4 ms·

Just because big tech does something g does not mean it is driven by law. It’s more likely they simply want to know less, as knowing less can limit liability.

Just because big tech does something g does not mean it is driven by law. It’s more likely they simply want to know less, as knowing less can limit liability. Simply put. If you did not know x y or z about the candidate, then the candidate can’t claim z y or z is why they did not get the job, where x y z might be protected. Most of the rules at big tech are simply not driven by laws requiring it. But by layaways limiting liability.

lolinder 3y ago
You're drawing a weird distinction here—"it's not about the law, it's about limiting liability should we end up in a lawsuit." Yeah, the law doesn't require avoiding asking specific types of questions, but big tech lawyers recommend being careful because knowing that information can expose you to potential legal liability. The decision to limit how much you know about a candidate's background is a direct side effect of the law and its application, even if the law itself doesn't say you can't know this stuff.
- watwut 3y ago
  It is an important distinction. Original posts implies the university is breaking the law. There is huge difference between breaking law and not doing the safestest easiest to win in court thing.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    The original post doesn't just imply that universities are breaking the law, it links to a post by a university where they acknowledge they were breaking the law: > The review was completed in September and indicates that race was inappropriately considered and used in a way that is inconsistent with University policy in the hiring process for an assistant professor position in the department. Race was inappropriately considered in the hiring process even after some faculty received guidance from College of Arts & Sciences and University leadership that such considerations are inappropriate. So in this case the distinction is meaningless because the GP was literally saying "big tech has tons of barriers up in place, but universities seem not to care very much until someone actually calls them out for breaking the law".
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  I think it’s a very relevant distinction targeted at this statement from GP: “universities behave as if employment discrimination laws don't exist. At least they're starting to be held accountable” This seems to be suggesting that they are violating employment discrimination laws, but that the laws so far have not been enforced perfectly. I think parent is saying that they are not violating employment discrimination laws, they are just less paranoid about accidentally violating them than FAANG companies are. Universities do generally have a much smaller $$$ target on their back, so it would not be too surprising if big tech is more paranoid about lawsuits than universities.
  - naniwaduni 3y ago
    I think "hiring process inappropriately used race as a factor" sounds a lot like "they are violating employment discrimination laws, but that the laws so far have not been enforced perfectly", actually.
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      I agree with your statement, I’m strictly referring to the exchange I mentioned and not to the overall topic.
      - naniwaduni 3y ago
        The link to the UW case is literally at the end of the line you quoted? I would assume that poster meant for those things to be related.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    The “at least they are starting to be held accountable” comment literally includes a link to the story of one that was violating employment laws.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Based on many anecdotes from friends and family in academia as well as many recent news reports (such as the one linked to by GP at the end of the line you quoted), I would say that universities have been violating employment discrimination laws regularly and egregiously and are only recently being held to account for it. Big tech's methods for avoiding liability may seem silly or extreme, but they arguably also work: if you literally know nothing about someone's protected classes you cannot make decisions based on them. Academic hiring, meanwhile, seems intent on collecting as much information as possible about as many protected characteristics as possible.
userbinator 3y ago
Surely you mean lawyers and not layaways...?

lolinder 3y ago

You're drawing a weird distinction here—"it's not about the law, it's about limiting liability should we end up in a lawsuit." Yeah, the law doesn't require avoiding asking specific types of questions, but big tech lawyers recommend being careful because knowing that information can expose you to potential legal liability. The decision to limit how much you know about a candidate's background is a direct side effect of the law and its application, even if the law itself doesn't say you can't know this stuff.

watwut 3y ago
It is an important distinction. Original posts implies the university is breaking the law. There is huge difference between breaking law and not doing the safestest easiest to win in court thing.
- lolinder 3y ago
  The original post doesn't just imply that universities are breaking the law, it links to a post by a university where they acknowledge they were breaking the law: > The review was completed in September and indicates that race was inappropriately considered and used in a way that is inconsistent with University policy in the hiring process for an assistant professor position in the department. Race was inappropriately considered in the hiring process even after some faculty received guidance from College of Arts & Sciences and University leadership that such considerations are inappropriate. So in this case the distinction is meaningless because the GP was literally saying "big tech has tons of barriers up in place, but universities seem not to care very much until someone actually calls them out for breaking the law".
pfannkuchen 3y ago
I think it’s a very relevant distinction targeted at this statement from GP: “universities behave as if employment discrimination laws don't exist. At least they're starting to be held accountable” This seems to be suggesting that they are violating employment discrimination laws, but that the laws so far have not been enforced perfectly. I think parent is saying that they are not violating employment discrimination laws, they are just less paranoid about accidentally violating them than FAANG companies are. Universities do generally have a much smaller $$$ target on their back, so it would not be too surprising if big tech is more paranoid about lawsuits than universities.
- naniwaduni 3y ago
  I think "hiring process inappropriately used race as a factor" sounds a lot like "they are violating employment discrimination laws, but that the laws so far have not been enforced perfectly", actually.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I agree with your statement, I’m strictly referring to the exchange I mentioned and not to the overall topic.
    - naniwaduni 3y ago
      The link to the UW case is literally at the end of the line you quoted? I would assume that poster meant for those things to be related.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  The “at least they are starting to be held accountable” comment literally includes a link to the story of one that was violating employment laws.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Based on many anecdotes from friends and family in academia as well as many recent news reports (such as the one linked to by GP at the end of the line you quoted), I would say that universities have been violating employment discrimination laws regularly and egregiously and are only recently being held to account for it. Big tech's methods for avoiding liability may seem silly or extreme, but they arguably also work: if you literally know nothing about someone's protected classes you cannot make decisions based on them. Academic hiring, meanwhile, seems intent on collecting as much information as possible about as many protected characteristics as possible.

userbinator 3y ago

Surely you mean lawyers and not layaways...?