6 ms·

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 g

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.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    You either have a complaint for systematically being ignored or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. It's black and white: you were or you weren't. There are methods of getting these things investigated and handled [0]. In some cases, it is very easy to tell when you are being discriminated against [1]. If it cannot be proved - and investigations prove otherwise - that discrimination did not take place, the feeling of being discriminated against does not mean discrimination took place. Otherwise someone could pull the race/gender card each and every time they weren't hired, regardless if the reason was they were underqualified/not the right fit/blah blah blah. [0] http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...
    - strangecasts 11y ago
      The systematically of _pius' post is almost certainly used in the sense of "resulting from structural discrimination", which is a much larger and insidious beast because there's absolutely ingrained biases and entrenched policies that end up selecting away minorities in ways that can't be effectively shown in court.

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.
- Nadya 11y ago
  You either have a complaint for systematically being ignored or you don't. There isn't a middle ground. It's black and white: you were or you weren't. There are methods of getting these things investigated and handled [0]. In some cases, it is very easy to tell when you are being discriminated against [1]. If it cannot be proved - and investigations prove otherwise - that discrimination did not take place, the feeling of being discriminated against does not mean discrimination took place. Otherwise someone could pull the race/gender card each and every time they weren't hired, regardless if the reason was they were underqualified/not the right fit/blah blah blah. [0] http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...
  - strangecasts 11y ago
    The systematically of _pius' post is almost certainly used in the sense of "resulting from structural discrimination", which is a much larger and insidious beast because there's absolutely ingrained biases and entrenched policies that end up selecting away minorities in ways that can't be effectively shown in court.