4 ms·
> You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party.
Correct.
> That means DEI programs
L
> You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party.
Correct.
> That means DEI programs
Let me know where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies. We were discussing a particular minority aware funding program. You decided to bring up headcount, something no one else was discussing.
> I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes
Sure, yes, this is fine.
> and promotions.
Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though.
> Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2].
You should really read those links better. Your first showed that a particular crosstab of engineers (that I belonged to, in fact!) were being systemically underpaid (by, if I recall, something like .25%). Your second link notes that Google settled both against Asian applicants, and against female applicants and employees. So, Google was, per your own source, systematically underpaying women (by a larger margin over a larger period) and their internal study failed to recognize that, and instead gave me a small bonus.
> Sure, yes, this is fine.
Most minorities themselves don't think it's fine: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pew-poll https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe.... Hispanics oppose the practice 69-27, and Black people oppose it 54-37.
To put that into context, Hispanics are more unified in opposing taking race into account in hiring than they are in supporting Joe Biden. White liberals are imposing this practice upon them.
Your link and what I said I support aren't the same thing. I'm going to ask you to ensure that you're responding to the strongest interpretation of what I'm saying (and maybe reconsider your priors if "DEI" to you means "explicitly favor applicants based on race"). I really don't like having to deal with motte and bailey, even if it's unintentional.
Google doesn't consider race or ethnicity (or gender or..) during the hiring or promotion process. Prioritizing someone's resume (e.g. giving them an interview first) because they're underrepresented is vastly different than hiring or promoting someone less qualified.
> where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies
Well, the CA Democratic Party's official position is that you should have supported Prop 16, which would have unbanned race based affirmative action (racism) [1].
> Sure, yes, this is fine.
It is not fine. Myself and many others reject this sort of practice. California voters rejected Prop 16 by a 15 pt margin. It is illegal under federal discrimination laws to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. It is racism, plain and simple. Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. Pretending you are morally superior by discriminating against minorities through affirmative action is just as bad as white supremacy.
This sort of "it's fine" attitude is why Trump got elected. And before you accuse me of being a white cis-male, I'm not white.
> You should really read those links better
> Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though.
I quote from the article: "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". This is literally the sort of DEI affirmative action sexism I was mentioning. You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against because women being underpaid fits your political narrative better. One of these things is a direct result of Google's internal policy to discriminate against "overrepresented" minorities like Asians and one of these things is not.
[1] https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositions-on-the-2020-November-Ballot-.pdf https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositi...
> "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category".
Right, so you lied when you said that they were prioritizing promoting women, which is false, and is completely unrelated to what you quoted in the article.
>You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against
No I didn't. I literally mentioned them. Me pointing out that you did entirely ignore the discrimination against women (because it does in fact completely invalidate the point you were going for) isn't ignoring Asians. Like I keep saying, its not zero sum. I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups.
> Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral.
I'm confused, so please explain it to me:
If I'm white, and these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones, how could I be unaffected?
> I can practically guarantee it didn't
If that was the case, then Google would not have been sued by the Department of Labor. Don't presume to understand what a manager is capable of doing when you are a mere engineer IC. The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers). A few hundred dollars is probably less than your team gets for a single social event. If retaining a woman would boost the manager's diversity KPIs, it's easy to see how the diversity KPIs would cause discriminatory retention bonuses.
> I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians.
Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country? Even if locally there are few Asians, they are still discriminated against by affirmative action. If I'm an Asian in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky and I apply to Harvard, I still get screwed by affirmative action equally as much as the Asian applying from California.
The situation you're talking about where there are no Asians competing for a spot doesn't exist for jobs and schools with any level of selectivity.
> I merely said the percentage of whites is the same between schools which do and do not use affirmative action, in both schools which are prestigious and those which are not.
But this isn't true. Berkley is 25% white, Harvard is ~40% white, Tulane is 61% white. If what you said were true, all three would have similar white populations.
Let me try and clarify this for you one last time. Not all schools get them same population of applicants, so you would not expect all schools to get the same population of attendees. National target schools, and schools in areas with large Asian populations, may have relatively large Asian populations. But other schools, including relatively selective ones, in areas with smaller Asian populations, will not have many Asian applicants.
If such a school wants to engage in Affirmative action programs, it cannot do so by discriminating against Asian applicants, because it does not have an excess number of Asian applicants to discriminate against.
You have claimed previously that such a thing cannot happen, and that even if it did that it "doesn't matter at all". What I have shown are highly selective schools with applicant pools that have a relatively small number of Asians, and I previously demonstrated that such schools engage in affirmative action programs. This demonstrates that such schools disfavor white students when favoring minority applicants.
> Except the evidence is overwhelming that Asians have to have higher SAT scores, stronger extracurriculars, and stronger profiles to be admitted compared to both whites and other minorities.
Right, now apply the exact same argument to white applicants in comparison to other minorities in regard to the schools I mentioned like Tulane, Emory, Chapel Hill, etc. You would expect white students to be overrepresented compared to the baseline population (much as Asian students are in schools that they target), but they aren't, while Hispanic and Black students often are overrepresented.
So can you explain to me how precisely the same behavior is harmful racism against Asians when done by Berkeley or Harvard, but somehow doesn't happen, or if it does it "doesn't matter" when it's at Tulane or Emory and impacts white students?
I'll also mention that twice now you've accused me of white supremacy based solely on your assumption that I am white, and your further belief that a white person, I cannot be harmed by affirmative action policies. In reality, it appears that your actual belief is that affirmative action that harms white people "doesn't matter", and that because it "doesn't matter" a White person cannot be harmed by it.
> Your claim that all races must have equal representation to their proportion of the population ignores the impact of culture on outcomes.
I, uhh, I didn't make this claim.
> No, I claimed affirmative action was illegal under the Civil Rights Act and racist.
So when you said "Affirmative action is bad for society.", you didn't mean that ending affirmative action would be good for society? What's the option I'm missing?
> And you dismiss minorities' opinions as invalid and dismiss the fact that a majority of minorities say they don't want race to be taken into account in the workplace (see the Vox link in my previous comment).
I remain confused, I side with the majority on responses to the vox link. While I didn't explicitly state it here[0], my response there should make it clear that I also don't believe that companies should consider race when making hiring or promotion decisions. Like, I'm already on record saying the opposite of wat you think I'm saying. I've never said anything that implies otherwise, so I don't know why you're claiming that I disagree with minorities about this thing when I don't.
Like, it's also not a good idea to treat minorities as a monolith. While you clearly oppose Affirmative Action, 80% of Hispanic adults and 70% of Black adults do support them[1], so claiming that I am ignoring minorities simply because I disagree with you is to disregard, well, quite literally the majority of nonwhite Americans, who also disagree with you.
And that's fine! Minorities aren't monolithic and you're perfectly free to disagree with anyone you like, but please refrain from accusing me of white supremacy simply because I disagree with you, it's rude.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32186694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32186694
[1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/352832/americans-confidence-racial-fairness-waning.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/352832/americans-confidence-rac...