3 ms·

Yep. The worries over "Am I just a diversity hire?" are a real concern. :( I really wish that applicants were required to give less information, not more. I do

Yep. The worries over "Am I just a diversity hire?" are a real concern. :( I really wish that applicants were required to give less information, not more. I don't want to know your name, or how old you are, or where you're from. I just want to know what your credentials are. Personally, I feel like criminal records, outside of specific work like working with weapons, children/elderly, or law enforcement, should not be asked on applications. If they served their time, let them live their lives. It's incredibly frustrating that there's all of these extraneous attributes we're supposed to hem and haw over, like we're choosing the best fruit in the market. It's human beings, and they should be treated in as fair and neutral manner as feasibly possible. Best man wins.

revlolz 4y ago
I've found that the only controllable practices are to force our hr to send anonimized resumes to my interview team and to zealously challenge bias through panel review questions to interviewers. Our reviews can't detail things like "not a culture fit" or "is unqualified." there has to be a specific quantifiable reason for decline or hire. We've never had anyone openly discriminate because I don't sincerely believe people do (intentionally) , but I'm willing to put faith into the concept of unconscious bias and take action to challenge it with methods that do not hypocritcally embrace discrimation of protected class/features/etc. However, I strongly believe dei equity creates more racism rather than remove it. All opinions here subjective, maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's best for both candidate and company.
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  Man, that sounds like an incredible system! The company that I am working for currently is, frankly, desperate to keep people on staff and struggling to hire competent people to fill the roles we have open. I really can't see them going for anything of that caliber of hiring process any time soon, but I will absolutely keep that in mind. And, yep, even though it's only your and my own opinion, it certainly seems like some form of mandated quota, initiative, etc. does seem to cause some level of damage, whether it be as bad, or worse, than the thing it's trying to defeat. It's not so much an outer thing, but an inner thing that gnaws at your confidence and ability. I find the idea of offering some kind of special leverage to be demeaning in a way I can't quite express. To my ears, it comes off as, "We know that you can't win without our help, so we'll throw you a bone. Be grateful to us now." I get that's not the intention, but man, it's hard to even see how the outcome is all that different. I just want to see myself, and others succeed purely based on merit. On doing a good job. And if that means that a manager, "See's a lot of white faces in the office" then it ought not be seen as a problem, but instead - shocker - the companies workforce. To not see those workers as some metric. The idea of being counted out like grapes for some fruit salad...it's just crushing.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  equity is a word that has replaced equality or equal opportunity because it in used to mean "equivalent outcome". It doesn't matter what your process is, if it doesn't produce the "desired" diverse outcome, it is not equitable. the dei crowd would not accept your formulation because it doesn't guarantee equitable outcomes. pointing it out because when we don't use words the same way, we're not really communicating.

revlolz 4y ago

I've found that the only controllable practices are to force our hr to send anonimized resumes to my interview team and to zealously challenge bias through panel review questions to interviewers. Our reviews can't detail things like "not a culture fit" or "is unqualified." there has to be a specific quantifiable reason for decline or hire. We've never had anyone openly discriminate because I don't sincerely believe people do (intentionally) , but I'm willing to put faith into the concept of unconscious bias and take action to challenge it with methods that do not hypocritcally embrace discrimation of protected class/features/etc. However, I strongly believe dei equity creates more racism rather than remove it. All opinions here subjective, maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's best for both candidate and company.

registeredcorn 4y ago
Man, that sounds like an incredible system! The company that I am working for currently is, frankly, desperate to keep people on staff and struggling to hire competent people to fill the roles we have open. I really can't see them going for anything of that caliber of hiring process any time soon, but I will absolutely keep that in mind. And, yep, even though it's only your and my own opinion, it certainly seems like some form of mandated quota, initiative, etc. does seem to cause some level of damage, whether it be as bad, or worse, than the thing it's trying to defeat. It's not so much an outer thing, but an inner thing that gnaws at your confidence and ability. I find the idea of offering some kind of special leverage to be demeaning in a way I can't quite express. To my ears, it comes off as, "We know that you can't win without our help, so we'll throw you a bone. Be grateful to us now." I get that's not the intention, but man, it's hard to even see how the outcome is all that different. I just want to see myself, and others succeed purely based on merit. On doing a good job. And if that means that a manager, "See's a lot of white faces in the office" then it ought not be seen as a problem, but instead - shocker - the companies workforce. To not see those workers as some metric. The idea of being counted out like grapes for some fruit salad...it's just crushing.
fsckboy 4y ago
equity is a word that has replaced equality or equal opportunity because it in used to mean "equivalent outcome". It doesn't matter what your process is, if it doesn't produce the "desired" diverse outcome, it is not equitable. the dei crowd would not accept your formulation because it doesn't guarantee equitable outcomes. pointing it out because when we don't use words the same way, we're not really communicating.