5 ms·

If a role is specifically set to be filled by diversity hires, I really don't understand how that's not racist (or choose your descriptor here) towards whoever

If a role is specifically set to be filled by diversity hires, I really don't understand how that's not racist (or choose your descriptor here) towards whoever has been excluded for that role.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
It is racist. Proponents of such diversity hiring try to redefine racism in such a way that their definition excludes diversity hiring, but that's bad faith rhetorical tricks.
- LightBug1 2y ago
  I've actually never seen a 'diversity hire' take place. When we set DEI policy and act on it, it was about trying to encourage a more diverse pool and a more diverse group of choosers. That's it. Then let the talent speak. However, let's assume a 'diversity hire' did take place in the negative scenario you imagine. Quota's, I imagine. It still wouldn't be racist as it wouldn't be based on racial superiority. You can call it something else, if you like. But it wouldn't be racist. A 'mistake' perhaps. There are many out there who beat their chest and say that 'the word racist is overused so as to become meaningless'. You've just fallen into that hole. EDIT: (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so to my children, lol: @Shawabawa: "For as long as I've been conscious and with a dictionary (40 years), 'racism' has always been about a belief in the superiority and supremacy of one race over the other, and the actions that stem from that. Sure, your simple version is included also, but the fundamental (and meaningful) definition was always about supremacy. But really ... based on some of the comments here and the prevailing political climate in the US, let's call it quits. It really doesn't matter. The 'winners' write the history, as they say." @seryoiupfurds: "Well, better than your first attempt. But the thrust of your comment is still that 'diversity hiring' is the norm. My experience says it's not - and certainly not in the way we apply DEI.")
  - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
    OK, so it's "just" systematic racial discrimination then. Much better.
  - shawabawa3 2y ago
    The definition of racism changed at some point to some people to have connotations about racial superiority Before that, it simply meant judging a person by their race or skin colour, which having a hiring quota based on race clearly is You can have an argument that in some cases racist DEI policies are beneficial to counter even worse racism, and that's not necessarily untrue, but it's dishonest to try and claim it's not racist
kenjackson 2y ago
That's not what the original commenter was saying. There are very few roles I've ever seen target diversity hires. Those that I have seen are typically very high-level roles, for example, VP nominations will do things like target "midwest" or for Supreme Court targeting "female". But I don't see this sort of thing in your typical job hiring practice.
- pc86 2y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that SCOTUS and VP nominations aren't covered by EEOC and the like, and you're going to have a hard time ham-fisting "diversity hire" into those roles. > > I've interviewed candidates for DEI specific roles. This means one of two things. Either they're interviewing for roles on the DEI team, or "I had a role to fill and was told I had to hire a [black, hispanic, female, non-white] person." The first one doesn't really have anything to do with the comment they're replying to. The second one is blatantly illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And the next sentence and its tone supports that interpretation. Is there a third interpretation I'm missing?
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    The first does have something to do with what he's commenting on. That said, the original poster can clarify since they're on HN, rather than us speculating.
LightBug1 2y ago
You seem quite wrapped up in the idea of 'diversity hires'. I've never seen it work that way. Have you? In my experience it has been about trying to encourage a more diverse pool to select from, and a more diverse pool of choosers, and that's it. After that, it's selecting the best person. And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. How about 'choose your descriptor here' based on an actual understanding of the words. Is it 'woke' now to ask people actually understand the words they're using. Considering you don't understand what the word 'racist' means, do you understand what 'DEI policies' are?
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  > it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. If you hire someone over someone else due to an immutable quality such as their skin colour, sexual orientation (which shouldn't even be a thing to discuss on a job interview), hair colour, sex, gender etc than that is discrimination, and in the case of race, racist. Just because the majority of racism happens in one way, does not mean it's not racism in the other way. Unless the immutable quality somehow makes the person physically better for the job, such as males typically having better muscle/bone mass which gives them an advantage for physical work (e.g. oil rigs), or employing a black female actor to play a black female character.
  - LightBug1 2y ago
    Intent matters. And I'd ask you to focus on the rest (or the whole) of my comment as you've spent most of your comment discussing it as if I approve of 'diversity hiring' (as it is being discussed here, i.e. quotas) when it should be obvious I neither engage in it nor approve of it.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      Sure, intent matters. But you literally said: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. To change up the words a bit to make it more clear: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on [race] as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. "It's not racist to be racist, if it's not done from a basis of racial superiority." To be brutally frank, it is racist to be racist. The outcome of being racist _can_ be good! It absolutely can be good! But, it's critically important for the folks who are developing and implementing racist policies in order to produce genuinely good outcomes to be brutally honest with themselves about what they're doing so that they also implement deliberate, honest review into their policies so that they know when they can stop being racist. Without building in a "Okay, our mission is accomplished and we're done. Let's go back to treating everyone equally again." decision point, policies like these mutate into nothing more than getting your turn with the proverbial boot stamping on a human face forever.

If a role is specifically set to be filled by diversity hires, I really don't understand how that's not racist (or choose your descriptor here) towards whoever has been excluded for that role.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

It is racist. Proponents of such diversity hiring try to redefine racism in such a way that their definition excludes diversity hiring, but that's bad faith rhetorical tricks.

LightBug1 2y ago
I've actually never seen a 'diversity hire' take place. When we set DEI policy and act on it, it was about trying to encourage a more diverse pool and a more diverse group of choosers. That's it. Then let the talent speak. However, let's assume a 'diversity hire' did take place in the negative scenario you imagine. Quota's, I imagine. It still wouldn't be racist as it wouldn't be based on racial superiority. You can call it something else, if you like. But it wouldn't be racist. A 'mistake' perhaps. There are many out there who beat their chest and say that 'the word racist is overused so as to become meaningless'. You've just fallen into that hole. EDIT: (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so to my children, lol: @Shawabawa: "For as long as I've been conscious and with a dictionary (40 years), 'racism' has always been about a belief in the superiority and supremacy of one race over the other, and the actions that stem from that. Sure, your simple version is included also, but the fundamental (and meaningful) definition was always about supremacy. But really ... based on some of the comments here and the prevailing political climate in the US, let's call it quits. It really doesn't matter. The 'winners' write the history, as they say." @seryoiupfurds: "Well, better than your first attempt. But the thrust of your comment is still that 'diversity hiring' is the norm. My experience says it's not - and certainly not in the way we apply DEI.")
- seryoiupfurds 2y ago
  OK, so it's "just" systematic racial discrimination then. Much better.
- shawabawa3 2y ago
  The definition of racism changed at some point to some people to have connotations about racial superiority Before that, it simply meant judging a person by their race or skin colour, which having a hiring quota based on race clearly is You can have an argument that in some cases racist DEI policies are beneficial to counter even worse racism, and that's not necessarily untrue, but it's dishonest to try and claim it's not racist

kenjackson 2y ago

That's not what the original commenter was saying. There are very few roles I've ever seen target diversity hires. Those that I have seen are typically very high-level roles, for example, VP nominations will do things like target "midwest" or for Supreme Court targeting "female". But I don't see this sort of thing in your typical job hiring practice.

pc86 2y ago
I think it's pretty obvious that SCOTUS and VP nominations aren't covered by EEOC and the like, and you're going to have a hard time ham-fisting "diversity hire" into those roles. > > I've interviewed candidates for DEI specific roles. This means one of two things. Either they're interviewing for roles on the DEI team, or "I had a role to fill and was told I had to hire a [black, hispanic, female, non-white] person." The first one doesn't really have anything to do with the comment they're replying to. The second one is blatantly illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And the next sentence and its tone supports that interpretation. Is there a third interpretation I'm missing?
- kenjackson 2y ago
  The first does have something to do with what he's commenting on. That said, the original poster can clarify since they're on HN, rather than us speculating.

LightBug1 2y ago

You seem quite wrapped up in the idea of 'diversity hires'. I've never seen it work that way. Have you? In my experience it has been about trying to encourage a more diverse pool to select from, and a more diverse pool of choosers, and that's it. After that, it's selecting the best person. And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. How about 'choose your descriptor here' based on an actual understanding of the words. Is it 'woke' now to ask people actually understand the words they're using. Considering you don't understand what the word 'racist' means, do you understand what 'DEI policies' are?

ChocolateGod 2y ago
> it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. If you hire someone over someone else due to an immutable quality such as their skin colour, sexual orientation (which shouldn't even be a thing to discuss on a job interview), hair colour, sex, gender etc than that is discrimination, and in the case of race, racist. Just because the majority of racism happens in one way, does not mean it's not racism in the other way. Unless the immutable quality somehow makes the person physically better for the job, such as males typically having better muscle/bone mass which gives them an advantage for physical work (e.g. oil rigs), or employing a black female actor to play a black female character.
- LightBug1 2y ago
  Intent matters. And I'd ask you to focus on the rest (or the whole) of my comment as you've spent most of your comment discussing it as if I approve of 'diversity hiring' (as it is being discussed here, i.e. quotas) when it should be obvious I neither engage in it nor approve of it.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    Sure, intent matters. But you literally said: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. To change up the words a bit to make it more clear: > And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on [race] as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority. "It's not racist to be racist, if it's not done from a basis of racial superiority." To be brutally frank, it is racist to be racist. The outcome of being racist _can_ be good! It absolutely can be good! But, it's critically important for the folks who are developing and implementing racist policies in order to produce genuinely good outcomes to be brutally honest with themselves about what they're doing so that they also implement deliberate, honest review into their policies so that they know when they can stop being racist. Without building in a "Okay, our mission is accomplished and we're done. Let's go back to treating everyone equally again." decision point, policies like these mutate into nothing more than getting your turn with the proverbial boot stamping on a human face forever.