4 ms·

The US definition of diverse is a bit tricky. I am talking about really obvious things as when an indian / filipino / chinese manager hires only people of their

The US definition of diverse is a bit tricky. I am talking about really obvious things as when an indian / filipino / chinese manager hires only people of their ethnicity. Or in case of Europe in an international company where english is the working language a team comprised of german / russian / french speakers decides to hire only people that speak that language.

cj 4y ago
Thanks for clarifying. In that case it sounds like the problem likely isn’t a lack of diverse candidates, unless your team lead is sourcing candidates and hiring from their personal network (the demographics of an individual’s personal network often heavily “favor”, perhaps unintentionally, that person’s gender/ethnicity/language). If you’re seeing overt discrimination, you may want to consider raising it to management anonymously if your company is large enough (or non-anonymously if you’re accepting that there could be a negative knee jerk reaction from others hearing your concerns)
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  At a company All Hands our company CEO, while talking about diversity, said overtly "we will increase the % of non-White males working here. It does not mean we will discriminate, but we will hire more people who are not White." So, imagine me going to management and saying "I think person X is showing discrimination against White candidates in their hiring practice." What would you anticipate the outcome of that conversation to be?
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    Your approaching it from the wrong angle. You need to narrow it down that a better qualified candidate was passed on for being white. The resume/recruiter stage would be the easiest as you have comparable data. But if it’s at the final stage and both candidates are equally qualified, a cultural fit, and can be taken either or, then it wouldn’t matter since it would be up to the hiring managers preference either way.
  - elif 4y ago
    You are recklessly conflating willful inclusion and willful exclusion, either as a debate tactic or perhaps revealing something about yourself.
    - alldayeveryday 4y ago
      You are using hyperbolic language (recklessly), either as a debate tactic or perhaps revealing something about yourself.
      - elif 4y ago
        Revealing that I know better than to engage racist arguments as legitimate ones.
      - elif 4y ago
        Since you appear ignorant to the modern definition of apartheid, hence considering its usage hyperbolic in the context of race-based hiring practices, I offer you the Cambridge definition, unaltered straight from the dictionary: "a system of keeping groups of people separate and treating them differently, especially when this results in disadvantage for one group"

cj 4y ago

Thanks for clarifying. In that case it sounds like the problem likely isn’t a lack of diverse candidates, unless your team lead is sourcing candidates and hiring from their personal network (the demographics of an individual’s personal network often heavily “favor”, perhaps unintentionally, that person’s gender/ethnicity/language). If you’re seeing overt discrimination, you may want to consider raising it to management anonymously if your company is large enough (or non-anonymously if you’re accepting that there could be a negative knee jerk reaction from others hearing your concerns)

alldayeveryday 4y ago
At a company All Hands our company CEO, while talking about diversity, said overtly "we will increase the % of non-White males working here. It does not mean we will discriminate, but we will hire more people who are not White." So, imagine me going to management and saying "I think person X is showing discrimination against White candidates in their hiring practice." What would you anticipate the outcome of that conversation to be?
- Jcowell 4y ago
  Your approaching it from the wrong angle. You need to narrow it down that a better qualified candidate was passed on for being white. The resume/recruiter stage would be the easiest as you have comparable data. But if it’s at the final stage and both candidates are equally qualified, a cultural fit, and can be taken either or, then it wouldn’t matter since it would be up to the hiring managers preference either way.
- elif 4y ago
  You are recklessly conflating willful inclusion and willful exclusion, either as a debate tactic or perhaps revealing something about yourself.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    You are using hyperbolic language (recklessly), either as a debate tactic or perhaps revealing something about yourself.
    - elif 4y ago
      Revealing that I know better than to engage racist arguments as legitimate ones.
    - elif 4y ago
      Since you appear ignorant to the modern definition of apartheid, hence considering its usage hyperbolic in the context of race-based hiring practices, I offer you the Cambridge definition, unaltered straight from the dictionary: "a system of keeping groups of people separate and treating them differently, especially when this results in disadvantage for one group"