3 ms·
>* This is one of the reasons meritocratic "blind" hiring processes are not as equitable as they might seem; they can reflect + re-entrench the current inequita
by b65e8bee43c2ed0 4y ago
>* This is one of the reasons meritocratic "blind" hiring processes are not as equitable as they might seem; they can reflect + re-entrench the current inequitable distribution of "merit".
they are not meant to be "equitable". they're meant to provide equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome
- padolsey 4y agoOh agreed! Sorry about mixed terminology. Though they don't really provide "equality of opportunity" either :/ People w/ more privelege, at the starting line, will have more supposed 'merit' and therefore the CV-blindness only reflects existing inequalities from wider society. A different approach might be quotas and affirmative action.
- TimPC 4y agoI think the poster is arguing that the things we call merit reflects the ability to do the job well. Any system of hiring has to consider the ability to hire the best person for the job. Quotas are an open-admission we can no longer do this. Affirmative action is trickier as some affirmative action can be useful in correcting bias and can actually improve hiring. Too much once again steers us away from the best person for the job. This is important and tricky as if we have across the board decreases in hiring the best person for the job we end up with a less productive economy. This means our hiring practices directly compete against other aims like solving poverty.