4 ms·

I don’t see why you need legal protections. A diversity of thought can bring value. If the manager said, “We currently only have staff with public sector exper

I don’t see why you need legal protections. A diversity of thought can bring value. If the manager said, “We currently only have staff with public sector experience. We don’t have headcount for more folks. But let me know if you have someone with private sector experience. They are extremely rare, and could really open up the way we solve the problem.” Would that offend you in the same way?

Manuel_D 3y ago
Yes, but that's using a candidate's previous job experience as a factor in hiring. That's totally legal. The issue is when you swap out "private sector experience" with protected classes like race and gender. That's illegal.
throaweee123 3y ago
No because the would be competency based. If we need a senior Go programmer and the candidate is only experienced in Python it makes sense to pass. Interviewing someone who is male and getting told that we can't hire them because they are male is gender-based discrimination.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  Hmm. I see what you are saying, but it totally discounts the value of diversity of thought. For example, there is an optical illusion where people see the top line as shorter: <——> >—-< However, they are the same length. (The illusion is more pronounced with hand drawn lines.) Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why. My point is that if something as simple estimates of a length of line can benefit from diversity of thought, imagine how many other “obvious” yet wrong assumptions people make. And that is why it is valuable to include people of different genders, races, abilities. Just like it is okay to pass on a yet another Python developer, maybe it is okay to pass on yet another person who assumes the top line is shorter. Look, I don’t like the idea of quotas, either. But I also don’t like working at place where everyone is the same.
  - dhriekeb 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - aydyn 3y ago
      No, there’s absolutely no proof that racial diversity directly benefits a company. I searched HARD for the evidence. Lots of articles claim it is true but purposely mistake correlation for causation.
      - bpicolo 3y ago
        There are studies that have found more women is a helpful thing in the workplace https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-team-smarter-more-women https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-te...
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        People often cite the 2019 McMinsey report as evidence that racial diversity improves company performance. However, when you dig into the details Asian representation is positively correlated with company performance, but Black and Latin representation is negatively correlated. The Asian positive correlation was so strong that on the whole, lower White representation was positively correlated with company performance. That's the supposed benefit of diversity, but media outlets rarely report on the negative correlation of non Asian minorities. To be clear, I don't at all endorse the idea that Black and Latin representation negatively affects company performance. This is a textbook lesson of "correlation does not imply causation". These disparities are reflective of differences in education outcomes and employment between these groups, not that hiring an otherwise identical Asian is better than an equally qualified Black or Latin candidate.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    The real problem is the assumption race or gender are not only accurate proxies for diversity of thought (they’re not), but that they’re actually better proxies than just looking for diversity of thought directly. You want more people from poor backgrounds so that you can take into account lower socioeconomic viewpoints? Well, the modern DEI answer to that is hire a black person. The correct answer is to hire someone that grew up poor.
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
If the goal is diversity of thought, why select based on physical characteristics instead of asking question about areas of thought that are underrepresented in the company? If the company has no communists, shouldn't you look for communists instead trying to link that thought pattern with a physical attribute? And does this purported desire for diversity of thought extend to all types of thoughts or just a narrow range? Is an entire rainbow of thought welcome or just some range of shades of purple?
- adharmad 3y ago
  Because the goal of DEI is not to hire based on diversity of thoughts. Else the places in the world where DEI was the dominant philosophy (university professors especially in the humanities) would have the highest diversity of thought. But in reality they are simply echo chambers.
taeric 3y ago
A thing that scares me in the current environment is that I agree with the idea, but I've seen it fail rather comically. I think the catch is that diversity of thought itself, tells you nothing. You have to be accepting of different viewpoints. This sounds obvious, of course, but a lot of people seem to be weaponizing their being different as a way to overrule previous thoughts. This isn't diversity of viewpoints, this is replacing viewpoints. This is most easily seen when a crowd is constantly correcting another. Not seeking to understand. Not adding details. Correcting and admonishing. To directly answer your question, yes, that phrasing would likely bother me. "Let me know if you have someone that you are convinced could help us." That alone should be good enough. If there is a specific skillset, that is a different matter. (Note, I don't think I'd be bothered to the point of offense.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Manuel_D 3y ago

Yes, but that's using a candidate's previous job experience as a factor in hiring. That's totally legal. The issue is when you swap out "private sector experience" with protected classes like race and gender. That's illegal.

throaweee123 3y ago

No because the would be competency based. If we need a senior Go programmer and the candidate is only experienced in Python it makes sense to pass. Interviewing someone who is male and getting told that we can't hire them because they are male is gender-based discrimination.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
Hmm. I see what you are saying, but it totally discounts the value of diversity of thought. For example, there is an optical illusion where people see the top line as shorter: <——> >—-< However, they are the same length. (The illusion is more pronounced with hand drawn lines.) Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why. My point is that if something as simple estimates of a length of line can benefit from diversity of thought, imagine how many other “obvious” yet wrong assumptions people make. And that is why it is valuable to include people of different genders, races, abilities. Just like it is okay to pass on a yet another Python developer, maybe it is okay to pass on yet another person who assumes the top line is shorter. Look, I don’t like the idea of quotas, either. But I also don’t like working at place where everyone is the same.
- dhriekeb 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - aydyn 3y ago
    No, there’s absolutely no proof that racial diversity directly benefits a company. I searched HARD for the evidence. Lots of articles claim it is true but purposely mistake correlation for causation.
    - bpicolo 3y ago
      There are studies that have found more women is a helpful thing in the workplace https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-team-smarter-more-women https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-te...
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      People often cite the 2019 McMinsey report as evidence that racial diversity improves company performance. However, when you dig into the details Asian representation is positively correlated with company performance, but Black and Latin representation is negatively correlated. The Asian positive correlation was so strong that on the whole, lower White representation was positively correlated with company performance. That's the supposed benefit of diversity, but media outlets rarely report on the negative correlation of non Asian minorities. To be clear, I don't at all endorse the idea that Black and Latin representation negatively affects company performance. This is a textbook lesson of "correlation does not imply causation". These disparities are reflective of differences in education outcomes and employment between these groups, not that hiring an otherwise identical Asian is better than an equally qualified Black or Latin candidate.
- abduhl 3y ago
  The real problem is the assumption race or gender are not only accurate proxies for diversity of thought (they’re not), but that they’re actually better proxies than just looking for diversity of thought directly. You want more people from poor backgrounds so that you can take into account lower socioeconomic viewpoints? Well, the modern DEI answer to that is hire a black person. The correct answer is to hire someone that grew up poor.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

If the goal is diversity of thought, why select based on physical characteristics instead of asking question about areas of thought that are underrepresented in the company? If the company has no communists, shouldn't you look for communists instead trying to link that thought pattern with a physical attribute? And does this purported desire for diversity of thought extend to all types of thoughts or just a narrow range? Is an entire rainbow of thought welcome or just some range of shades of purple?

adharmad 3y ago
Because the goal of DEI is not to hire based on diversity of thoughts. Else the places in the world where DEI was the dominant philosophy (university professors especially in the humanities) would have the highest diversity of thought. But in reality they are simply echo chambers.

taeric 3y ago

A thing that scares me in the current environment is that I agree with the idea, but I've seen it fail rather comically. I think the catch is that diversity of thought itself, tells you nothing. You have to be accepting of different viewpoints. This sounds obvious, of course, but a lot of people seem to be weaponizing their being different as a way to overrule previous thoughts. This isn't diversity of viewpoints, this is replacing viewpoints. This is most easily seen when a crowd is constantly correcting another. Not seeking to understand. Not adding details. Correcting and admonishing. To directly answer your question, yes, that phrasing would likely bother me. "Let me know if you have someone that you are convinced could help us." That alone should be good enough. If there is a specific skillset, that is a different matter. (Note, I don't think I'd be bothered to the point of offense.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]