3 ms·

> If diversity was actually a strength, then it wouldn't take such a monumental effort (of actual discrimination, no less) to achieve it. This is not even slig

by XorNot 4y ago

> If diversity was actually a strength, then it wouldn't take such a monumental effort (of actual discrimination, no less) to achieve it. This is not even slightly supported by any available evidence: discrimination is so systemic that you can take a white applicant, put a black-sounding name of it and watch as callbacks for that literally exact same CV in the marketplace fall through the floor[1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-applicants-with-black-names-still-less-likely-to-get-the-interview https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-appli...

azangru 4y ago
> This is not even slightly supported by any available evidence Look at it the other way — the article that you cited may serve to support the parent's argument, if this argument is that if diversity were actually a strength, then the companies that have embraced it would have outcompeted the backward companies that haven't; and we wouldn't be seeing discriminatory practices among the Fortune 500 companies, as the authors of the study that you cite claim to have observed.
- fauigerzigerk 4y ago
  >if this argument is that if diversity were actually a strength, then the companies that have embraced it would have outcompeted the backward companies that haven't; and we wouldn't be seeing discriminatory practices among the Fortune 500 companies You're assuming that companies outside of this set of Fortune 500 companies are less discriminatory. Maybe the Fortune 500 are the least bad. Even if the Fortune 500 were the most discriminatory, their size and entrenched position in the market could allow them to stay on top in spite of this and many other weaknesses.
- sanp 4y ago
  You are assuming “diversity is worthwhile” is the same as “diversity alone is required for success”. No one is saying that companies can outcompete based on diversity alone. But that doesn’t mean that diversity is not worthwhile. In fact, several companies do not even do things that have been shown to be worthwhile in outcompeting. You are assuming people in companies behave like perfectly rational automatons who will do exactly what is required to outcompete.
  - the_omegist 4y ago
    I don't know if you're being disingenuous on purpose or if you've just not clear about the parent's objections : You are using "worthwhile" as "(morally) worthwhile (for (an appeased) society)". The parent is clearly stating that, for a corporation, the main goal is to make money by out-competing its rivals. Society is not relevant, here. If such goal was reached by diversity hiring (no need to add "only" : if this policy added even 1% to the end goal, that would be a net positive), laws wouldn't be needed because, except for the most racist ones, companies would be fighting to get all those racially diverse people. Tech companies percentage of indians or chinese workers are very high without any coercion. The simple reality is that talents can be found anywhere but that everybody doesn't have the same amount of talent.
kaczordon 4y ago
I wouldn’t call 2% “dropping through the floor”. It wasn’t able to replicate the previous studies results. Could be a lot of confounding variables here i.e. distinctive names may signal class as well as race.

by XorNot 4y ago

azangru 4y ago

> This is not even slightly supported by any available evidence Look at it the other way — the article that you cited may serve to support the parent's argument, if this argument is that if diversity were actually a strength, then the companies that have embraced it would have outcompeted the backward companies that haven't; and we wouldn't be seeing discriminatory practices among the Fortune 500 companies, as the authors of the study that you cite claim to have observed.

fauigerzigerk 4y ago
>if this argument is that if diversity were actually a strength, then the companies that have embraced it would have outcompeted the backward companies that haven't; and we wouldn't be seeing discriminatory practices among the Fortune 500 companies You're assuming that companies outside of this set of Fortune 500 companies are less discriminatory. Maybe the Fortune 500 are the least bad. Even if the Fortune 500 were the most discriminatory, their size and entrenched position in the market could allow them to stay on top in spite of this and many other weaknesses.
sanp 4y ago
You are assuming “diversity is worthwhile” is the same as “diversity alone is required for success”. No one is saying that companies can outcompete based on diversity alone. But that doesn’t mean that diversity is not worthwhile. In fact, several companies do not even do things that have been shown to be worthwhile in outcompeting. You are assuming people in companies behave like perfectly rational automatons who will do exactly what is required to outcompete.
- the_omegist 4y ago
  I don't know if you're being disingenuous on purpose or if you've just not clear about the parent's objections : You are using "worthwhile" as "(morally) worthwhile (for (an appeased) society)". The parent is clearly stating that, for a corporation, the main goal is to make money by out-competing its rivals. Society is not relevant, here. If such goal was reached by diversity hiring (no need to add "only" : if this policy added even 1% to the end goal, that would be a net positive), laws wouldn't be needed because, except for the most racist ones, companies would be fighting to get all those racially diverse people. Tech companies percentage of indians or chinese workers are very high without any coercion. The simple reality is that talents can be found anywhere but that everybody doesn't have the same amount of talent.

kaczordon 4y ago

I wouldn’t call 2% “dropping through the floor”. It wasn’t able to replicate the previous studies results. Could be a lot of confounding variables here i.e. distinctive names may signal class as well as race.