4 ms·

You cannot address systemic inequalities at the hiring level without some preferential treatment. The idea was that if you had two candidates who were equally s

You cannot address systemic inequalities at the hiring level without some preferential treatment. The idea was that if you had two candidates who were equally strong, you pick the one from an underrepresented/disadvantaged background because they've had to work harder to get to the same place. At a surface level that is a disadvantage at the hiring level to the other one because the other gets a bonus tie-breaker.

pkulak 2y ago
The idea is that instead of just interviewing the people right next to you, who look exactly like you and have your exact background, you make the effort to interview a diverse set of candidates. Then you try to get rid of bias in the hiring process, and make the workplace somewhere that doesn’t make folks who are slightly different miserable. That’s it.
- imiric 2y ago
  How does a company make an "effort" to interview a diverse set of candidates? There's an applicant queue not under their control, and a filtering phase at every step of the interview process. What you're suggesting is that companies favor candidates who have a different appearance or background than existing employees, which is the definition of bias and discrimination. This is based on ignorant beliefs that people who look the same, have the same gender, ethnicity or background, will inevitably think the same way. These programs are judging people by superficial traits, while claiming they somehow make the hiring process fair. It's ludicrous.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    > There's an applicant queue not under their control Not 100%, sure, but that's far different from 0%. Which job fairs do your company reps attend? Is there a built-in bias causing you to miss out on good candidates? Can employees recommend a friend as a potential recruit? What effect does that have on promoting favoritism over a better candidate? > What you're suggesting is that companies favor candidates who have a different appearance or background than existing employees, which is the definition of bias and discrimination. No. The suggestion is that companies should not favor candidates because they have the same appearance or background than existing employees. If the core team is all from Local Church, and their friend network is all from Local Church, then should they favor that network to hire someone else from Local Church, or should other candidates be judged with equal weight? The former discriminates on the basis of religion, and is prohibited in most cases. Bearing the latter in mind is DEI. Requiring new candidates to not be fro Local Church is also discrimination on the basis of religion, and is equally prohibited. It is not DEI.
    - imiric 2y ago
      > Which job fairs do your company reps attend? Are job fairs still a thing? IME most recruitment happens online these days, with the vast majority of candidates coming in via LinkedIn and other job boards. > Can employees recommend a friend as a potential recruit? What effect does that have on promoting favoritism over a better candidate? Why is that a bad thing? Personal recommendations from someone you trust is a valid factor in making a hiring decision. This doesn't necessarily mean hiring someone who is inexperienced and not a good fit for the role over a better candidate just because they were recommended, but all else being equal, a recommendation is a strong signal to consider. Although, truthfully, why is favoritism wrong? If a company prefers hiring someone based on a recommendation, they might have issues with their performance, but maybe that person makes the team happier and more productive. Ultimately, it's their decision to make and live with. > If the core team is all from Local Church, and their friend network is all from Local Church, then should they favor that network to hire someone else from Local Church, or should other candidates be judged with equal weight? I think we can agree that candidates should be judged equally based primarily on their ability to fulfill the role requirements. My problem with DEI initiatives is that they emphasize superficial traits like religion, race, gender, ethnicity, etc., which are things we've fought hard to _not_ pay attention to in a professional setting. The effect of this is that it simply reverses the direction of the discrimination, but it doesn't get rid of it. > Bearing the latter in mind is DEI. > Requiring new candidates to not be fro Local Church is also discrimination on the basis of religion, and is equally prohibited. It is not DEI. You can define what DEI is supposed to mean all you want, but the reality is that companies use it as an excuse for discrimination[1]. This is not surprising, as it's a slippery slope from "suppressing our biases" to "reversing our biases". I said "primarily" above because there is inevitably a human component in deciding whether a person or team would want to work with someone, which can be interpreted as a bias. This is often referred to with vague terms such as "culture fit", or the rebranded "cultural contribution", "values fit", etc.[2] The thing is that humans are innately tribal. We tend to favor like-minded individuals familiar to our own background and life experience. Even if you educate people to not be biased against/for a specific set of traits, we will still be biased against some others. Humans in general favor attractive, charismatic, confident and outgoing people. Should we fight to remove those biases as well? In broader terms, what is exactly the end goal of DEI programs? That companies are 100% heterogeneous across all possible criteria that can identify a person? This is insane and unrealistic. It completely ignores not only our inherent biases, but the fact that some of our traits influence our career decisions and make us better suited for specific roles. For example, nurses are overwhelmingly female, while mechanics and electricians are overwhelmingly male[3]. Is this the result of discrimination in these industries, or simply a side-effect of what makes us different? Would these industries be any better if we forced them to discriminate against the majority of their work force? [1]: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/09/ibm_red_hat_discrimination_lawsuit/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/09/ibm_red_hat_discrimin... [2]: https://buffer.com/resources/culture-fit/ https://buffer.com/resources/culture-fit/ [3]: https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-d...
  - pkulak 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - imiric 2y ago
      What's amazing is how quickly Godwin's law surfaces in this type of conversations. I can be in favor of equal opportunity for everyone, yet against DEI programs. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
      - pkulak 2y ago
        Never called you a Nazi. Just said that the guy who gave the Nazi salute, twice, while standing behind the Seal of the President of the United States, is a Nazi.
- pertymcpert 2y ago
  What you think of DEI in hiring vs reality is completely different. Your version is what gets trotted out when it comes to defending DEI.
KingMob 2y ago
> because they've had to work harder to get to the same place Which implies they're actually the stronger candidate.
- lazycog512 2y ago
  by the arbitrary scenario's description, they are the same strength
  - KingMob 2y ago
    Yes, but interviewers can never know the candidates' real underlying strength, only their perception of their strength.

pkulak 2y ago

The idea is that instead of just interviewing the people right next to you, who look exactly like you and have your exact background, you make the effort to interview a diverse set of candidates. Then you try to get rid of bias in the hiring process, and make the workplace somewhere that doesn’t make folks who are slightly different miserable. That’s it.

imiric 2y ago
How does a company make an "effort" to interview a diverse set of candidates? There's an applicant queue not under their control, and a filtering phase at every step of the interview process. What you're suggesting is that companies favor candidates who have a different appearance or background than existing employees, which is the definition of bias and discrimination. This is based on ignorant beliefs that people who look the same, have the same gender, ethnicity or background, will inevitably think the same way. These programs are judging people by superficial traits, while claiming they somehow make the hiring process fair. It's ludicrous.
- eesmith 2y ago
  > There's an applicant queue not under their control Not 100%, sure, but that's far different from 0%. Which job fairs do your company reps attend? Is there a built-in bias causing you to miss out on good candidates? Can employees recommend a friend as a potential recruit? What effect does that have on promoting favoritism over a better candidate? > What you're suggesting is that companies favor candidates who have a different appearance or background than existing employees, which is the definition of bias and discrimination. No. The suggestion is that companies should not favor candidates because they have the same appearance or background than existing employees. If the core team is all from Local Church, and their friend network is all from Local Church, then should they favor that network to hire someone else from Local Church, or should other candidates be judged with equal weight? The former discriminates on the basis of religion, and is prohibited in most cases. Bearing the latter in mind is DEI. Requiring new candidates to not be fro Local Church is also discrimination on the basis of religion, and is equally prohibited. It is not DEI.
  - imiric 2y ago
    > Which job fairs do your company reps attend? Are job fairs still a thing? IME most recruitment happens online these days, with the vast majority of candidates coming in via LinkedIn and other job boards. > Can employees recommend a friend as a potential recruit? What effect does that have on promoting favoritism over a better candidate? Why is that a bad thing? Personal recommendations from someone you trust is a valid factor in making a hiring decision. This doesn't necessarily mean hiring someone who is inexperienced and not a good fit for the role over a better candidate just because they were recommended, but all else being equal, a recommendation is a strong signal to consider. Although, truthfully, why is favoritism wrong? If a company prefers hiring someone based on a recommendation, they might have issues with their performance, but maybe that person makes the team happier and more productive. Ultimately, it's their decision to make and live with. > If the core team is all from Local Church, and their friend network is all from Local Church, then should they favor that network to hire someone else from Local Church, or should other candidates be judged with equal weight? I think we can agree that candidates should be judged equally based primarily on their ability to fulfill the role requirements. My problem with DEI initiatives is that they emphasize superficial traits like religion, race, gender, ethnicity, etc., which are things we've fought hard to _not_ pay attention to in a professional setting. The effect of this is that it simply reverses the direction of the discrimination, but it doesn't get rid of it. > Bearing the latter in mind is DEI. > Requiring new candidates to not be fro Local Church is also discrimination on the basis of religion, and is equally prohibited. It is not DEI. You can define what DEI is supposed to mean all you want, but the reality is that companies use it as an excuse for discrimination[1]. This is not surprising, as it's a slippery slope from "suppressing our biases" to "reversing our biases". I said "primarily" above because there is inevitably a human component in deciding whether a person or team would want to work with someone, which can be interpreted as a bias. This is often referred to with vague terms such as "culture fit", or the rebranded "cultural contribution", "values fit", etc.[2] The thing is that humans are innately tribal. We tend to favor like-minded individuals familiar to our own background and life experience. Even if you educate people to not be biased against/for a specific set of traits, we will still be biased against some others. Humans in general favor attractive, charismatic, confident and outgoing people. Should we fight to remove those biases as well? In broader terms, what is exactly the end goal of DEI programs? That companies are 100% heterogeneous across all possible criteria that can identify a person? This is insane and unrealistic. It completely ignores not only our inherent biases, but the fact that some of our traits influence our career decisions and make us better suited for specific roles. For example, nurses are overwhelmingly female, while mechanics and electricians are overwhelmingly male[3]. Is this the result of discrimination in these industries, or simply a side-effect of what makes us different? Would these industries be any better if we forced them to discriminate against the majority of their work force? [1]: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/09/ibm_red_hat_discrimination_lawsuit/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/09/ibm_red_hat_discrimin... [2]: https://buffer.com/resources/culture-fit/ https://buffer.com/resources/culture-fit/ [3]: https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-d...
- pkulak 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - imiric 2y ago
    What's amazing is how quickly Godwin's law surfaces in this type of conversations. I can be in favor of equal opportunity for everyone, yet against DEI programs. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
    - pkulak 2y ago
      Never called you a Nazi. Just said that the guy who gave the Nazi salute, twice, while standing behind the Seal of the President of the United States, is a Nazi.
pertymcpert 2y ago
What you think of DEI in hiring vs reality is completely different. Your version is what gets trotted out when it comes to defending DEI.

KingMob 2y ago

> because they've had to work harder to get to the same place Which implies they're actually the stronger candidate.

lazycog512 2y ago
by the arbitrary scenario's description, they are the same strength
- KingMob 2y ago
  Yes, but interviewers can never know the candidates' real underlying strength, only their perception of their strength.