121–130 of 358 posts
Shouldn't the demographics of new google hires look roughly like the demographics of university graduates? If say 80% of graduates are men, how could google hit gender parity without discriminating?
Maybe part of the issue has to do with the early education system? I'll admit this idea is not originally mine, but I like it. For some reason is sounds right?
The thing I hate about actions like this is what it does to talented people who fit some diversity quota checklist, both in the perception they have of themselves and those of other people. If you are a talented melanin-rich woman you are going to face both heightened impostor syndrome and dismissal by others that you only got the job because of some quota. Not good for anyone. There are no easy solutions, but it wou…
I agree. Unfortunately, lazy fixes at clear and prominent decision points are much easier than removing hurdles in, say, the early childhood education system.
> under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes.
The former veteran Google recruiters behind this suit are claiming they were 'instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already do live in that world. If you 'whiten up' your resume, you're more likely to get callbacks. Even if the company indicates that they're pro-diversity or equal-opportunity [1]. Employees with black-sounding names are in general less likely to receive callbacks even when accounting for economic status and skill level [2]. Depending on your name, you will be perceived as being more violent or lesser in status…
So what about making it name-blind?
That entire process amplifies both unconscious biases and discrepancies of economic status. People without economic means to network, made worse by prejudices and expectations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Asians are more successful than white people on average. Strange that there is no “Asian Privilege”
I read more than once on diversity related posts or comments that East-Asian are considered privileged or even... white. That shows the real motive is not the one stated. This diversity stuff is a power game used by some minorities go get some advantages for themselves. They do not care about the minorities that can achieve things by themselves, with education and hard work.
The thing I hate about actions like this is what it does to talented people who fit some diversity quota checklist, both in the perception they have of themselves and those of other people. If you are a talented melanin-rich woman you are going to face both heightened impostor syndrome and dismissal by others that you only got the job because of some quota. Not good for anyone. There are no easy solutions, but it wou…
This isn’t a new problem. Women and POC that were hired following affirmative action reported being called “affirmative action hires” and faced workplace discrimination based on the idea that they didn’t deserve the jobs. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, but how was the issue of them being denied jobs based on sex or race to be solved otherwise?
To answer your question the issue of discrimination is solved by not discriminating. If women and others are being discriminated against then stop doing this, rather than just start discriminating against other people.
Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims. Anyone from Google or YouTube--or people who applied to work at either org in this time frame--have perspectives to add regarding this claim?
Is this correct? And isn't it kind of inconsistent?
Whatever sort of decision-making process a recruiter goes through, one could imagine a mathematical formulation of it that matches up to some tolerance. Would such a formulation be illegal, since it must assign a weight to race at some point, even if the recruiter's vague sense of "I kind of want more diverse hires" is legal?
In fact, doesn't disallowing any sort of numbers-based approach increase the likelihood of human bias creeping in, which is a lot of what diversity hiring is trying to correct for in the first place?
Why should a practice only be illegal if you put explicit numbers around it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The timeframe for these alleged actions predates the release of Damore's memo.
Maybe he was actually onto an unhealthy culture within the company, and trying to help it from the inside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think there are young people in the US who could be NBA players but are held back by lack of resources, lack of training, and lack of friends/family members who play basketball? I think that's a key difference between the "diversity problem" in the NBA and the diversity problem (no scare quotes) in tech.
Diversity quotas are making this situation actively worse by giving a bad image to those who pass. In German there‘s even a compound slur word for one such cases, „Quotenfrau“ (quota woman). These kind of outcomes were once unforeseen but are very easily to foresee now after lots of experience with that kind of thing. I firmly believe that as a society we should try to make people of all shapes be interested in the m…
I personally try not to hold it against my fellow white male entrepreneurs from prestigious schools and affluent backgrounds that I know we had an easier time raising capital and hiring people because of our race, gender, and social connections.