4 ms·

There is no inconsistency at all. A policy that uses protected class as a factor, in any way, is discriminatory. > But elsewhere, you've said that changing hir

There is no inconsistency at all. A policy that uses protected class as a factor, in any way, is discriminatory. > But elsewhere, you've said that changing hiring processes to ensure that URM and women are searched out and interviewed, is bad discrimination. "changing hiring processes to ensure that URM and women are searched out and interviewed" is a vague statement that encompasses both discriminatory and non-discriminatory practices. Examples of non-discriminatory hiring practices that could boost women and URM participation include: anonymizing hiring processes to prevent bias or recruiting at events like Grace Hopper or at HBCUs. Examples of discriminatory practices include: Quotas (whether they're quotas on hiring or interviewing), reservation systems that prohibit non-diverse candidates from segments of headcount, or bonuses paid out to managers when they hire candidates of a particular race or gender. All of these practices serve to increase diverse turnout, but the former do so in a non discriminatory manner and the latter do so in a discriminatory manner. The problem is, only the latter can guarantee equitable outcomes. You're using financial aid as a motte-and-baily here. Financial aid and preferences for low-income applicants in university are legal. Preferences for race and gender in hiring is not. Both are discrimination, yes. But the former is legal, and the latter is not. There's no inconsistency in supporting the former, and opposing the latter. And the conversation is about racial and gender equity. > What it avoids doing is making the assumption that giving all people the same treatment (the same price) is the best approach When it comes to race and gender in hiring, it is mandated by law that you give applicants of all races and all gender identities the same treatment. Anything less is illegal. I guess it's possible to think that the best approach is to flout the law and carry out illegal hiring practices to push towards equity. And at 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked at that's what they did, so you'd be hardly alone in that position. > I'd agree that equitable programs require discrimination in that third sense, but I disagree that such discrimination is necessarily unlawful or immoral Again, the conversation is about racial and gender equity in hiring. I don't care about your opinion on financial aid about preferences for low income college students. When you wrote this statement, "I disagree that such discrimination is necessarily unlawful or immoral", are you referring to discrimination on the basis of race and gender in hiring? I highly suggest you read up on employment laws, especially since you're putting your employer's name in your profile.

joshuamorton 2y ago
> There is no inconsistency at all. A policy that uses protected class as a factor, in any way, is discriminatory. But the policy you describe uses protected class as a factor, and results in, for example, atheist applicants being less likely to be hired than before. > And the conversation is about racial and gender equity. No, the conversation is about equity, and my belief that you misunderstood the term. All I've claimed is that equity is a worthwhile goal. You seem deeply unwilling to engage with that claim, instead distracting with questions about legality which, even if your understanding were correct, wouldn't be relevant to my question. > Quotas (whether they're quotas on hiring or interviewing) So would a policy that says that for any given position, you must interview at least one candidate from say 4 distinct declared racial backgrounds be legal in your view? It treats every race equally and doesn't favor or disfavor any particular race. > I highly suggest you read up on employment laws, especially since you're putting your employer's name in your profile. While the relevant executive order was repealed, making it no longer required, I think referencing the department of labor's own info on hiring law is worthwhile: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs and https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/placement-goals#Q3 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/placement-goals#Q3 The crux being that while explicit hiring quotas are illegal, which is what I said, goals to measure against are not illegal. There's nothing I can find to suggest that quotas in application pool size are unlawful, and they're every common. I appreciate your concern, but perhaps read up yourself.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > But the policy you describe uses protected class as a factor, and results in, for example, atheist applicants being less likely to be hired than before. No it does not. When orchestras put a veil between the auditioner and the evaluators and women's representation subsequently increased, that wasn't discrimination against men. That was discrimination against women being removed. A policy of rejecting 50% of Catholics discriminates on the basis of religion. Removing this policy and adopting a non-discriminatory hiring practices may result in lower proportional representation of non-Catholics. That doesn't make it discriminatory, it just meant that the representation of non-Catholics was previously inflated by the discriminatory suppression of 50% of Catholic applicants. I'm not sure why this is hard to comprehend. > So would a policy that says that for any given position, you must interview at least one candidate from say 4 distinct declared racial backgrounds be legal in your view? Nope, this is still using protected class as a factor in hiring. You cannot deny, nor delay, the hiring process on the basis protected class. Meta used this policy, they called it "Diverse Slate Approach". I explain how it discriminates on the basis of protected class here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753672 > While the relevant executive order was repealed, making it no longer required, It was never even allowed by law. The executive order doesn't actually do anything except restating the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: discrimination on the basis of protected class is illegal in hiring. What it really did was signal that non-enforcement of antidiscrimination laws against "non-diverse" groups is no longer going to continue. This is why Meta ended the DSA, and why many institutions are rolling back their DEI programs. > The crux being that while explicit hiring quotas are illegal, which is what I said, goals to measure against are not illegal. Imagine one company tells its executives that their performance reviews will be penalized if their department fails to meet a 35% quota for women in engineering roles. Another company tells its executives that their performance reviews will be penalized if their department fails to meet a 35% goal for women in engineering roles. What's the difference between these two policies? This isn't a hypothetical example. Your own company created such a policy: https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-evaluate-executive-performance-diversity-inclusion-2021-02-19/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-evaluate-executive... I wouldn't be surprised if Google does away with these totally-not-quotas the same way Meta ditched the DSA. Whether you call them "goals" or "representation targets" or "diversity milestones", whenever you define success and failure in terms of numerical thresholds on the basis of protected class, it's almost certainly going to incentivize discrimination. And again, in my experience companies are simply ignoring these laws and adopting quotas or other discriminatory practices anyway. Or at least they were during the previous administration, when they were confident enforcement would be lax.

joshuamorton 2y ago

> There is no inconsistency at all. A policy that uses protected class as a factor, in any way, is discriminatory. But the policy you describe uses protected class as a factor, and results in, for example, atheist applicants being less likely to be hired than before. > And the conversation is about racial and gender equity. No, the conversation is about equity, and my belief that you misunderstood the term. All I've claimed is that equity is a worthwhile goal. You seem deeply unwilling to engage with that claim, instead distracting with questions about legality which, even if your understanding were correct, wouldn't be relevant to my question. > Quotas (whether they're quotas on hiring or interviewing) So would a policy that says that for any given position, you must interview at least one candidate from say 4 distinct declared racial backgrounds be legal in your view? It treats every race equally and doesn't favor or disfavor any particular race. > I highly suggest you read up on employment laws, especially since you're putting your employer's name in your profile. While the relevant executive order was repealed, making it no longer required, I think referencing the department of labor's own info on hiring law is worthwhile: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/AAFAQs and https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/placement-goals#Q3 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/placement-goals#Q3 The crux being that while explicit hiring quotas are illegal, which is what I said, goals to measure against are not illegal. There's nothing I can find to suggest that quotas in application pool size are unlawful, and they're every common. I appreciate your concern, but perhaps read up yourself.

Manuel_D 2y ago
> But the policy you describe uses protected class as a factor, and results in, for example, atheist applicants being less likely to be hired than before. No it does not. When orchestras put a veil between the auditioner and the evaluators and women's representation subsequently increased, that wasn't discrimination against men. That was discrimination against women being removed. A policy of rejecting 50% of Catholics discriminates on the basis of religion. Removing this policy and adopting a non-discriminatory hiring practices may result in lower proportional representation of non-Catholics. That doesn't make it discriminatory, it just meant that the representation of non-Catholics was previously inflated by the discriminatory suppression of 50% of Catholic applicants. I'm not sure why this is hard to comprehend. > So would a policy that says that for any given position, you must interview at least one candidate from say 4 distinct declared racial backgrounds be legal in your view? Nope, this is still using protected class as a factor in hiring. You cannot deny, nor delay, the hiring process on the basis protected class. Meta used this policy, they called it "Diverse Slate Approach". I explain how it discriminates on the basis of protected class here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42753672 > While the relevant executive order was repealed, making it no longer required, It was never even allowed by law. The executive order doesn't actually do anything except restating the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: discrimination on the basis of protected class is illegal in hiring. What it really did was signal that non-enforcement of antidiscrimination laws against "non-diverse" groups is no longer going to continue. This is why Meta ended the DSA, and why many institutions are rolling back their DEI programs. > The crux being that while explicit hiring quotas are illegal, which is what I said, goals to measure against are not illegal. Imagine one company tells its executives that their performance reviews will be penalized if their department fails to meet a 35% quota for women in engineering roles. Another company tells its executives that their performance reviews will be penalized if their department fails to meet a 35% goal for women in engineering roles. What's the difference between these two policies? This isn't a hypothetical example. Your own company created such a policy: https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-evaluate-executive-performance-diversity-inclusion-2021-02-19/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-evaluate-executive... I wouldn't be surprised if Google does away with these totally-not-quotas the same way Meta ditched the DSA. Whether you call them "goals" or "representation targets" or "diversity milestones", whenever you define success and failure in terms of numerical thresholds on the basis of protected class, it's almost certainly going to incentivize discrimination. And again, in my experience companies are simply ignoring these laws and adopting quotas or other discriminatory practices anyway. Or at least they were during the previous administration, when they were confident enforcement would be lax.