21 ms·

Interestingly enough, Pew Research ran a study[0] a few years back which found that the majority of whites, blacks, and Hispanics reject race-conscious hiring—e

• Firmwarrior 4y ago
  As a Hispanic man, I can say that I don't care about whether I earned my spot or lucked into it through my ancestry. Life isn't fair, and I'll gladly take whatever advantages I can scrounge up. The software interview process in particular is already so capricious that I feel absolutely no shame in tilting it in my favor in any way that I can.
  • debacle 4y ago
    You shouldn't feel bad about leveraging a system to your advantage. Life is hard.
  • hedora 4y ago
    The concern is that there are places where minority hires are explicitly a lower bar, so those people get junk jobs and layoffs, regardless of ability. Personally, I think the problem should be pushed upstream whenever possible. (More funding for minority elementary and high schools, and candidate quotas for recruiters but not hires both are good examples of effective approaches).
  • dayvid 4y ago
    I agree 100%. I know many white and asian people who didn't get their foot in the door or opportunity solely because they had amazing skills and talent. Get in however you can and then work your ass off so no one doubts you.
  • DrThunder 4y ago
    You didn't "earn" anything if it was due to skin color and that's the point. I've gotten plenty of breaks in my life but I'm aware of what is earned and what isn't. It's one thing to be ok with the fact you got in but you need the awareness to understand the negatives of a system that gives you chances due to an innate characteristic you have no control over. The irony here is that if we all just accept the line of thinking you're using our society will go back to the exact "white male patriarchy" this DEI stuff is supposedly trying to fight. The only difference is that BiPOC or LGBTQ will replace the white male as the superior class. The next step is we can just ensure white males don't get a vote and can't own land or credit cards right?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • Firmwarrior 4y ago
      Man, it's really weird to find myself on the SJW side of this argument for once. I'm usually the token brown guy in Libertarian circles. Despite what you might've read on Tumblr or Fox News, I'm not planning to oppress anyone or commit white genocide. When I'm doing interviews or looking at resumes, I'll give an extra moment of consideration to anyone born in the USA who seems to have pulled him/herself up by their bootstraps. I personally think that's enough DEI from me, and I don't think it's something you should be too incensed about.
      • DrThunder 4y ago
        You're strawmanning a lot of what I said. My comment is just about what it leads to if we have a society that bases their hiring on specific skin colors. It seems like you're failing to differentiate between exactly what you're personally doing and the society wide affect of sitting back and accepting race based hiring.
        • Firmwarrior 4y ago
          You're talking about how we're on a slippery slope to creating "the superior class" and then try to claim that I'm being combative? Comeon man. To attempt to salvage this subthread: What I'm personally doing is exactly what DEI is for the most part. BigCo gives you a yearly training that says "Make sure you give someone a fair shot even if they don't wow you with their resume". BigCo sends out a slideshow with some examples of certain minorities succeeding at their jobs. Done.
  • GabrielBen 4y ago
    Argentinian here - this 100%.
  • Manuel_D 4y ago
    Would you be okay with white and Asian people similarly applying in-group advantage towards their own races to the detriment of ours? The software interview process is capricious, but this doesn't justify racial discrimination. If we're so nonchalant about racism favoring us, we're hypocrites for criticizing racism favoring other groups over us. I am deeply troubled by racial discrimination favoring Latin people, despite benefitting from it in a narrow and immediate sense, because it makes people justified in carrying out their own discrimination potentially to my detriment.
    • anon019293 4y ago
      [dead]
    • kodah 4y ago
      There's different reasons we design different systems to combat discrimination or lop-sided outcomes. White and Asian people, if that is their only identifying class characteristic, are not discriminated against generally. An argument could be made that white and Asian people from poor backgrounds don't make it into programming as much, but again - class lines. We probably should compensate for class more in discrimination laws. Black and Hispanic people do face more active discrimination. That has to do more with outward appearance and last names. Vets on the other hand are an example of a lop-sided outcome. It was discovered a while back that most vets often went into blue collar professions and didn't really climb that many ladders. They instituted a rule where campaign badge holders and disabled vets must have their resumes reviewed first. Working on the west coast I can attest it's rare to see vets at all. I've met more vets from non-US military in the tech world than I have from my own country (not complaining, but worth noting). There's definitely a small contingent of people who would put their political disposition into hiring if they saw a candidate was a vet, but military are coached to chop their military experience from their resume once they have a stack of experience to avoid this. All that to say, if I were OP I would not be okay with what you proposed just on a facade basis. If it incorporated class distinctions I might agree.
      • Manuel_D 4y ago
        I don't think I've ever been discriminated against for being Latin. Quite the contrary, I likely had significant advantages on account of my race in university admissions. I'm not sure if I've had such advantages in tech hiring, as I don't outwardly advertise my Latin identity precisely because I don't want progressive race-realists to use it as a factor in hiring, but if they did find it it probably did help. Unlike military service which has a discrete set of experiences and criteria, race is just something you're born with.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• sinity 4y ago
  > Interestingly enough, Pew Research ran a study[0] a few years back which found that the majority of whites, blacks, and Hispanics reject race-conscious hiring—even if it results in less diversity. Ideologues who are a tiny minority, which is overwhelmingly white, don't care tho. The Atlantic - Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture - https://archive.ph/OXs6F https://archive.ph/OXs6F It's a bit sad how little discussion it generated, because this data should be pretty damning. > 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.” > So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. > While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. 8 percent of US population, who knows how tiny proportion of EU population (we're also on the Internets, you know). And they constantly pretend their views are default, and try to marginalize others online. With some success, sadly. Also, they blatantly discriminate against neurodivergent people - and if there's a single obviously beneficial diversity program, it'd be increasing neurotype diversity. Ways of thinking, not surface characteristics. Example: Damore, who was an aspie. You know, the disability where you have trouble with unclear communication that normies rely on. Which causes sth like 90% afflicted to be unemployed - because people insist on ignoring their issues. Tech is one of the areas where they can thrive - except in the name of "diversity", left wants to push them out. I don't understand how's that coherent. Who decides which identity group are worthy of protection? See "The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech": https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e2a71bf7e0ab3ba886cea3/t/5d15648877784e0001d77bd1/1561683080779/2017+neurodiversity+free+speech.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58e2a71bf7e0ab3ba886c... > Administrators assume that the most vulnerable ‘snowflakes’ are always listeners, and never speakers. > Autism spectrum disorders are central to the tension between campus censorship and neurodiversity. This is because there’s a trade-off between ‘systematizing’ and ‘empathizing’. Systematizing is the drive to construct and analyze abstract systems of rules, evidence, and procedures; it’s stronger in males, in people with autism/Asperger’s, and in STEM fields. Empathizing is the ability to understand other people’s thoughts and feelings, and to respond with ‘appropriate’ emotions and speech acts; it’s stronger in females, in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and in the arts and humanities. Conservative satirists often mock ‘social justice warriors’ for their ‘autistic screeching’, but Leftist student protesters are more likely to be high empathizers from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, than high systematizers from the hard sciences or engineering. > Consider the Empathy Quotient (EQ) scale, (...) it seems like a higher EQ score would strongly predict ability to follow campus speech codes that prohibit causing offense to others. People on the autism spectrum, such as those with Asperger’s, score much lower on the EQ scale. (Full disclosure: I score 14 out of 80.) Thus, aspies simply don’t have brains that can anticipate what might be considered offensive, disrespectful, unwanted, or outrageous by others – regardless of what campus speech codes expect of us. > From a high systematizer’s perspective, most ‘respectful campus’ speech codes are basically demands that they should turn into a high empathizer through sheer force of will. > The ways that speech codes discriminate against systematizers is exacerbated by their vagueness, overbreadth, unsystematic structure, double standards, and logical inconsistencies – which drive systematizers nuts. For example, most speech codes prohibit any insults based on a person’s sex, race, religion, or political attitudes. But aspie students often notice that these codes are applied very selectively: it’s OK to insult ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘patriarchy’, but not to question the ‘wage gap’ or ‘rape culture’; it’s OK to insult ‘white privilege’ and the ‘Alt-Right’ but not ‘affirmative action’ or ‘Black Lives Matter’; it’s OK to insult pro-life Catholics but not prosharia Muslims. The concept of ‘unwelcome’ jokes or ‘unwelcome’ sexual comments seems like a time-travel paradox to aspies – how can you judge what speech act is ‘unwelcome’ until after you get the feedback about whether it was welcome? > When a policy is formally neutral, but it adversely affects one legally protected group of people more than other people, that’s called ‘disparate impact’, and it’s illegal. People with diagnosed mental disorders qualify as ‘disabled’ people under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws, so any speech code at a public university that imposes disparate impact on neurominorities is illegal.
• acjohnson55 4y ago
  As a Black person, I have never experienced a company sacrificing standards to improve representation. I have seen companies want to become more representative of the their customer base, but rarely have I seen them actually succeed.