3 ms·

> 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 narro

> 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
  > You still haven't answered the question: As phrased, I don't think the first would be illegal. It probably doesn't actually meet the definition of a quota, although use of the word "quota" is likely to receive stricter scrutiny. If it can be met without illegal practices, it's perfectly fine, and if you don't actually institute a quota, even if you call it a quota, it's fine. If the goal can be met by expanding the talent pool or by reducing discrimination, it doesn't matter what you call it. > 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. Now what if they are the same orchestra, that is, they set a goal of hiring 50% women, and meet it by blinding auditions? Again, my contention is that it is not necessary to undertake illegal activities to achieve a diverse hiring goal. You seem to agree with this in theory, but when given any concrete policy proposal, even ones that are widely accepted and have been adopted by wide swaths of the US for the better part of a century, you claim that they are illegal. You're simply incorrect. > Not regularly, only when companies are successfully sued for discriminating. This is approximately a weekly occurrence (they settle about 2 cases per week), I'd say that's fairly regular. Further, such goals were required by all federal contractors from 1965 to Jan 20 of this year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246), its kind of silly to continue to claim that diversity goals are illegal when they've been required by every federal contractor for longer than any of the companies you've mentioned have existed.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > As phrased, I don't think the first would be illegal "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a quota of X% women" You think this is legal? > Now what if they are the same orchestra, that is, they set a goal of hiring 50% women, and meet it by blinding auditions? And what happens if they blind the auditions, but the share of women still falls short of 50%? Well, then they have to adjust the results of the blind auditions to match the quota. You've repeatedly done this sneaky rhetorical slight of hand, where you endorse explicitly discriminatory policies and justify it with the claim that it could be achieved through non-discriminatory means. But that doesn't change the fact that the policy is discriminatory, and almost certainly would result in discrimination. If I tell my employers that I don't want to hire any pregnant women - say, we institute a "diversity goal" of 100% non-pregnant employees - they could achieve this goal without actually discriminating against any pregnant women. That doesn't change the fact that such a goal is discriminatory. > Again, my contention is that it is not necessary to undertake illegal activities to achieve a diverse hiring goal. I've witnessed firsthand companies setting diversity "goals" of 40% women electrical engineers. 10% of electrical engineers are women. There's no way this can be feasibly achieved without resorting to gender discrimination. > You seem to agree with this in theory, but when given any concrete policy proposal, even ones that are widely accepted and have been adopted by wide swaths of the US for the better part of a century, you claim that they are illegal. You're simply incorrect. I've listed numerous hiring policies that I explain are not illegal: * Anonymous resume review * Adopting objective evaluation criteria * Create and send resumes to your recruiters, identical save for identifying information like names, and follow up on any discrepancies on call-backs. > This is approximately a weekly occurrence (they settle about 2 cases per week), I'd say that's fairly regular. ~100 cases a year nation wide makes it an extremely rare occurrence.

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
> You still haven't answered the question: As phrased, I don't think the first would be illegal. It probably doesn't actually meet the definition of a quota, although use of the word "quota" is likely to receive stricter scrutiny. If it can be met without illegal practices, it's perfectly fine, and if you don't actually institute a quota, even if you call it a quota, it's fine. If the goal can be met by expanding the talent pool or by reducing discrimination, it doesn't matter what you call it. > 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. Now what if they are the same orchestra, that is, they set a goal of hiring 50% women, and meet it by blinding auditions? Again, my contention is that it is not necessary to undertake illegal activities to achieve a diverse hiring goal. You seem to agree with this in theory, but when given any concrete policy proposal, even ones that are widely accepted and have been adopted by wide swaths of the US for the better part of a century, you claim that they are illegal. You're simply incorrect. > Not regularly, only when companies are successfully sued for discriminating. This is approximately a weekly occurrence (they settle about 2 cases per week), I'd say that's fairly regular. Further, such goals were required by all federal contractors from 1965 to Jan 20 of this year (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246), its kind of silly to continue to claim that diversity goals are illegal when they've been required by every federal contractor for longer than any of the companies you've mentioned have existed.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > As phrased, I don't think the first would be illegal "Your performance review score is reduced if you don't meet a quota of X% women" You think this is legal? > Now what if they are the same orchestra, that is, they set a goal of hiring 50% women, and meet it by blinding auditions? And what happens if they blind the auditions, but the share of women still falls short of 50%? Well, then they have to adjust the results of the blind auditions to match the quota. You've repeatedly done this sneaky rhetorical slight of hand, where you endorse explicitly discriminatory policies and justify it with the claim that it could be achieved through non-discriminatory means. But that doesn't change the fact that the policy is discriminatory, and almost certainly would result in discrimination. If I tell my employers that I don't want to hire any pregnant women - say, we institute a "diversity goal" of 100% non-pregnant employees - they could achieve this goal without actually discriminating against any pregnant women. That doesn't change the fact that such a goal is discriminatory. > Again, my contention is that it is not necessary to undertake illegal activities to achieve a diverse hiring goal. I've witnessed firsthand companies setting diversity "goals" of 40% women electrical engineers. 10% of electrical engineers are women. There's no way this can be feasibly achieved without resorting to gender discrimination. > You seem to agree with this in theory, but when given any concrete policy proposal, even ones that are widely accepted and have been adopted by wide swaths of the US for the better part of a century, you claim that they are illegal. You're simply incorrect. I've listed numerous hiring policies that I explain are not illegal: * Anonymous resume review * Adopting objective evaluation criteria * Create and send resumes to your recruiters, identical save for identifying information like names, and follow up on any discrepancies on call-backs. > This is approximately a weekly occurrence (they settle about 2 cases per week), I'd say that's fairly regular. ~100 cases a year nation wide makes it an extremely rare occurrence.