3 ms·

Neither of those things mean hiring someone who doesn’t have the ability to do the job. Which is clearly wrong because of course minorities are able to do these

Neither of those things mean hiring someone who doesn’t have the ability to do the job. Which is clearly wrong because of course minorities are able to do these jobs

mpweiher 2y ago
No it is not true that "of course minorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course minorities are not able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are not able to do the job". What minority/majority/gender or other group you belong to simply is not relevant. For most highly skilled jobs, most people are not able to do the job, completely irrespective of which group they belong to otherwise ("otherwise" meaning: unless your grouping is "people who can do the job" and "people who can't do the job"). So the only or at least overriding criterion in hiring should (must?) be: can they do the job? (Do they have the skills, training, temperament, work ethic, etc.) When reasonable people complain about DEI hires, what they are complaining about is "ability to do the job" not being the first, foremost and preferably only criterion used to select the hire. This is a reasonable complaint. Of course there are also racist assholes, who complain about DEI hires because they believe a-priori that someone with a minority background can't do the job. That is to be condemned, obviously.
- jazzypants 2y ago
  It's just not a real thing. People don't get hired for their race in highly specialized jobs. It's just racist nonsense.
  - zer8k 2y ago
    Actually, they do, regularly. But you've used the term "highly specialized jobs" which is unassailable. No matter which example I provide you can provide an even more specialized job that hires less people over a longer timeframe due to the skill gap. I can tell you with certainty it happens in tech. This is probably not "highly specialized" but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones of the monthly all-hands HR segments the sorting algorithm based on victim hierarchy is well and truly alive. I work for a coastal company though so perhaps this effective is magnified significantly.
    - superb_dev 2y ago
      > …but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones… Are there really anti-white anti-male undertones, or is it just a problem for you when anyone else is centered? “Trust me bro it happens at my company.”
      - mpweiher 2y ago
        Don't know, how does "My boss said ‘we didn’t need another White guy.’ Say what?" work for you?
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    DuckDuckGo said no. But when I reapplied as a black lesbian who can’t speak English, they wanted me. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/pw8622/duckduckgo_said_no_but_when_i_reapplied_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/pw8622/duckduck... Similar thing happened to me, though I didn't do the experiment. And no, I am not "crying about it". But it is a real thing. A executive recruiter working for an American company here in Europe told me that if she comes up with a white/male candidate, she has to get approval from the US head-office.
    - superb_dev 2y ago
      Your evidence so far: - A 3 year old Reddit post on r/conspiracy of a dead link - Trust me bro, someone told me once
      - mpweiher 2y ago
        I have provided personal and anecdotal evidence, which I never claimed was more than anecdotal evidence. And the reddit link was describing something that happened to me personally in almost exactly the same way, so a first hand account by two separate people. Now you can accuse me of lying...I guess you do you. Anecdotal evidence is sufficient for "this does happen". Whereas the absolute claim that this 100% does not happen was "trust me bro" The US legal system seems to agree that this happens: White male employee wins $10M in race discrimination lawsuit https://www.hrmorning.com/news/white-male-race-discrimination/ https://www.hrmorning.com/news/white-male-race-discriminatio... Or how about this: "As a recruiter, do you have any experience of a 'no white men' policy?" 19% answered "yes, explicit policy", with another 20% saying "implicit guidance" https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/no-white-men-policy-what-you-can-cant-do-in-diversity-hiring https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/no-white... "My boss said ‘we didn’t need another White guy.’ Say what?" https://archive.is/NvPJD#selection-431.0-431.58 https://archive.is/NvPJD#selection-431.0-431.58 "To be clear, the candidate was eminently qualified, had made it through multiple rounds of interviews, and was the clear favorite among almost everyone who spoke with him. Further, it’s not like he lost out to someone else — they simply didn’t hire him, and the company started the hiring process all over again!" This stuff is easy to find and verify.

Neither of those things mean hiring someone who doesn’t have the ability to do the job. Which is clearly wrong because of course minorities are able to do these jobs

mpweiher 2y ago

No it is not true that "of course minorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course minorities are not able to do the job". Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are not able to do the job". What minority/majority/gender or other group you belong to simply is not relevant. For most highly skilled jobs, most people are not able to do the job, completely irrespective of which group they belong to otherwise ("otherwise" meaning: unless your grouping is "people who can do the job" and "people who can't do the job"). So the only or at least overriding criterion in hiring should (must?) be: can they do the job? (Do they have the skills, training, temperament, work ethic, etc.) When reasonable people complain about DEI hires, what they are complaining about is "ability to do the job" not being the first, foremost and preferably only criterion used to select the hire. This is a reasonable complaint. Of course there are also racist assholes, who complain about DEI hires because they believe a-priori that someone with a minority background can't do the job. That is to be condemned, obviously.

jazzypants 2y ago
It's just not a real thing. People don't get hired for their race in highly specialized jobs. It's just racist nonsense.
- zer8k 2y ago
  Actually, they do, regularly. But you've used the term "highly specialized jobs" which is unassailable. No matter which example I provide you can provide an even more specialized job that hires less people over a longer timeframe due to the skill gap. I can tell you with certainty it happens in tech. This is probably not "highly specialized" but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones of the monthly all-hands HR segments the sorting algorithm based on victim hierarchy is well and truly alive. I work for a coastal company though so perhaps this effective is magnified significantly.
  - superb_dev 2y ago
    > …but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones… Are there really anti-white anti-male undertones, or is it just a problem for you when anyone else is centered? “Trust me bro it happens at my company.”
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      Don't know, how does "My boss said ‘we didn’t need another White guy.’ Say what?" work for you?
- mpweiher 2y ago
  DuckDuckGo said no. But when I reapplied as a black lesbian who can’t speak English, they wanted me. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/pw8622/duckduckgo_said_no_but_when_i_reapplied_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/pw8622/duckduck... Similar thing happened to me, though I didn't do the experiment. And no, I am not "crying about it". But it is a real thing. A executive recruiter working for an American company here in Europe told me that if she comes up with a white/male candidate, she has to get approval from the US head-office.
  - superb_dev 2y ago
    Your evidence so far: - A 3 year old Reddit post on r/conspiracy of a dead link - Trust me bro, someone told me once
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      I have provided personal and anecdotal evidence, which I never claimed was more than anecdotal evidence. And the reddit link was describing something that happened to me personally in almost exactly the same way, so a first hand account by two separate people. Now you can accuse me of lying...I guess you do you. Anecdotal evidence is sufficient for "this does happen". Whereas the absolute claim that this 100% does not happen was "trust me bro" The US legal system seems to agree that this happens: White male employee wins $10M in race discrimination lawsuit https://www.hrmorning.com/news/white-male-race-discrimination/ https://www.hrmorning.com/news/white-male-race-discriminatio... Or how about this: "As a recruiter, do you have any experience of a 'no white men' policy?" 19% answered "yes, explicit policy", with another 20% saying "implicit guidance" https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/no-white-men-policy-what-you-can-cant-do-in-diversity-hiring https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/no-white... "My boss said ‘we didn’t need another White guy.’ Say what?" https://archive.is/NvPJD#selection-431.0-431.58 https://archive.is/NvPJD#selection-431.0-431.58 "To be clear, the candidate was eminently qualified, had made it through multiple rounds of interviews, and was the clear favorite among almost everyone who spoke with him. Further, it’s not like he lost out to someone else — they simply didn’t hire him, and the company started the hiring process all over again!" This stuff is easy to find and verify.