3 ms·

It's unlikely to be inequitable and have discriminatory effect until the makeup of the staff are similar to that of the actual population. If the resident popul

It's unlikely to be inequitable and have discriminatory effect until the makeup of the staff are similar to that of the actual population. If the resident population is 30% minority but only 3% of the company staff are, it is neither de facto nor de jure discrimination to prioritize undoing the existing actually discriminatory workplace.

Manuel_D 2y ago
The people in the workforce are often significantly different than the general population. A quota of 50% women programmers or 50% male nurses will match the population but require a 4 to one disparity between female and male applicants.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Correcting the disparity is entirely the point.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    So would a company be justified in setting a cap of 1.7% for Jewish employees? Or how about setting a quota - or "inclusion goal" or "diversity milestone" or whatever other euphemism - of 98.3% for gentiles. After all, it's just correcting the disparity. Disparities that arise due to discrimination are a problem, and should be ameliorated by eliminating the discrimination. Anonymize applications, make zoom interviews blinded and voices masked. I'd be totally behind that. Disparities that arise due to differences in preferences are not to be "corrected". Some cultures prize doctors more than others, "correcting" that disparity isn't eliminating discrimination, it's perpetrating it. "Correcting" software development roles to be closer to 50/50 male and female is no less sexist than setting gender quotas on pediatrician mandating fewer women in the field.
faeriechangling 2y ago
Racially discriminating against individual people to achieve a desired racial composition of your workforce isn't "undoing discrimination", it's racism and discrimination itself. It's determining somebodies worth as an employee based on the colour of their skin. IBM is simply a racist employer. This is also de jure racism in the United States, although not most countries, because diversity quotas are specifically banned by long standing precedent. Tell me with a straight face that tying bonuses to a specific percentage of people in your department being a certain race/gender is not a quota. HR departments generally know in order to illegally satisfy quotas you are supposed to not say you're running a quota on paper, you're supposed to obscufate what you're doing things like hiring 3rd party recruiters who will do the discrimination for you, you're supposed to recruit out of certain communities in a racially bias way, and establish plausible deniability for your racism. What they did is very clearly illegal racial discrimination, and it was even before the Trump Supreme Court, and they apparently didn't run this past legal. Now a workplace not having an equal distribution of people of different races is a red flag for racism happening, but it isn't itself racism. There's more Asians than other students at schools. Is that racism? Nope, they just tend to get higher standardised test scores, they aren't actually being favored on the basis of race. Just because a racial composition of an institution alarms people, does not in fact justify racism, and it definitely doesn't mean that racism is anti-discriminatory.

Manuel_D 2y ago

The people in the workforce are often significantly different than the general population. A quota of 50% women programmers or 50% male nurses will match the population but require a 4 to one disparity between female and male applicants.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Correcting the disparity is entirely the point.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  So would a company be justified in setting a cap of 1.7% for Jewish employees? Or how about setting a quota - or "inclusion goal" or "diversity milestone" or whatever other euphemism - of 98.3% for gentiles. After all, it's just correcting the disparity. Disparities that arise due to discrimination are a problem, and should be ameliorated by eliminating the discrimination. Anonymize applications, make zoom interviews blinded and voices masked. I'd be totally behind that. Disparities that arise due to differences in preferences are not to be "corrected". Some cultures prize doctors more than others, "correcting" that disparity isn't eliminating discrimination, it's perpetrating it. "Correcting" software development roles to be closer to 50/50 male and female is no less sexist than setting gender quotas on pediatrician mandating fewer women in the field.

faeriechangling 2y ago

Racially discriminating against individual people to achieve a desired racial composition of your workforce isn't "undoing discrimination", it's racism and discrimination itself. It's determining somebodies worth as an employee based on the colour of their skin. IBM is simply a racist employer. This is also de jure racism in the United States, although not most countries, because diversity quotas are specifically banned by long standing precedent. Tell me with a straight face that tying bonuses to a specific percentage of people in your department being a certain race/gender is not a quota. HR departments generally know in order to illegally satisfy quotas you are supposed to not say you're running a quota on paper, you're supposed to obscufate what you're doing things like hiring 3rd party recruiters who will do the discrimination for you, you're supposed to recruit out of certain communities in a racially bias way, and establish plausible deniability for your racism. What they did is very clearly illegal racial discrimination, and it was even before the Trump Supreme Court, and they apparently didn't run this past legal. Now a workplace not having an equal distribution of people of different races is a red flag for racism happening, but it isn't itself racism. There's more Asians than other students at schools. Is that racism? Nope, they just tend to get higher standardised test scores, they aren't actually being favored on the basis of race. Just because a racial composition of an institution alarms people, does not in fact justify racism, and it definitely doesn't mean that racism is anti-discriminatory.