5 ms·

You fell into the instant trap I was talking about by equating DEI to “hiring quotas.” That’s a lazy and stupid approach to the problem of increasing opportunit

You fell into the instant trap I was talking about by equating DEI to “hiring quotas.” That’s a lazy and stupid approach to the problem of increasing opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The solution is, unfortunately, much more difficult and requires work across society to achieve it.

ars 2y ago
In theory sure, in practice DEI = hiring quotas. The definition you want DEI to have: Extra training for DEI students, does not exist in the real world. And if it did no one is complaining about it. > That’s a lazy and stupid approach Exactly. Which is why DEI has becomes such a negative term. You want a different definition, but that's simply not how it's used.
- scott_w 2y ago
  To avoid repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945302 > Exactly. Which is why DEI has becomes such a negative term. You want a different definition, but that's simply not how it's used. No, the reason has been the refusal of people in positions of power to engage thoughtfully with the genuine criticism.
- int_19h 2y ago
  It is kind of inevitable when you think of it. Regardless of how one implements DEI, its success is still going to be measured by looking at the demographic breakdown. So even if the implementation isn't literally quotas, the metric is - and once you have the metric, everything else is optimized around that. If quotas cannot be used directly, then other mechanisms will be introduced that amount to the same thing in practice (as with Harvard character assessment etc).
thaumasiotes 2y ago
You're imagining that there's ever been a meaning of DEI other than quotas, but there hasn't. That's the way it began and the only thing it's ever done or wanted.
- scott_w 2y ago
  Then maybe you should see how it’s done in other countries and companies. I’ve worked on hiring and we’ve never once lowered our standards just to get in a black candidate. What I’ve seen done is conscious outreach to increase diversity of applicants, changing language to increase applications from women, blind reviews where you can’t see the name or details of the applicant (to minimise subconscious bias). All of these actually happen and, to a greater or lesser extent, do help without discriminating against white applicants. How do I know? I ended up only hiring two white men in that particular round!
  - aydyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - scott_w 2y ago
      Since your response is to call me a liar, I won’t dignify the rest of your comment with a thoughtful reply.
      - aydyn 2y ago
        I didnt call you a liar, I am claiming that people are not always truthful to themselves. Purposeful ignorance is an easy out. For example, you made a factually incorrect claim about blind hiring, and its considerably easier to ignore that since addressing it devastates your larger point.
        ryandrake 2y ago
        He told you something he personally did/witnessed, and you replied with "not true." I'm not sure how else he should have interpreted that.
        aydyn 2y ago
        I think he truly believes it, but given the totality of his post it's very likely wrong. I'm not saying he is lying or a liar. Again: > blind reviews where you can’t see the name or details of the applicant (to minimise subconscious bias). Its been shown that doing so _increases_ the amount of non-minority candidates selected, not the other way around.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
Except that’s what it becomes in practice. As soon as you inject race into these decisions, it becomes de facto racial quotas and preferences: https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-showed-astonishing-racial-gaps/ https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-acti... It took like five minutes for Biden to start deploying SBA loans whites weren’t eligible for and for NASDAQ to create diversity quotas for boards. Racial gerrymandering is always the ultimate goal of this stuff.

ars 2y ago

In theory sure, in practice DEI = hiring quotas. The definition you want DEI to have: Extra training for DEI students, does not exist in the real world. And if it did no one is complaining about it. > That’s a lazy and stupid approach Exactly. Which is why DEI has becomes such a negative term. You want a different definition, but that's simply not how it's used.

scott_w 2y ago
To avoid repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945302 > Exactly. Which is why DEI has becomes such a negative term. You want a different definition, but that's simply not how it's used. No, the reason has been the refusal of people in positions of power to engage thoughtfully with the genuine criticism.
int_19h 2y ago
It is kind of inevitable when you think of it. Regardless of how one implements DEI, its success is still going to be measured by looking at the demographic breakdown. So even if the implementation isn't literally quotas, the metric is - and once you have the metric, everything else is optimized around that. If quotas cannot be used directly, then other mechanisms will be introduced that amount to the same thing in practice (as with Harvard character assessment etc).

thaumasiotes 2y ago

You're imagining that there's ever been a meaning of DEI other than quotas, but there hasn't. That's the way it began and the only thing it's ever done or wanted.

scott_w 2y ago
Then maybe you should see how it’s done in other countries and companies. I’ve worked on hiring and we’ve never once lowered our standards just to get in a black candidate. What I’ve seen done is conscious outreach to increase diversity of applicants, changing language to increase applications from women, blind reviews where you can’t see the name or details of the applicant (to minimise subconscious bias). All of these actually happen and, to a greater or lesser extent, do help without discriminating against white applicants. How do I know? I ended up only hiring two white men in that particular round!
- aydyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - scott_w 2y ago
    Since your response is to call me a liar, I won’t dignify the rest of your comment with a thoughtful reply.
    - aydyn 2y ago
      I didnt call you a liar, I am claiming that people are not always truthful to themselves. Purposeful ignorance is an easy out. For example, you made a factually incorrect claim about blind hiring, and its considerably easier to ignore that since addressing it devastates your larger point.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        He told you something he personally did/witnessed, and you replied with "not true." I'm not sure how else he should have interpreted that.
        aydyn 2y ago
        I think he truly believes it, but given the totality of his post it's very likely wrong. I'm not saying he is lying or a liar. Again: > blind reviews where you can’t see the name or details of the applicant (to minimise subconscious bias). Its been shown that doing so _increases_ the amount of non-minority candidates selected, not the other way around.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

Except that’s what it becomes in practice. As soon as you inject race into these decisions, it becomes de facto racial quotas and preferences: https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-showed-astonishing-racial-gaps/ https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-acti... It took like five minutes for Biden to start deploying SBA loans whites weren’t eligible for and for NASDAQ to create diversity quotas for boards. Racial gerrymandering is always the ultimate goal of this stuff.