18 ms·

Let me re-iterate myself: I didn't mention any specific attribute, not to say specific gender or ethic groups. So, what you are saying here is probably not a na

by clwen 12y ago

Let me re-iterate myself: I didn't mention any specific attribute, not to say specific gender or ethic groups. So, what you are saying here is probably not a natural interpretation to draw from my question. I do agree with the cultural fit part though. It's subjective and easy to manipulate to what direction as convenient to the company. Talk about "dumb", I don't think sane companies will ever hire anybody who they considered as "dumb", because it's counter-productive. However, it's possible that a certain group have a slightly lower bar. They are still good, but just not as selective as their counter part. As long as it's good for the company's public image, morale, etc, they might want to make this trade-off. Does this policy not uncommon in the industry? -- Is essentially my question. Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean that certain group(s) are superior/inferior then the other group(s). This simply means the general public confused the population as general population, instead of number of candidates. So that companies might want to skew the graph a bit to make it composed more like general population to please general public, media, whatever.

DanBC 12y ago
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say. Everythin you write makes me think that you're saying that diversity means a company has to lower the bar; and that they get other benefits for doing that - public image is one example you give. The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that yu're saying people with a protected characteristic are not as "good" as the general population.
- meowface 12y ago
  What's not to understand about what he's asking? His question is regarding so-called "affirmative action" or quota-like initiatives in companies, where those with a protected status are given a preference in hiring purely based on their protected status. That's what he means by lowering the bar. I don't know how many companies do this, but many people on HN (including myself) agree that such practices are unfair. I agree with sarahj's comment on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039 Creating a good environment for diversity is about noticing and eliminating biases, and trying to provide an equal playing field for all potential candidates. OP appears to be concerned that some companies will take things further than that to give "diverse" candidates an unequal advantage. That's all.

by clwen 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say. Everythin you write makes me think that you're saying that diversity means a company has to lower the bar; and that they get other benefits for doing that - public image is one example you give. The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that yu're saying people with a protected characteristic are not as "good" as the general population.

meowface 12y ago
What's not to understand about what he's asking? His question is regarding so-called "affirmative action" or quota-like initiatives in companies, where those with a protected status are given a preference in hiring purely based on their protected status. That's what he means by lowering the bar. I don't know how many companies do this, but many people on HN (including myself) agree that such practices are unfair. I agree with sarahj's comment on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039 Creating a good environment for diversity is about noticing and eliminating biases, and trying to provide an equal playing field for all potential candidates. OP appears to be concerned that some companies will take things further than that to give "diverse" candidates an unequal advantage. That's all.