4 ms·

> You can justify this numerically, right? Like, You have some data to back this up, right? Like you aren't just entirely making up a boogeyman, right? You have

> You can justify this numerically, right? Like, You have some data to back this up, right? Like you aren't just entirely making up a boogeyman, right? You have some evidence beyond your personal dissatisfaction and disapproval that the process actually results in significantly different processing times for diverse vs. non-diverse applicants, right? Because without such evidence, you're making a pretty conspiratorial claim. Yes, if you compile statistics on how long candidates have to wait for the DSA to be fulfilled, you'll see that diverse candidates don't have to wait at all because the DSA is fulfilled the moment that a diverse candidate is interviewed but the non-diverse candidates are stuck waiting until a diverse candidate is interviewed. This is explicitly documented in Meta's hiring policies, both the mechanisms by which offers for non-diverse candidates are delayed and the goals of reducing non-diverse representation. > You see how this is a contradiction. The policy to "increase diversity" and improve retention of Catholics isn't discriminatory, when you described it, but it is discriminatory now when it suits you since it "reduces the representation of <non-catholic> applicants". The "The policy to 'increase diversity' and improve retention of Catholics" in the example above is to stop rejecting 50% of Catholic applicants. If a company anonymizes its hiring and the hiring rate of women subsequently increases, then that is increasing the representation of women through non-discriminatory means. If a company institutes a policy where managers' performance reviews are penalized unless they hire a certain percentage of women, then that is increasing representation through discriminatory means. The performance reviewed were changed to use the protected class of hires as a factor. I'm not sure why you think this is a contradiction. If a policy uses the protected class of applicants or hires as a factor, it's discriminatory. Things like anonymizing interviews are not discriminatory. Do you really not understand why anonymizing hiring is non-discriminatory, but setting thresholds on the hiring outcomes and penalizing employees if those thresholds are not met is discrimination? > You continue to not understand what a quota is, and how the law considers them different than other policies. If you maintain the same hiring bar, it isn't a quota. A quota functionally requires using a lower quality bar for such applicants, and using class, not qualification, as the deciding factor. A quota does not require setting a different hiring bar. Imagine I have a diversity goal of 40% women hires in software development. Only 20% of software developers are women, so in order to meet this quota, I flip a coin whenever a male developer applies and reject 50% of male applicants. The rest of the interview process proceeds as normal. This doesn't lower the bar for women. They still need to pass the same set of skills based interviews as men. But it's absolutely discrimination on the basis of gender to reject 50% of male applicants to pursue a diversity goal. "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a quota of X% women" "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a goal of X% women" Why does one require lowering the bar, but the other does not, when the policies are functionally identical? Your performance review score is reduced if you hire less than X% women in both cases. Is your line of argument really that the mere substitution of one word determines how employees will respond to the threat of lower performance reviews if a threshold isn't met? That's ridiculous, both policies exert the exact same amount of pressure to meet the X% threshold. If penalizing people for failing to meet an X% quota will lead them to lower hiring standards or engage in discrimination, then there's no reason to think that the exact same policy save for the word used to refer to the threshold would have any different outcome. > That simply isn't true, and I'd really appreciate it if you could read the links I've posted, such as https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/radiant-services-pay-11-millio https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/radiant-services-pay-11-millio..., where the government requires companies to institute such policies. That was done as part of a settlement for a discrimination lawsuit. The exceptions to the prohibition on using race and gender as a factor in hiring are narrow. Bona fide occupational qualifications are one. You can specifically hire a Back actor to portray, say, Frederick Douglass in a movie. Consent decrees as part of a discrimination lawsuit are another. But none of these apply to Google, or any of my past employers that engaged in discriminatory hiring. Your justification for discrimination on the basis of protected class only applies in a narrow set of circumstances.

joshuamorton 2y ago
> That was done as part of a settlement for a discrimination lawsuit. The exceptions to the prohibition on using race and gender as a factor in hiring are narrow. Bona fide occupational qualifications are one. You can specifically hire a Back actor to portray, say, Frederick Douglass in a movie. Consent decrees as part of a discrimination lawsuit are another. So your contention is that the government regularly requires companies to undertake otherwise illegal activities, and that it would be illegal for the company to voluntarily follow a similar set of policies? Can you point to a statutory basis for this claim? I don't think I've ever seen the concept that a consent decree can require otherwise illegal actions. > Why does one require lowering the bar, but the other does not, when the policies are functionally identical? My contention is that it does not require illegal activities to meet reasonably set hiring goals. > If a company institutes a policy where managers' performance reviews are penalized unless they hire a certain percentage of women, then that is increasing representation through discriminatory means. The performance reviewed were changed to use the protected class of hires as a factor. In your Catholic example, is saying "we have a goal to stop flipping the coin" illegal? It is otherwise identical to a goal of increasing representation of a certain group by a certain percentage by changing some aspects of the hiring process that unfairly impacts a particular class. Why is that policy acceptable, but real world policies are, seemingly in every case, supposedly illegal? > This is explicitly documented in Meta's hiring policies, both the mechanisms by which offers for non-diverse candidates are delayed and the goals of reducing non-diverse representation. Why haven't you sued them, if this was documented to the degree you describe, it was on its face illegal. And meta was actively admitting to illegal discrimination. I've been awarded money in a similar suit, so it's certainly possible for white men to win in discrimination cases.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > So your contention is that the government regularly requires companies to undertake otherwise illegal activities, and that it would be illegal for the company to voluntarily follow a similar set of policies? Not regularly, only when companies are successfully sued for discriminating. > Can you point to a statutory basis for this claim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII_%E2%80%93_equal_employment_opportunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title... United Steelworkers vs. Weber established that use of protected class as a factor in employment is allowed only in narrow circumstances. In that instance, a company only hired steelworkers from a whites-only union, and were compelled by the government to give preferences to nonwhite employees for some period of time afterward. In normal circumstances, a company cannot give racial preferences. > My contention is that it does not require illegal activities to meet reasonably set hiring goals. You still haven't answered the question: "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a quota of X% women" "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a goal of X% women" Why does one require illegal activities to meet, but not the latter? This remains unanswered. > In your Catholic example, is saying "we have a goal to stop flipping the coin" illegal? It's not. > It is otherwise identical to a goal of increasing representation of a certain group by a certain percentage by changing some aspects of the hiring process that unfairly impacts a particular class. Because it's using protected class as a factor in hiring. Say an orchestra adopts anonymous auditions, and the representation of women rises from 33% to 50%. That's a non-discriminatory hiring policy. Another orchestra issues a "goal" or "representation target" or "diversity milestone" or some other euphemism that allocates 50% of the orchestra seats to women. That's a discriminatory hiring policy. This is fourth time I've explained this, it seems like you're being willfully ignorant here. > Why is that policy acceptable, but real world policies are, seemingly in every case, supposedly illegal? They're not illegal in every case. Anonymizing interviews is legal, for example. The problem is that the legal ways of reducing discrimination don't lead to equitable results. Thus pushes towards equity require illegal discrimination, like setting thresholds and penalizing employees when those thresholds aren't met. > Why haven't you sued them, if this was documented to the degree you describe, it was on its face illegal. Because I'm not a victim of its policies. I'm Cuban so I'm one of the "diverse" candidates that fulfills the DSA. I have no basis to sue.

joshuamorton 2y ago

> That was done as part of a settlement for a discrimination lawsuit. The exceptions to the prohibition on using race and gender as a factor in hiring are narrow. Bona fide occupational qualifications are one. You can specifically hire a Back actor to portray, say, Frederick Douglass in a movie. Consent decrees as part of a discrimination lawsuit are another. So your contention is that the government regularly requires companies to undertake otherwise illegal activities, and that it would be illegal for the company to voluntarily follow a similar set of policies? Can you point to a statutory basis for this claim? I don't think I've ever seen the concept that a consent decree can require otherwise illegal actions. > Why does one require lowering the bar, but the other does not, when the policies are functionally identical? My contention is that it does not require illegal activities to meet reasonably set hiring goals. > If a company institutes a policy where managers' performance reviews are penalized unless they hire a certain percentage of women, then that is increasing representation through discriminatory means. The performance reviewed were changed to use the protected class of hires as a factor. In your Catholic example, is saying "we have a goal to stop flipping the coin" illegal? It is otherwise identical to a goal of increasing representation of a certain group by a certain percentage by changing some aspects of the hiring process that unfairly impacts a particular class. Why is that policy acceptable, but real world policies are, seemingly in every case, supposedly illegal? > This is explicitly documented in Meta's hiring policies, both the mechanisms by which offers for non-diverse candidates are delayed and the goals of reducing non-diverse representation. Why haven't you sued them, if this was documented to the degree you describe, it was on its face illegal. And meta was actively admitting to illegal discrimination. I've been awarded money in a similar suit, so it's certainly possible for white men to win in discrimination cases.

Manuel_D 2y ago
> So your contention is that the government regularly requires companies to undertake otherwise illegal activities, and that it would be illegal for the company to voluntarily follow a similar set of policies? Not regularly, only when companies are successfully sued for discriminating. > Can you point to a statutory basis for this claim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII_%E2%80%93_equal_employment_opportunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title... United Steelworkers vs. Weber established that use of protected class as a factor in employment is allowed only in narrow circumstances. In that instance, a company only hired steelworkers from a whites-only union, and were compelled by the government to give preferences to nonwhite employees for some period of time afterward. In normal circumstances, a company cannot give racial preferences. > My contention is that it does not require illegal activities to meet reasonably set hiring goals. You still haven't answered the question: "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a quota of X% women" "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a goal of X% women" Why does one require illegal activities to meet, but not the latter? This remains unanswered. > In your Catholic example, is saying "we have a goal to stop flipping the coin" illegal? It's not. > It is otherwise identical to a goal of increasing representation of a certain group by a certain percentage by changing some aspects of the hiring process that unfairly impacts a particular class. Because it's using protected class as a factor in hiring. Say an orchestra adopts anonymous auditions, and the representation of women rises from 33% to 50%. That's a non-discriminatory hiring policy. Another orchestra issues a "goal" or "representation target" or "diversity milestone" or some other euphemism that allocates 50% of the orchestra seats to women. That's a discriminatory hiring policy. This is fourth time I've explained this, it seems like you're being willfully ignorant here. > Why is that policy acceptable, but real world policies are, seemingly in every case, supposedly illegal? They're not illegal in every case. Anonymizing interviews is legal, for example. The problem is that the legal ways of reducing discrimination don't lead to equitable results. Thus pushes towards equity require illegal discrimination, like setting thresholds and penalizing employees when those thresholds aren't met. > Why haven't you sued them, if this was documented to the degree you describe, it was on its face illegal. Because I'm not a victim of its policies. I'm Cuban so I'm one of the "diverse" candidates that fulfills the DSA. I have no basis to sue.