6 ms·

Facebook Starts Its ‘Rooney Rule’ to Increase Diversity in Tech

5 points by blackbagboys 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago
Can someone explain to me how these type of things aren't racist or sexist? I still don't understand how benevolent preference isn't sexist or racist. Selection should be merit based - not gonad or skin-color based. If the rule applies only to "consideration", as mentioned, then that would be admittance to not following Equal Employment Opportunity laws and they would be open to a lawsuit as it is implying they didn't consider women and minorities before instating the rule, which is against the law.
- _pius 11y ago
  The Rooney Rule isn't a preference. It's a way to ensure that classes of applicants who have been systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate. It does nothing to make a hiring process any less merit-based; quite the opposite, in fact.
  - byoung2 11y ago
    a rule to require considering at least one minority candidate for open positions How does that work exactly? If you have the perfect candidate after interviewing 10 white males, you have to find a token black guy to interview? FYI I am a black male
    - _pius 11y ago
      The Rooney Rule works when the hiring team complies with it in good faith. Running the "real" process without any minority candidates and then throwing a patsy in at the end isn't good faith.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate As mentioned, this is illegal per EEO, take it up with the courts. Otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
    - strangecasts 11y ago
      You're assuming that the people who are overlooked are somehow instantly able to tell why they've been passed up, and even then have the time and resources to go to court.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        Proving that you were discriminated against is notoriously difficult. An exception to that is when the offending party is essentially admitting guilt in their effort to reform. Implementation of the Rooney Rule is an admission to guilt of failing to comply with EEO. It's meant, explicitly, to combat against racial discrimination. That's the nature behind the Rooney Rule. It asks the hiring managers/interviewers to reflect upon their interviewee's and recognize that they may have an inherent bias against hiring a marginalized group, reflect upon their selections, and do their best not to hire based on race (and in this implementation: sex). In practice it's more like adding a quota or you may be accused of not following the rule. But I digress and don't want to argue into too far into that territory, as it becomes speculation of human motives. To quickly sum up my thoughts on why it is essentially a quota in practice: If you do not hire more marginalized groups, you'll be accused of not honoring the Rooney Rule. In order to comply with the unofficial Rooney Rule and make your manager happy, "You're increasing diversity! Good job!", you simply make sure to hire 1-2 marginalized people out of every 10 you hire. But of course the "in good faith" argument applies and you can go back and forward bickering over whether they were hired in as a quota or "in good faith".
        strangecasts 11y ago
        This doesn't really explain > otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
- Retra 11y ago
  If you want organizations to be merit-based, you need the larger social context to be merit based, so as to provide a 'background of fairness' to establish what is right or wrong for an organization. To do this, you have to take actions that drive wider social change, not simply optimize your organization. (If you optimize at the organization level, you end up taking advantage of existing social biases, which is why those subcultures are heavily dominated by the male majority.)To fix this, organizations must not optimize within the existing social biases, but attempt to shift the social biases to that their optimizations are aligned with a merit based-society. In other words, if you want to hit your target, you have to account for gravity and aim up a little.
  - peterhadlaw 11y ago
    Wouldn't the company perform best if they didn't pay attention to the larger social context and rather simply hired solely on merit? Like I don't see how in the end hiring on anything but merit mathematically comes out better.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Of course, but that's selfish and damaging in the long term. It's a long term social investment. You could also get a better score on a test by cheating, but there's a reason you shouldn't do that, and it's not "I might get caught."
      - Nadya 11y ago
        >Of course, but that's selfish and damaging in the long term. [Citation Needed]
        Retra 11y ago
        [Funding required]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

5 points by blackbagboys 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

Can someone explain to me how these type of things aren't racist or sexist? I still don't understand how benevolent preference isn't sexist or racist. Selection should be merit based - not gonad or skin-color based. If the rule applies only to "consideration", as mentioned, then that would be admittance to not following Equal Employment Opportunity laws and they would be open to a lawsuit as it is implying they didn't consider women and minorities before instating the rule, which is against the law.

_pius 11y ago
The Rooney Rule isn't a preference. It's a way to ensure that classes of applicants who have been systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate. It does nothing to make a hiring process any less merit-based; quite the opposite, in fact.
- byoung2 11y ago
  a rule to require considering at least one minority candidate for open positions How does that work exactly? If you have the perfect candidate after interviewing 10 white males, you have to find a token black guy to interview? FYI I am a black male
  - _pius 11y ago
    The Rooney Rule works when the hiring team complies with it in good faith. Running the "real" process without any minority candidates and then throwing a patsy in at the end isn't good faith.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >systematically excluded from consideration are being considered at some reasonable rate As mentioned, this is illegal per EEO, take it up with the courts. Otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
  - strangecasts 11y ago
    You're assuming that the people who are overlooked are somehow instantly able to tell why they've been passed up, and even then have the time and resources to go to court.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Proving that you were discriminated against is notoriously difficult. An exception to that is when the offending party is essentially admitting guilt in their effort to reform. Implementation of the Rooney Rule is an admission to guilt of failing to comply with EEO. It's meant, explicitly, to combat against racial discrimination. That's the nature behind the Rooney Rule. It asks the hiring managers/interviewers to reflect upon their interviewee's and recognize that they may have an inherent bias against hiring a marginalized group, reflect upon their selections, and do their best not to hire based on race (and in this implementation: sex). In practice it's more like adding a quota or you may be accused of not following the rule. But I digress and don't want to argue into too far into that territory, as it becomes speculation of human motives. To quickly sum up my thoughts on why it is essentially a quota in practice: If you do not hire more marginalized groups, you'll be accused of not honoring the Rooney Rule. In order to comply with the unofficial Rooney Rule and make your manager happy, "You're increasing diversity! Good job!", you simply make sure to hire 1-2 marginalized people out of every 10 you hire. But of course the "in good faith" argument applies and you can go back and forward bickering over whether they were hired in as a quota or "in good faith".
      - strangecasts 11y ago
        This doesn't really explain > otherwise they weren't being systematically ignored for consideration.
Retra 11y ago
If you want organizations to be merit-based, you need the larger social context to be merit based, so as to provide a 'background of fairness' to establish what is right or wrong for an organization. To do this, you have to take actions that drive wider social change, not simply optimize your organization. (If you optimize at the organization level, you end up taking advantage of existing social biases, which is why those subcultures are heavily dominated by the male majority.)To fix this, organizations must not optimize within the existing social biases, but attempt to shift the social biases to that their optimizations are aligned with a merit based-society. In other words, if you want to hit your target, you have to account for gravity and aim up a little.
- peterhadlaw 11y ago
  Wouldn't the company perform best if they didn't pay attention to the larger social context and rather simply hired solely on merit? Like I don't see how in the end hiring on anything but merit mathematically comes out better.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Of course, but that's selfish and damaging in the long term. It's a long term social investment. You could also get a better score on a test by cheating, but there's a reason you shouldn't do that, and it's not "I might get caught."
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >Of course, but that's selfish and damaging in the long term. [Citation Needed]
      - Retra 11y ago
        [Funding required]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]