7 ms·

The comment was about not allowing them in the interviewing process.

avalys 5y ago
…it says “manage and interview”?
oh_sigh 5y ago
If interviewing is considered a normal job function, isn't not allowing certain people to interview certain people a violation of EEO laws by discriminating based on a protected class(national origin)? Unless you have some specific knowledge that an employee just can't handle people of nationality X, I would be very hesitant to institute OP's advice, at least in the US.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Probably not? I know plenty of tech companies that make sure female applicants get interviewed by at least one female engineer during the hiring process. They have a good faith belief this reduces discrimination rather than increasing it. Of course, it could stray into discriminatory territory if you're doing something dumb - like sending all minority applicants to a hardass interviewer who rejects everyone; or giving certain employees a burdensome number of interviews on the basis of their race, at the cost of their other duties. But you should already be on top of issues like that anyway.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    Having a woman in the room when other women are getting interviewed isn't discriminatory. Telling a woman she can't interview someone because she is a woman (or other protected class) is.
    - kbelder 5y ago
      They both are explicitly sexist. Hard to define that away. Maybe it's not bad; but it's sexist. Just as it would be racist if the criteria was making sure one of the interviewers was of specific race or nationality.
      - berdario 5y ago
        That's your opinion, most people probably disagree. A common way to define racism is: negative prejudice + power (The same can be done for sexism, though obviously on different characteristics) From that point of view, making sure that a marginalized candidate is also interviewed by at least one member of the same marginalized community, if possible, is neither racist nor sexist. (Because you're not negatively discriminating, and in fact to define the rule you don't even need to single out which marginalized community they are part of)
        oh_sigh 5y ago
        The "+ power" only exists in deep academic redefinitions of racism(where many terms are redefined away from their commonplace meaning), and leftist twitter which latched onto the former for some reason. Most normal Americans, if asked to rank the statements "Black people are disgusting pigs", and "White people are disgusting pigs", would rank them as equally racist, regardless of whether white or black people have "power" in America.
        andybak 5y ago
        But didn't the term originally come from academia? I'd be curious to know about the actual etymology here. It's not uncommon for words to have a technical meaning and a colloquial one. I don't see HN getting upset that "theory" is used differently by those awful academics compared to the common man.
        int_19h 5y ago
        It really isn't a common way to define it. The colloquial definition of racism is still racial prejudice, regardless of power. This is also the way it was used historically - both W.E.B. DuBois and MLK referred to "black racists", for example. It was redefined to "... + power" after the Civil Rights Era, but it didn't really catch up outside of the more academic social justice circles.
        berdario 5y ago
    - bradleyjg 5y ago
      The law (in the US) protects everyone against discrimination on the basis of sex. Women have no special status under these laws.
  - burnoutgal 5y ago
    I have been the token woman interviewing a woman and also joined teams where the only other woman interviewed me. It always struck me more as "look, we have one and she's not mouthing 'get out' so we're a good employer". Usually once I join the one other woman leaves and the cycle repeats.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
      > "look, we have one and she's not mouthing 'get out' so we're a good employer". Yes, we have done this in the past with minorities...
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      How else would you recommend they approach the situation? Should the other woman not have been bothered to interview you? Maybe a more generous interpretation is that people are flawed, and they're making an effort as imperfect as it is. I I feel the alternative is a catch-22, and everybody be damned regardless of the motive, effort, our outcome - nothing will be good enough.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  And if you do “have some specific knowledge that an employee just can’t handle people of nationality X”, disallowing them from interviewing them is a woefully inadequate response. “Yeah we know Pat’s a racist a-hole, but we fixed it by just not letting Pat interview people he’s racist against. It’s an elegant solution.”

…it says “manage and interview”?

If interviewing is considered a normal job function, isn't not allowing certain people to interview certain people a violation of EEO laws by discriminating based on a protected class(national origin)? Unless you have some specific knowledge that an employee just can't handle people of nationality X, I would be very hesitant to institute OP's advice, at least in the US.

michaelt 5y ago
Probably not? I know plenty of tech companies that make sure female applicants get interviewed by at least one female engineer during the hiring process. They have a good faith belief this reduces discrimination rather than increasing it. Of course, it could stray into discriminatory territory if you're doing something dumb - like sending all minority applicants to a hardass interviewer who rejects everyone; or giving certain employees a burdensome number of interviews on the basis of their race, at the cost of their other duties. But you should already be on top of issues like that anyway.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  Having a woman in the room when other women are getting interviewed isn't discriminatory. Telling a woman she can't interview someone because she is a woman (or other protected class) is.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    They both are explicitly sexist. Hard to define that away. Maybe it's not bad; but it's sexist. Just as it would be racist if the criteria was making sure one of the interviewers was of specific race or nationality.
    - berdario 5y ago
      That's your opinion, most people probably disagree. A common way to define racism is: negative prejudice + power (The same can be done for sexism, though obviously on different characteristics) From that point of view, making sure that a marginalized candidate is also interviewed by at least one member of the same marginalized community, if possible, is neither racist nor sexist. (Because you're not negatively discriminating, and in fact to define the rule you don't even need to single out which marginalized community they are part of)
      - oh_sigh 5y ago
        The "+ power" only exists in deep academic redefinitions of racism(where many terms are redefined away from their commonplace meaning), and leftist twitter which latched onto the former for some reason. Most normal Americans, if asked to rank the statements "Black people are disgusting pigs", and "White people are disgusting pigs", would rank them as equally racist, regardless of whether white or black people have "power" in America.
        andybak 5y ago
        But didn't the term originally come from academia? I'd be curious to know about the actual etymology here. It's not uncommon for words to have a technical meaning and a colloquial one. I don't see HN getting upset that "theory" is used differently by those awful academics compared to the common man.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        It really isn't a common way to define it. The colloquial definition of racism is still racial prejudice, regardless of power. This is also the way it was used historically - both W.E.B. DuBois and MLK referred to "black racists", for example. It was redefined to "... + power" after the Civil Rights Era, but it didn't really catch up outside of the more academic social justice circles.
        berdario 5y ago
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    The law (in the US) protects everyone against discrimination on the basis of sex. Women have no special status under these laws.
- burnoutgal 5y ago
  I have been the token woman interviewing a woman and also joined teams where the only other woman interviewed me. It always struck me more as "look, we have one and she's not mouthing 'get out' so we're a good employer". Usually once I join the one other woman leaves and the cycle repeats.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
    > "look, we have one and she's not mouthing 'get out' so we're a good employer". Yes, we have done this in the past with minorities...
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    How else would you recommend they approach the situation? Should the other woman not have been bothered to interview you? Maybe a more generous interpretation is that people are flawed, and they're making an effort as imperfect as it is. I I feel the alternative is a catch-22, and everybody be damned regardless of the motive, effort, our outcome - nothing will be good enough.
sokoloff 5y ago
And if you do “have some specific knowledge that an employee just can’t handle people of nationality X”, disallowing them from interviewing them is a woefully inadequate response. “Yeah we know Pat’s a racist a-hole, but we fixed it by just not letting Pat interview people he’s racist against. It’s an elegant solution.”