3 ms·
Not fake but better metrics. There are always many different metrics that are available and the choice of metric is often arbitrary. What EEOC is doing is point
by ivalm 4y ago
Not fake but better metrics. There are always many different metrics that are available and the choice of metric is often arbitrary. What EEOC is doing is pointing out that if a metric disproportionally affects some protected category then it is likely a flawed metric for the use case. Again, since there are many different metrics that are available, you can just try another one until you find one that satisfies both your business and diversity needs.
- Ferrotin 4y agoIn fact it really is not likely flawed. The only way you ever get proportionate presence in anything is if there’s a finger on the scale.
- ivalm 4y agoI’m not saying it should be proportional, often times it is impossible to do so. What you can do is check which of functionally equivalent metrics has better non-functional characteristics (eg diversity).
- Ferrotin 4y agoBut diversity isn’t better. That’s just a belief people adopted because of a court ruling that says it’s a valid excuse to discriminate. The point is to discriminate.
- faeriechangling 4y agoWhat you are describing is a bias. You are suggesting we should be bias towards believing a metric is wrong if it disproportionally affects a protected category. One would also assume that if we have it specify “protected category” that we should believe metrics are right even if they negatively affect those in unprotected categories. That’s a political calculation not a logical one. Also in practice members of protected groups who are over represented at a specific business can be disproportionately subject to layoffs to ensure the protection of less represented minorities. The general bias is toward integrating businesses and favouring protected classes for better or for worse.