4 ms·
> 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.
> 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.
Promotion or bonus, do the details really matter? In either case, Google's internal DEI initiatives caused managers either directly or indirectly to favor women. You can't just set diversity KPIs and expect managers to respect anti-discrimination law. Incentives matter.
> completely invalidate the point you were going for
That Asians are systemically discriminated against by affirmative action? That affirmative action is wrong and racist/sexist? That Google systemically discriminates against Asians through its DEI initiatives?
> I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups
Correct, it is possible for women to have been discriminated against by sexist managers and for another set of managers to have discriminated against men and Asians through DEI programs. One of these things is a program promoted by Google and one is not.
> its not zero sum
So why don't you give up your job to a female person of color then? Headcount is zero sum. If you favor specific minorities, other people get less spots. That's zero sum by definition.
> these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones
That's where you've got it wrong. Affirmative action doesn't favor nonwhites over whites, it favors specific nonwhites (mainly blacks and latinos) over Asians. If you look at the stats before and after the University of California system banned affirmative action, the proportion of whites stayed about the same [1]. That's what I mean by "you aren't affected by such policies". When you implement affirmative action, it's Asians taking the hit for your moral grandstanding. As a white person, you have no right to come and lecture us minorities about "diversity" and "equity" and "inclusion" when your own policies are racist.
[1] https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-action-uc-berkeley-enrollment/ https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-act...
For most of my life, I didn't live in the bay area. I lived in a place where Asians are less than 5% of the population, which is like most of the US. Disfavoring Asians in such a place is ineffective, as there aren't enough to have an appreciable effect. Are you claiming affirmative action doesn't exist in such areas?
There's a bunch of other nonsense in your post (like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent, or the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more), but like this feels extra egregious.
> Disfavoring Asians in such a place is ineffective, as there aren't enough to have an appreciable effect. Are you claiming affirmative action doesn't exist in such areas?
Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing. You'll notice also that California is aggressively trying to implement affirmative action to disadvantage Asians despite Asians being only 15% of the population in CA.
Are you claiming that affirmative action doesn't disadvantage Asians? Because that is demonstrably false, as evidenced by SFFA vs Harvard, the data out of the UC system before and after Prop 209, and comparing the racial makeup schools of similar caliber that do and do not utilize affirmative action.
> like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent
I never mentioned any numbers in my post. Please don't lie.
> the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more
It is a fact that Google managers used internal discretionary funds to pay women more. It is also a fact that Google managers have diversity KPIs they are encouraged to meet as part of their performance: "At Google, we measure the progress against these [DEI] goals with various metrics across hiring, progression, retention, and inclusion" [1]. I will let you come to your own conclusion as to how the latter could lead to the former.
[1] https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/future-of-marketing/management-and-culture/diversity-and-inclusion/inclusivity-builder-diverse-workforce/ https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/future-of-marketi...
> I will let you come to your own conclusion as to how the latter could lead to the former.
Given that I know the size of these discretionary funds, I can practically guarantee it didn't. For context, my manager recently stretched his discretion to the limit for a coworker, and was able to bend their salary by around half a percent. A few hundred dollars isn't going to retain anyone at a FAANG.
> Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing.
No, but you did say it doesn't disfavor whites, it disfavors Asians. I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians.
> 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...