3 ms·

DEI discriminates on the basis of race, gender; it is immoral and illegal

31 points by lopkeny12ko 3y ago

ijhuygft776 3y ago
"DEI, because it discriminates on the basis of race, gender and many other factors, is not merely immoral, it is also illegal" Not really sure what it means, but either way, the title of this post is wrong...
- verdverm 3y ago
  Titles are often trimmed of less important words, automatically, to fit in the required length of 80 or 120 chars iirc In this case, it looks manual, but preserves the essence of the original
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  It should have been phrased, "DEI policies often discriminate on the basis of...". While not 100% of DEI programs are carrying our gender and racial discrimination, a very sizable percentage of them are. The majority, in my experience.
- lopkeny12ko 3y ago
  The full text of the post was too long for the submission title. I had to edit it to preserve the essence of the post while staying under the character limit.
  - ijhuygft776 3y ago
    yea that character limit sucks... thanks dang
infotainment 3y ago
Like many things, companies can avoid the illegal aspect by adjusting the parameters slightly. In this particular case, one easy way to avoid legal problems is to remove protected attributes from the final hiring decision, and only consider them at the candidate selection phase. This has been found to be legal, though the moral aspect is more grey, IMO.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  > In this particular case, one easy way to avoid legal problems is to remove protected attributes from the final hiring decision, and only consider them at the candidate selection phase. This has been found to be legal, though the moral aspect is more grey, IMO. Absolutely not. Using protected class as a factor at the selection phase is still illegal, too. Can I just tell my recruiter, "only consider Catholic candidates at the selection phase." And when someone accuses me of discrimination I say, "Hey, those Catholics still had to pass the onsite interview loop. We only used religion as a factor in the candidate selection phase." It's still illegal. You cannot use discrimination on the basis of protected class at any stage, outside of narrow exemptions like Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications [1] (yes, you can discriminate on the basis of race to cast an actor for instance). 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...
  - infotainment 3y ago
    Ah good point, I wasn't clear enough! I was referring to rules like this one, which I believe are considered legal, despite taking into account protected attributes during the candidate selection phase: https://www.visier.com/blog/how-hr-can-tackle-diversity-using-the-rooney-rule/ https://www.visier.com/blog/how-hr-can-tackle-diversity-usin... It does seem like it would be on kind of shaky legal ground, but IANAL.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      This is mandating a specific number of candidates belong to a protected class. There are a very specific set of circumstances where use of protected classes like race and gender are permitted. Rectification of previous discrimination is another. This government web site describes it well [1]. A particularly important passage: > ...over time a contractor’s workforce generally will reflect the demographics of the qualified available workforce in the relevant job market. An example of such permitted affirmative action is when a US steel company only hired workers trained by a given union, and that union was exclusive to whites. The example you linked stems from loads of black athletes not landing coaching jobs, despite similar experience and qualifications as white hires. The organization could credibly claim that racial discrimination was excluding a significant percentage of the workforce. By contrast, it would not be permitted for a company to engage in affirmative action to bring one gender to, say, 30% of the company when the workforce for that role is 20%. Because that's the same thing as saying the opposite gender (and non-binary) is capped to 70% despite making up 80% of the workforce. It's addressing disparities relative to the workforce, not the geneal population. A lot of DEI programs justify discrimination on the grounds of equity with respect to the general population and that's not the law. Another common DEI justification is that diversity improves company performance. It doesn't matter if you think discrimination on the basis of protected class improves your bottom line. A hospital, ev n if it can definitively prove that having at least 30% male nurses improves patient outcomes can't use DEI policies to increase male representation.
Manuel_D 3y ago
DEI is just an acronym for three different words. There's ways to build diversity without discrimination. Likewise, equity can be worked towards without quotas. I have worked at a company that didn't use DEI as a euphemism for workplace affirmative action on the basis of gender and race. They sponsored after school programs in underserved communities, some employees volunteered their time at maker spaces, and other things like that. Granted, in 2 out of 3 companies I've worked at full time DEI was indeed essentially a euphemism for illegal hiring practices like percentage quotas and reserving segments of headcount on the basis of protected class. Always remember: a bonus for one particular protected class is the same as penalty for everyone who isn't a member. When a company allocates 20 "extra" headcount for diverse employees on top of the 80 normal headcount, it's the same as starting with 100 headcount and prohibiting non-diverse candidates from 20 of those 100.
bediger4000 3y ago
But a company must have some criteria to select applicants. Shouldn't it be up to a given company to decide who to hire? Even if it's flipping a coin, they're still discriminating.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Correct, but that's discrimination on the basis of something other than protected class: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination#:~:text=Applicants%2C%20employees%20and%20former%20employees,(including%20family%20medical%20history) https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte.... It's okay to discriminate on the basis of interview performance, education, experience, etc. DEI policies often do discriminate on the basis of protected class.
  - bediger4000 3y ago
    Musk's tweet didn't bring "protected class" into it. Musk was appealing to some unspecified "immorality", which he apparently thinks makes any consideration of race or sex when hiring a bad thing.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      What really is DEI, in the vein that Musk is invoking these three letters? I've worked at one company where DEI was not anything unsavory or underhanded. It really did seem to be the contemporary term for HR explaining not to be racist or sexist, etc. But two out of the other three companies I've worked at DEI efforts were just obviously discrimination on the basis of gender and race. At one, we had an OKR to have 40% women new hires in all departments. Engineering was almost all software developers (80% male) or electrical engineers (90% male). So setting a quota of 40% women would be a 2-4x overrepresentation. Another reserved 20 slots in our headcount for diverse candidates. The document describing this policy conspicuously lacks an explanation of how to identify a "diverse" candidate. At an all-hands, the DEI head explanation that this mean "women, black, and brown" candidates - her words verbatim. In subsequent Q&A, she clarified that Asians, regardless of complexion, are not "brown". This was on top of the pre-existing policy of allowing "diverse" candidates two chances to pass the technical phone screen as opposed to one for white and Asian men. It seems pretty clear to me he's speaking about the latter type of DEI.

31 points by lopkeny12ko 3y ago

"DEI, because it discriminates on the basis of race, gender and many other factors, is not merely immoral, it is also illegal" Not really sure what it means, but either way, the title of this post is wrong...

verdverm 3y ago
Titles are often trimmed of less important words, automatically, to fit in the required length of 80 or 120 chars iirc In this case, it looks manual, but preserves the essence of the original
Manuel_D 3y ago
It should have been phrased, "DEI policies often discriminate on the basis of...". While not 100% of DEI programs are carrying our gender and racial discrimination, a very sizable percentage of them are. The majority, in my experience.
lopkeny12ko 3y ago
The full text of the post was too long for the submission title. I had to edit it to preserve the essence of the post while staying under the character limit.
- ijhuygft776 3y ago
  yea that character limit sucks... thanks dang

infotainment 3y ago

Like many things, companies can avoid the illegal aspect by adjusting the parameters slightly. In this particular case, one easy way to avoid legal problems is to remove protected attributes from the final hiring decision, and only consider them at the candidate selection phase. This has been found to be legal, though the moral aspect is more grey, IMO.

Manuel_D 3y ago
> In this particular case, one easy way to avoid legal problems is to remove protected attributes from the final hiring decision, and only consider them at the candidate selection phase. This has been found to be legal, though the moral aspect is more grey, IMO. Absolutely not. Using protected class as a factor at the selection phase is still illegal, too. Can I just tell my recruiter, "only consider Catholic candidates at the selection phase." And when someone accuses me of discrimination I say, "Hey, those Catholics still had to pass the onsite interview loop. We only used religion as a factor in the candidate selection phase." It's still illegal. You cannot use discrimination on the basis of protected class at any stage, outside of narrow exemptions like Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications [1] (yes, you can discriminate on the basis of race to cast an actor for instance). 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...
- infotainment 3y ago
  Ah good point, I wasn't clear enough! I was referring to rules like this one, which I believe are considered legal, despite taking into account protected attributes during the candidate selection phase: https://www.visier.com/blog/how-hr-can-tackle-diversity-using-the-rooney-rule/ https://www.visier.com/blog/how-hr-can-tackle-diversity-usin... It does seem like it would be on kind of shaky legal ground, but IANAL.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    This is mandating a specific number of candidates belong to a protected class. There are a very specific set of circumstances where use of protected classes like race and gender are permitted. Rectification of previous discrimination is another. This government web site describes it well [1]. A particularly important passage: > ...over time a contractor’s workforce generally will reflect the demographics of the qualified available workforce in the relevant job market. An example of such permitted affirmative action is when a US steel company only hired workers trained by a given union, and that union was exclusive to whites. The example you linked stems from loads of black athletes not landing coaching jobs, despite similar experience and qualifications as white hires. The organization could credibly claim that racial discrimination was excluding a significant percentage of the workforce. By contrast, it would not be permitted for a company to engage in affirmative action to bring one gender to, say, 30% of the company when the workforce for that role is 20%. Because that's the same thing as saying the opposite gender (and non-binary) is capped to 70% despite making up 80% of the workforce. It's addressing disparities relative to the workforce, not the geneal population. A lot of DEI programs justify discrimination on the grounds of equity with respect to the general population and that's not the law. Another common DEI justification is that diversity improves company performance. It doesn't matter if you think discrimination on the basis of protected class improves your bottom line. A hospital, ev n if it can definitively prove that having at least 30% male nurses improves patient outcomes can't use DEI policies to increase male representation.

Manuel_D 3y ago

DEI is just an acronym for three different words. There's ways to build diversity without discrimination. Likewise, equity can be worked towards without quotas. I have worked at a company that didn't use DEI as a euphemism for workplace affirmative action on the basis of gender and race. They sponsored after school programs in underserved communities, some employees volunteered their time at maker spaces, and other things like that. Granted, in 2 out of 3 companies I've worked at full time DEI was indeed essentially a euphemism for illegal hiring practices like percentage quotas and reserving segments of headcount on the basis of protected class. Always remember: a bonus for one particular protected class is the same as penalty for everyone who isn't a member. When a company allocates 20 "extra" headcount for diverse employees on top of the 80 normal headcount, it's the same as starting with 100 headcount and prohibiting non-diverse candidates from 20 of those 100.

bediger4000 3y ago

But a company must have some criteria to select applicants. Shouldn't it be up to a given company to decide who to hire? Even if it's flipping a coin, they're still discriminating.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Correct, but that's discrimination on the basis of something other than protected class: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination#:~:text=Applicants%2C%20employees%20and%20former%20employees,(including%20family%20medical%20history) https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte.... It's okay to discriminate on the basis of interview performance, education, experience, etc. DEI policies often do discriminate on the basis of protected class.
- bediger4000 3y ago
  Musk's tweet didn't bring "protected class" into it. Musk was appealing to some unspecified "immorality", which he apparently thinks makes any consideration of race or sex when hiring a bad thing.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    What really is DEI, in the vein that Musk is invoking these three letters? I've worked at one company where DEI was not anything unsavory or underhanded. It really did seem to be the contemporary term for HR explaining not to be racist or sexist, etc. But two out of the other three companies I've worked at DEI efforts were just obviously discrimination on the basis of gender and race. At one, we had an OKR to have 40% women new hires in all departments. Engineering was almost all software developers (80% male) or electrical engineers (90% male). So setting a quota of 40% women would be a 2-4x overrepresentation. Another reserved 20 slots in our headcount for diverse candidates. The document describing this policy conspicuously lacks an explanation of how to identify a "diverse" candidate. At an all-hands, the DEI head explanation that this mean "women, black, and brown" candidates - her words verbatim. In subsequent Q&A, she clarified that Asians, regardless of complexion, are not "brown". This was on top of the pre-existing policy of allowing "diverse" candidates two chances to pass the technical phone screen as opposed to one for white and Asian men. It seems pretty clear to me he's speaking about the latter type of DEI.