/ex-google-recruiter-sues-alleging-policies-discriminate-against-white-and-asian- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590346891...).
Since neurodiversity isn't one of the "popular" diversity/social justice topics, I suspect the main motivation here is to avoid missing applicants that are technically skilled and suitable, but may not do well in the interview process due to their neurodiversity.
- Thorentis 5y agoWhat is the issue with certain groups being over or under represented? Physically fit people are over-represented in sport. Attractive people are over-represented in modelling. High IQ people are over represented in rocket science. Who cares? We need to stop sacrificing everything on the altar of diversity.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoIt can indicate systemic discrimination. Note can, not always does, which seems to be how it's treated.
- titanomachy 5y agoIt is a popular topic within Google, at least.
- faeriechangling 5y agoI don't really see why targeting the company is useful other than for political practicality because it's rather easy to hold entire companies accountable than some manager hiring for some specific IT role in small enough numbers its harder to not give them the benefit of the doubt. For starters, if you don't care about what job role a diverse group lands up in, does that mean it's okay if they don't get any upper level well compensated jobs so long as they're staffed in many lower paying jobs? In regards to avoiding discrimination, and giving everybody a fair chance, I don't see a system that accomplishes this besides a lottery. The job interview is fundamentally a ritual of discrimination. The entire fixation on increasing employment for a small number of "diverse" groups is mostly driven by the political strength of said groups rather than any sort of consistent moral principles.