6 ms·

I think DEI efforts can greatly vary. I know that we've worked really hard to ensure that we don't disadvantage anyone -- but it's harder than it sounds. DEI

I think DEI efforts can greatly vary. I know that we've worked really hard to ensure that we don't disadvantage anyone -- but it's harder than it sounds. DEI is often dealing in zero sum spaces. For example, most of the staff is white males. We try hard to hire the best person for the role, but we've instituted a policy where we mandate interviewing underrepresented groups. Not that we will hire them, but that we will interview them. But because of this the interview process can get lengthy and white male candidates maybe tire of waiting and go elsewhere. So in some sense its not fair to the white male. OTOH, most of our personal hiring networks are all white males -- so if we rely on speed to find the next good candidate it will almost always be a white male. I personally think the middle ground we found is good. But still not perfect. Interestingly the best way IMO to fix DEI is to align underrepresenting minority interests with poor white interests (obviously this doesn't work so well for things like sexual identity issues). The fact that poor whites and poor blacks aren't aligned on issues that impact them both creates a tough situation for DEI.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> But because of this the interview process can get lengthy and white male candidates maybe tire of waiting and go elsewhere. So in some sense its not fair to the white male. Isn't it equally obnoxious to everyone? I'm not sure why only the white males would be put out by the wait. The wait, while due to the lengthy interview process, isn't due to them being white males. Unless you interview the white males first for some reason.
- bluGill 5y ago
  If you need to wait for someone who is 1% off the population you might be waiting a while.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    I don't think they are trying to catch 'em all like some sort of human Pokemon, it sounds like they are instead simply making an effort to interview instead of automatically rejecting those who may have no otherwise been interviewed.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> most of the staff is white males I'm a computer programmer. Since about the late 90's, virtually all of my coworkers have been Indians. Yet I keep hearing from the DEI group that white males are overrepresented (and that this is bad). I never hear from the DEI group that Indians (or asians) are overrepresented (and whether this is also good or bad).
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  From that we can conclude that you work at a very unusual workplace, but not much else unless your workplace also includes a noticeable fraction of all software engineers.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    Actually, ten different "very unusual" workplaces in a row over the course of 25 years.
  - oaiey 5y ago
    I would not agree with that. There are many of these shops. But there is different cultures. There are companies which are 90% indians/asian and then there are companies which are 90% white. Which make DEI a bit silly until you look into Higher Management or other departments. Or until you realize that this pattern does not apply with latin or black people.
nradov 5y ago
So are you suggesting that some poor people have the wrong interests on certain issues and they need to fix that? Which issues specifically? I do agree that we should try to be inclusive on interviewing. It's always good to have more candidates to pick from, as long as the process doesn't last too long.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  > So are you suggesting that some poor people have the wrong interests on certain issues and they need to fix that? Which issues specifically? Here I meant that often times issues are raised specifically as race issues, when really you can make the issue more inclusive and get better traction. For example, Black Lives Matter. While I can understand wanting to make the focus on race, it is hard to get traction on that beyond lip service. But if you make it about police accountability in general -- you suddenly find that you get much broader support across the board. And while there may be some nuance that you can't capture with this, you'll find that you'll still make more overall progress even as it applies to Blacks. The same applies for just about any issue related to poverty. If you make it about race, it becomes divisive. If you make it about just helping anyone in poverty then it has much more general appeal. Raising all boats is important. It's also important, and maybe this is where DEI's most important role can be, to track that some classes of boats aren't being systemically left behind -- and adjust policy, not to benefit specific groups, but to make sure all groups are benefitting (within some degree of proportionality).
  - nradov 5y ago
    Should companies give hiring preferences to candidates who currently have a low income? Or who grew up in low income households? Or come from certain Zip codes? I agree we should provide people with greater opportunities, but as a practical matter what are you proposing that employers actually do?
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      I don’t think employers should do any of the sort. I think employers should not discriminate in their hiring (based on race, gender, etc…) and be mindful that they’re not doing so. One of the most important thing companies can do for DEI is pay their fair and expected tax burden.
nullc 5y ago
> Not that we will hire them, but that we will interview them. to the extent that the policy causes you to interview people that are obviously less qualified and won't get hired... damn, that's really bad news for the candidate. Can you imagine that you're a Star-bellied Sneetch and waste day after valuable day of time interviewing for jobs that you won't get hired for, brought in because you happened to have a star-belly and not because you were among the most obvious fits for the job? Talk about being disadvantaged by systematic racism. In the aggregate, sure, its still probably better for them to be extended the interview... but the wasted time chews up a chunk of that benefit. Since your post expresses the view that you go through more interviews due to your laudably-motivated-diversity program than you would otherwise, which means you're also wasting more applicatints time than you would otherwise... perhaps you should suggest that you company pay a reasonable wage to ever person that makes it to an in person interview as a way of offsetting the negative externality? I don't think it would be all that unreasonable once you consider the man-hour cost you're already putting in to interview the candidate, ... paying the candidate would have a similar cost to having one more person on the panel and would go a long way to make sure you're not burdening job hunters with your interviewing practices.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> But because of this the interview process can get lengthy and white male candidates maybe tire of waiting and go elsewhere. So in some sense its not fair to the white male. Isn't it equally obnoxious to everyone? I'm not sure why only the white males would be put out by the wait. The wait, while due to the lengthy interview process, isn't due to them being white males. Unless you interview the white males first for some reason.

bluGill 5y ago
If you need to wait for someone who is 1% off the population you might be waiting a while.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  I don't think they are trying to catch 'em all like some sort of human Pokemon, it sounds like they are instead simply making an effort to interview instead of automatically rejecting those who may have no otherwise been interviewed.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> most of the staff is white males I'm a computer programmer. Since about the late 90's, virtually all of my coworkers have been Indians. Yet I keep hearing from the DEI group that white males are overrepresented (and that this is bad). I never hear from the DEI group that Indians (or asians) are overrepresented (and whether this is also good or bad).

SiempreViernes 5y ago
From that we can conclude that you work at a very unusual workplace, but not much else unless your workplace also includes a noticeable fraction of all software engineers.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  Actually, ten different "very unusual" workplaces in a row over the course of 25 years.
- oaiey 5y ago
  I would not agree with that. There are many of these shops. But there is different cultures. There are companies which are 90% indians/asian and then there are companies which are 90% white. Which make DEI a bit silly until you look into Higher Management or other departments. Or until you realize that this pattern does not apply with latin or black people.

nradov 5y ago

So are you suggesting that some poor people have the wrong interests on certain issues and they need to fix that? Which issues specifically? I do agree that we should try to be inclusive on interviewing. It's always good to have more candidates to pick from, as long as the process doesn't last too long.

kenjackson 5y ago
> So are you suggesting that some poor people have the wrong interests on certain issues and they need to fix that? Which issues specifically? Here I meant that often times issues are raised specifically as race issues, when really you can make the issue more inclusive and get better traction. For example, Black Lives Matter. While I can understand wanting to make the focus on race, it is hard to get traction on that beyond lip service. But if you make it about police accountability in general -- you suddenly find that you get much broader support across the board. And while there may be some nuance that you can't capture with this, you'll find that you'll still make more overall progress even as it applies to Blacks. The same applies for just about any issue related to poverty. If you make it about race, it becomes divisive. If you make it about just helping anyone in poverty then it has much more general appeal. Raising all boats is important. It's also important, and maybe this is where DEI's most important role can be, to track that some classes of boats aren't being systemically left behind -- and adjust policy, not to benefit specific groups, but to make sure all groups are benefitting (within some degree of proportionality).
- nradov 5y ago
  Should companies give hiring preferences to candidates who currently have a low income? Or who grew up in low income households? Or come from certain Zip codes? I agree we should provide people with greater opportunities, but as a practical matter what are you proposing that employers actually do?
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    I don’t think employers should do any of the sort. I think employers should not discriminate in their hiring (based on race, gender, etc…) and be mindful that they’re not doing so. One of the most important thing companies can do for DEI is pay their fair and expected tax burden.

nullc 5y ago

> Not that we will hire them, but that we will interview them. to the extent that the policy causes you to interview people that are obviously less qualified and won't get hired... damn, that's really bad news for the candidate. Can you imagine that you're a Star-bellied Sneetch and waste day after valuable day of time interviewing for jobs that you won't get hired for, brought in because you happened to have a star-belly and not because you were among the most obvious fits for the job? Talk about being disadvantaged by systematic racism. In the aggregate, sure, its still probably better for them to be extended the interview... but the wasted time chews up a chunk of that benefit. Since your post expresses the view that you go through more interviews due to your laudably-motivated-diversity program than you would otherwise, which means you're also wasting more applicatints time than you would otherwise... perhaps you should suggest that you company pay a reasonable wage to ever person that makes it to an in person interview as a way of offsetting the negative externality? I don't think it would be all that unreasonable once you consider the man-hour cost you're already putting in to interview the candidate, ... paying the candidate would have a similar cost to having one more person on the panel and would go a long way to make sure you're not burdening job hunters with your interviewing practices.