4 ms·

A bit off-topic, but how do people actually feel about being diversity hires? Doesn't that feel... Demeaning? I've once had a talk with a CEO (a very technical

A bit off-topic, but how do people actually feel about being diversity hires? Doesn't that feel... Demeaning? I've once had a talk with a CEO (a very technical one) of an ML/CV company, who told me a story of how some American company wanted to hire her as a female manager. She was super offended by this and declined. When asked why, she said that she wanted to be hired for her skills, rather than for her set of genitalia. So my question is: don't diversity hires feel devaluated? Or maybe I just underestimate the level of day-to-day discrimination in the US and the alternative is worse? P.S. I don't live in a western country so excuse me if any of this sounds insensitive.

Dalewyn 4y ago
I'm Japanese-American and have, thankfully, never experienced being a diversity hire. If I were presented with such a situation though, I would take that as an insult and refuse the offer or quit ASAP because I want to be judged for who I am rather than what I am.
version_five 4y ago
This is just my opinion, there is a group of "professional diversity hires" - usually very well off but with some trendy ethnicity in their background that play it up and use their heritage to further their career. This diversity stuff basically pushes these people to the front of the line. There are also of course (as a majority) legit people from whatever trendy background that just want to do their job, and see all the fawning over "diversity" either as something to ignore (like most of us do). And then there are a few that choose to engage with it and see it as actively offensive, which it is when you think about it. So bottom line, my feeling is that the way "diverse" - trendily ethnic or genedered etc people feel about it is about the same as everyone feels about it
- jasongi 4y ago
  I don’t see this as any different to traditional office politics and the self serving “dark triad” personalities you come across. The key component of Machiavellianism is using whatever means you have. That could be in-group status OR out-group status, the result is the same. The label of “professional diversity hire” is harmful to those in the majority group you identified who aren’t playing that game. So just call it for what it is rather than enabling discrimination with a dog whistle.
jasongi 4y ago
Diversity hire is a dog whistle. If you are a low performer in the in-group, you are label as a low performer. If you are a low performer in the out group, you are labelled as a diversity hire. Even if you are not low performing, you’re still under constant pressure to prove you’re not a diversity hire. People usually don’t have the designation of “diversity hire” officially bestowed on them by a company. They are just given to people who are in the out-group by people in the in-group. In your story, it sounds like a company explicitly was searching for a woman as a manager or the CEO got that impression. I don’t know American laws but where I am the exemptions for explicitly hiring a job based on a protected category are very limited and need to be intrinsically link - think things like requiring a woman for a female role in a movie or requiring a member of X cultural group for an outreach role focusing on that group. Obviously this is very hard to police, and people do consider protected categories in hiring practices, sometimes in favour of an in-group and sometimes in favour of an out-group. You might argue that the existence of diversity quotas, targets, policies or programs is the cause of the the different treatment, but it is not. Even if the company had a very explicit “best candidate wins - no special treatment” policy - you can’t escape in-group vs out-group politics. It is just that the dog whistle used will change. Even if a company has no diversity policy, the laws exist and so the whistle will change from “X is diversity hire” to “they can’t fire X because they’re afraid of lawsuits”. Most people in out-groups will just end up adopting a persona that is acceptable enough to the in-group in order to survive. But this also does bad damage to a person’s identity. Ironically, one of the best ways to prove yourself as a member of the in-group is to blow the same dog whistles - as the female CEO did in your example.

Dalewyn 4y ago

I'm Japanese-American and have, thankfully, never experienced being a diversity hire. If I were presented with such a situation though, I would take that as an insult and refuse the offer or quit ASAP because I want to be judged for who I am rather than what I am.

version_five 4y ago

This is just my opinion, there is a group of "professional diversity hires" - usually very well off but with some trendy ethnicity in their background that play it up and use their heritage to further their career. This diversity stuff basically pushes these people to the front of the line. There are also of course (as a majority) legit people from whatever trendy background that just want to do their job, and see all the fawning over "diversity" either as something to ignore (like most of us do). And then there are a few that choose to engage with it and see it as actively offensive, which it is when you think about it. So bottom line, my feeling is that the way "diverse" - trendily ethnic or genedered etc people feel about it is about the same as everyone feels about it

jasongi 4y ago
I don’t see this as any different to traditional office politics and the self serving “dark triad” personalities you come across. The key component of Machiavellianism is using whatever means you have. That could be in-group status OR out-group status, the result is the same. The label of “professional diversity hire” is harmful to those in the majority group you identified who aren’t playing that game. So just call it for what it is rather than enabling discrimination with a dog whistle.

jasongi 4y ago

Diversity hire is a dog whistle. If you are a low performer in the in-group, you are label as a low performer. If you are a low performer in the out group, you are labelled as a diversity hire. Even if you are not low performing, you’re still under constant pressure to prove you’re not a diversity hire. People usually don’t have the designation of “diversity hire” officially bestowed on them by a company. They are just given to people who are in the out-group by people in the in-group. In your story, it sounds like a company explicitly was searching for a woman as a manager or the CEO got that impression. I don’t know American laws but where I am the exemptions for explicitly hiring a job based on a protected category are very limited and need to be intrinsically link - think things like requiring a woman for a female role in a movie or requiring a member of X cultural group for an outreach role focusing on that group. Obviously this is very hard to police, and people do consider protected categories in hiring practices, sometimes in favour of an in-group and sometimes in favour of an out-group. You might argue that the existence of diversity quotas, targets, policies or programs is the cause of the the different treatment, but it is not. Even if the company had a very explicit “best candidate wins - no special treatment” policy - you can’t escape in-group vs out-group politics. It is just that the dog whistle used will change. Even if a company has no diversity policy, the laws exist and so the whistle will change from “X is diversity hire” to “they can’t fire X because they’re afraid of lawsuits”. Most people in out-groups will just end up adopting a persona that is acceptable enough to the in-group in order to survive. But this also does bad damage to a person’s identity. Ironically, one of the best ways to prove yourself as a member of the in-group is to blow the same dog whistles - as the female CEO did in your example.