4 ms·

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

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.
    - LightBug1 2y ago
      I'm genuinely not trying to be a schmuck here ... genuinely ... but can I direct you to any decent dictionary and to read up on the word 'racist'. Then read your comment again. Thanks.
      - ChocolateGod 2y ago
        From Oxford > prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. Not giving someone a job based on their skin colour (a racial group) is discrimination, therefore meets the definition.
        LightBug1 2y ago
        You're using the word 'discrimination' in the neutral / identifying-distinction manner of the word. To discriminate ... between red and blue, or hot and cold. In relation to racism, I only see the word 'discrimination' in the negative. Thought experiment: two candidates are completely equal, one is black one is white. If one made the decision to give the job to the black person for reasons of diversity or some other possibly positive reason, that wouldn't be a decision made in the negative sense of the word. And so it fails to meet the definition for me. However, at this point I accept we're straying into generous nuance, and this is no place for that. So, let's say I give you that. It's moot. Why? I'll repeat for the third or fourth time here. I don't, and have never, supported giving someone a job based on skin colour (or racial group) as your last sentence states, nor do I believe it is common or widespread. DEI, for me, is only about encouraging a more diverse pool of candidates and hirers, where possible. The end .... Scandalous, right? Racist? How? It's just been weaponised by the usual suspects. To them, DEI means the assumption of just automatically choosing black over white, or female over male ... and it's just ... boring at this point. For example, if I'm not mistaken, I understand that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled against quotas based on skin colour.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
>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. If you hire based on someone's race, that would appear to be racist.
- LightBug1 2y ago
  Again, that's not how it works, or should work. But even if it did, it could be called a 'mistake'. But it's not 'racist'. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the word. And it's sad because people (perhaps you) will go around and say that the word 'racist' is overused and has lost it's meaning. And yet, you (and co) are the ones mistakenly using it here. EDIT: (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so to the below ... @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.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so:... You probably haven't been blocked, you've probably run into one of the rumored "conversation slower-downer' mechanisms. If you select the specific comment that you wish to reply to so that it opens in a page on its own, you should be able to reply to that comment.
    - pests 2y ago
      Rumored? It’s a very real thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16020089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16020089 > We tend to call it the 'overheated discussion detector' these days, since it detects more than flamewars. > Scott and I get emailed every time that software trips so we can quickly look at which threads are being penalized and reverse the penalty when it isn't helpful - Quotes by Dang
simoncion 2y ago
> In my experience it has been about trying to encourage a more diverse pool to select from... In my experience, the DEI office rejected the results of an interview panel after the interview-and-candidate-selection stage because the candidates selected by the interviewers and interviewing panel to receive offers were "insufficiently diverse". This resulted in Corporate closing the job requisition because they didn't feel like dealing with the hassle (and expense) of repeating the process. (This sucked because we fucking needed that hole to be filled... but there's no arguing with Corporate.) This is an N=1 report, and I'm sure there are other companies that aren't so super-fucked, but at this particular company, this is how it went down. This scenario doesn't meet the strict definition of "diversity hire", but it sure does feel like actions motivated by the same sort of reasoning.

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.
  - LightBug1 2y ago
    I'm genuinely not trying to be a schmuck here ... genuinely ... but can I direct you to any decent dictionary and to read up on the word 'racist'. Then read your comment again. Thanks.
    - ChocolateGod 2y ago
      From Oxford > prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. Not giving someone a job based on their skin colour (a racial group) is discrimination, therefore meets the definition.
      - LightBug1 2y ago
        You're using the word 'discrimination' in the neutral / identifying-distinction manner of the word. To discriminate ... between red and blue, or hot and cold. In relation to racism, I only see the word 'discrimination' in the negative. Thought experiment: two candidates are completely equal, one is black one is white. If one made the decision to give the job to the black person for reasons of diversity or some other possibly positive reason, that wouldn't be a decision made in the negative sense of the word. And so it fails to meet the definition for me. However, at this point I accept we're straying into generous nuance, and this is no place for that. So, let's say I give you that. It's moot. Why? I'll repeat for the third or fourth time here. I don't, and have never, supported giving someone a job based on skin colour (or racial group) as your last sentence states, nor do I believe it is common or widespread. DEI, for me, is only about encouraging a more diverse pool of candidates and hirers, where possible. The end .... Scandalous, right? Racist? How? It's just been weaponised by the usual suspects. To them, DEI means the assumption of just automatically choosing black over white, or female over male ... and it's just ... boring at this point. For example, if I'm not mistaken, I understand that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled against quotas based on skin colour.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

>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. If you hire based on someone's race, that would appear to be racist.

LightBug1 2y ago
Again, that's not how it works, or should work. But even if it did, it could be called a 'mistake'. But it's not 'racist'. You're fundamentally misunderstanding the word. And it's sad because people (perhaps you) will go around and say that the word 'racist' is overused and has lost it's meaning. And yet, you (and co) are the ones mistakenly using it here. EDIT: (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so to the below ... @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.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so:... You probably haven't been blocked, you've probably run into one of the rumored "conversation slower-downer' mechanisms. If you select the specific comment that you wish to reply to so that it opens in a page on its own, you should be able to reply to that comment.
  - pests 2y ago
    Rumored? It’s a very real thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16020089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16020089 > We tend to call it the 'overheated discussion detector' these days, since it detects more than flamewars. > Scott and I get emailed every time that software trips so we can quickly look at which threads are being penalized and reverse the penalty when it isn't helpful - Quotes by Dang

simoncion 2y ago

> In my experience it has been about trying to encourage a more diverse pool to select from... In my experience, the DEI office rejected the results of an interview panel after the interview-and-candidate-selection stage because the candidates selected by the interviewers and interviewing panel to receive offers were "insufficiently diverse". This resulted in Corporate closing the job requisition because they didn't feel like dealing with the hassle (and expense) of repeating the process. (This sucked because we fucking needed that hole to be filled... but there's no arguing with Corporate.) This is an N=1 report, and I'm sure there are other companies that aren't so super-fucked, but at this particular company, this is how it went down. This scenario doesn't meet the strict definition of "diversity hire", but it sure does feel like actions motivated by the same sort of reasoning.