4 ms·

Extremely likely you would be breaking the law by discriminating against anyone not female. The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else

by buro9 5y ago

Extremely likely you would be breaking the law by discriminating against anyone not female. The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role). You can find an example of this enshrined in UK law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter... (I know you're in the US, but I find the UK law very easy to find and to read). The spirit of it is simple: Interview everyone equally, give all the opportunity... but if you have to choose between 2 candidates who fare equally through interviewing then you may factor in any disadvantages that arise from their sex, gender, race, background, etc... and in those cases you may now favour that candidate. This process does not exclude people or "lower the bar" for the diverse demographic... it favours only when everything else is equal.

wyager 5y ago
> The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role). The only difference between these two things is perhaps a matter of degree. The net result is that you preferentially hire a group based on sex/race/etc.
BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
I totally agree with this, and this is what I try to do myself. However after being part of dozens of hiring panels I noticed a clear trend toward rating females/minorities hire on technical skills than they would give to a white male with the same performance. After having conversations about it I truly don't think the people noticed what they are doing. Even after pointing it out some would still deny it, and of course it's not possible to prove given that it's highly subjective. It's just a really, really hard thing to see in ourselves. I don't know what the answer is. I'm going to keep striving for the standard you laid out, but it's continually difficult to know how you're doing.

by buro9 5y ago

wyager 5y ago

> The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role). The only difference between these two things is perhaps a matter of degree. The net result is that you preferentially hire a group based on sex/race/etc.

BaronVonSteuben 5y ago

I totally agree with this, and this is what I try to do myself. However after being part of dozens of hiring panels I noticed a clear trend toward rating females/minorities hire on technical skills than they would give to a white male with the same performance. After having conversations about it I truly don't think the people noticed what they are doing. Even after pointing it out some would still deny it, and of course it's not possible to prove given that it's highly subjective. It's just a really, really hard thing to see in ourselves. I don't know what the answer is. I'm going to keep striving for the standard you laid out, but it's continually difficult to know how you're doing.