3 ms·

The point of all of this stuff is to find a balance between evaluating applicants independently and objectively according to a well-defined set of critera -- eq

by kiitos 2y ago

The point of all of this stuff is to find a balance between evaluating applicants independently and objectively according to a well-defined set of critera -- equality of opportunity -- and producing an end result that is representational and fair in the societal sense -- equality of outcome. A good illustration of this concept is the "equality vs. equity" cartoon, with people of different heights trying to look over a fence. https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/... I understand why a lot of folks, especially technically-minded folks, bias for equality of opportunity exclusively. This is essentially what a meritocracy is. There's lots of good things about equality of opportunity and meritocracies, but they also have problems, and one of those problems is that, generalizing, they both tend to reflect and reinforce pre-existing biases, and in particular implicit biases. This is exactly the kind of problem that DEI initiatives are trying to address. I don't really want to litigate the pros and cons of these two concepts, I just want to point out that they both exist, and that initiatives like DEI can have as goals improving one or the other or both. It's fine if you say, when doing hiring, you're only interested in equality of opportunity. That's probably the position that most people who are anti-DEI would take. But I think it's also fine if you say, when doing hiring, you're interested in both equality of opportunity and outcome. Both are valid.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Manuel_D 2y ago
Using protected class as a factor in employment is prohibited nation-wide under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no "balance" between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is required by law. Using protected class as a factor in hiring doesn't become legal just because it's done in pursuit of equality of outcome. They are not both valid concepts, at least not unless you're willing to violate people's civil rights. One is what employers are legally required to do. The other is illegal discrimination. Also, think through the implications of this photo in the context of hiring: https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/... What's really the difference between having a group of candidates standing on a box, and lowering the bar for those candidates? At the end of the day, whether it's standing on a box or lowering the bar the end result is the same: some candidates are considered to have met expectations despite not reaching the same heights as others. I highly encourage you to think through whether this is a good metaphor to use to justify DEI in a workplace setting.
- kiitos 2y ago
  You are focusing on the specific details of the hiring process, and evaluating stuff like DEI in terms of a single hiring outcome. I'm trying to clarify that the relevant scope is actually much broader, for example it might be the demographics of the entire engineering org within that company, measured after this updated hiring process has been in place for a year or more.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Again, deliberately engineering equitable demographics of the entire engineering org is illegal discrimination. Scope is irrelevant. You cannot use protected class as a factor in hiring, not in a single hiring decision nor in the broader scope of an entire org. Lets say you measure the hiring demographics over the span of a year. What then ? Directing your recruiters to prioritize underrepresented candidates is still illegal. It doesn't matter whether the scope is a single hire or an entire org: equality in hiring is mandatory. It's not a question of scope. Equality and equity are not equally valid concepts in hiring. The former is required by law, even if it produces an inequitable outcome. There is no "balance" between respecting candidates civil liberties and achieving your preferred demographic distribution.

by kiitos 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Manuel_D 2y ago

Using protected class as a factor in employment is prohibited nation-wide under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no "balance" between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is required by law. Using protected class as a factor in hiring doesn't become legal just because it's done in pursuit of equality of outcome. They are not both valid concepts, at least not unless you're willing to violate people's civil rights. One is what employers are legally required to do. The other is illegal discrimination. Also, think through the implications of this photo in the context of hiring: https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/... What's really the difference between having a group of candidates standing on a box, and lowering the bar for those candidates? At the end of the day, whether it's standing on a box or lowering the bar the end result is the same: some candidates are considered to have met expectations despite not reaching the same heights as others. I highly encourage you to think through whether this is a good metaphor to use to justify DEI in a workplace setting.

kiitos 2y ago
You are focusing on the specific details of the hiring process, and evaluating stuff like DEI in terms of a single hiring outcome. I'm trying to clarify that the relevant scope is actually much broader, for example it might be the demographics of the entire engineering org within that company, measured after this updated hiring process has been in place for a year or more.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Again, deliberately engineering equitable demographics of the entire engineering org is illegal discrimination. Scope is irrelevant. You cannot use protected class as a factor in hiring, not in a single hiring decision nor in the broader scope of an entire org. Lets say you measure the hiring demographics over the span of a year. What then ? Directing your recruiters to prioritize underrepresented candidates is still illegal. It doesn't matter whether the scope is a single hire or an entire org: equality in hiring is mandatory. It's not a question of scope. Equality and equity are not equally valid concepts in hiring. The former is required by law, even if it produces an inequitable outcome. There is no "balance" between respecting candidates civil liberties and achieving your preferred demographic distribution.