4 ms·

EDIT: Original post edited so making slight changes. Considering it is a federal crime to not hire based on race, most employers don't provide the information

EDIT: Original post edited so making slight changes. Considering it is a federal crime to not hire based on race, most employers don't provide the information as to why they break this federal law so readily -- they just do it since it is hard to prove. So in summary... "Of course we discriminate. We have what we consider awesome reason to do so." I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be Black and trying to get a job, and run across people like you who won't even give you a chance because they so clearly know how poor of an employee you'd be. Even worse they don't come out front and say it. Well maybe you could fly a confederate flag -- a not so subtle hint, but not an admission of guilt. But at least for your own comfort -- you're clearly not alone.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- kenjackson 13y ago
  Keeping quiet to protect this person who discriminates based on race is where you draw the line with your moral compass... You find no irony in this?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - kenjackson 13y ago
      Someone burning out from hiring whites? I've never heard such a thing. I doubt that Google looks at its stack ranking and says, "Wow, we have a lot of white underperformers". That was one of my original points -- whites are almost never judged on the basis of race, whereas others are. You seem to be confirming that fact -- but trying to justify it. Race and gender are both protected groups, although treated differently. There are laws in place meant to stop the type of discrimination that you seem to want to justify. Contrived examples are not useful. Maybe we'll find out that Asians can cure cancer by touching people -- sure then I'd prefer they become oncologists. But in the real world what you do is test/interview for skills, and sometimes you'll see data that disproportionately over/under-represents a group. That is fine, and that is good to discuss. You'll often find that this bias is due to some other factor. Simply discriminating because your miniscule sample (and likely media/culturally induced bias) gives you a bias, is almost the canonical definition of racism. There was a time in my lifetime that Blacks were not considered smart enough to be quarterbacks. The data seemed to support it (when Doug Williams was drafted, there had been a total of 11 Black QBs in NFL history). In less than a generation we now have Blacks overrepresented in the NFL as QB (as compared to the population, not as compared to Blacks in the NFL). And another Black QB won the Super Bowl, largely viewed as one of the smartest players in the game. The good thing is that sports tends to really favor skills assessment over the long haul (the scoreboard is a pretty good reflection of quality). Except in the most exceptional cases, I'd suggest others do the same.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kenjackson 13y ago
Keeping quiet to protect this person who discriminates based on race is where you draw the line with your moral compass... You find no irony in this?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - kenjackson 13y ago
    Someone burning out from hiring whites? I've never heard such a thing. I doubt that Google looks at its stack ranking and says, "Wow, we have a lot of white underperformers". That was one of my original points -- whites are almost never judged on the basis of race, whereas others are. You seem to be confirming that fact -- but trying to justify it. Race and gender are both protected groups, although treated differently. There are laws in place meant to stop the type of discrimination that you seem to want to justify. Contrived examples are not useful. Maybe we'll find out that Asians can cure cancer by touching people -- sure then I'd prefer they become oncologists. But in the real world what you do is test/interview for skills, and sometimes you'll see data that disproportionately over/under-represents a group. That is fine, and that is good to discuss. You'll often find that this bias is due to some other factor. Simply discriminating because your miniscule sample (and likely media/culturally induced bias) gives you a bias, is almost the canonical definition of racism. There was a time in my lifetime that Blacks were not considered smart enough to be quarterbacks. The data seemed to support it (when Doug Williams was drafted, there had been a total of 11 Black QBs in NFL history). In less than a generation we now have Blacks overrepresented in the NFL as QB (as compared to the population, not as compared to Blacks in the NFL). And another Black QB won the Super Bowl, largely viewed as one of the smartest players in the game. The good thing is that sports tends to really favor skills assessment over the long haul (the scoreboard is a pretty good reflection of quality). Except in the most exceptional cases, I'd suggest others do the same.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]