Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

blog.alinelerner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#11

Post by manigandham »

themarkn wrote: post #6
manigandham wrote: post #5

Well said. The fact is that forcing outcomes will never lead to fairness and will instead create misery for all involved. The best plan is to make the process as fair as possible so that everyone has an opportunity if they want it, then let people do what they desire. It may not "look" like what some people want it to look like, but the whole point is that doesn't matter anyway.

I disagree that this was well said. I think the underlying is point that blind tests of skill reduce bias and lead to increased diversity is a good one. As is the idea that we need to measure diversity on more than one axis. (My wife is not Caucasian but she looks Caucasian... The cultural and ethnic diversity she brings to her team is invisible to most people.) What's missing in this is the acknowledgement that "div…

All that is covered under "make the process fair", but enforcing quotas based on random unchangeable physical characteristic is the opposite of fair.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#12

Post by conception »

manigandham wrote: post #11
themarkn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that this was well said. I think the underlying is point that blind tests of skill reduce bias and lead to increased diversity is a good one. As is the idea that we need to measure diversity on more than one axis. (My wife is not Caucasian but she looks Caucasian... The cultural and ethnic diversity she brings to her team is invisible to most people.) What's missing in this is the acknowledgement that "div…

All that is covered under "make the process fair", but enforcing quotas based on random unchangeable physical characteristic is the opposite of fair.

I think what they were trying to also say is "make the process fair" isn't as simple as 4 words. It's a struggle for even the most ardent of believers in giving everyone a fair shot. The problem is defining what is fair.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#13

Post by rdtsc »

Agree with the author. I think a lot of clarity can be gained by answering the question they posed:

> I think it’s important to ask ourselves what we want to accomplish with diversity quotas in the first place.

Like the article says, maybe the company has found that hiring diverse candidates leads to more profits and they are seeking them out and letting the rest fall into place, i.e. they get higher salaries, better compensation packages... It would be no different than figuring out graduates from Stanford's such and such department end up doing particularly well in the company.

Or maybe the company does want to right a wrong and want to not just improve its bottom line but also help marginalized groups who have been neglected, abused and pushed out in the past. Companies the size of Google, Amazon, Facebook and others can certainly, and maybe should take that position. They can influence the technology field and their policies can affect a huge number of people. But I think they shouldn't be shy about declaring their mission, and should be more bold, as opposed to trying to hide behind the former reason. It is this hiding that leads to controversy and conflict.

Also in case of this article, the title could have been a bit less controversial too. It should have been something like "Diversity Quota Needs To be Explained".

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#14

Post by [deleted] »

manigandham wrote: post #5

Well said. The fact is that forcing outcomes will never lead to fairness and will instead create misery for all involved. The best plan is to make the process as fair as possible so that everyone has an opportunity if they want it, then let people do what they desire. It may not "look" like what some people want it to look like, but the whole point is that doesn't matter anyway.

[deleted]

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#15

Post by freedomben »

eesmith wrote: post #3
freedomben wrote: post #2

Not a new opinion, but well articulated and reasoned. Sadly, I don't think it will resonate because of the knee-jerk responses people seem to have these days regarding this topic. > So, what about diversity of thought? If you’re really going after candidates who can bring fresh perspectives to the table, their lived experience should trump their gender and ethnicity (though of course, those can correlate heavily) Div…

I understand what it means to at least estimate representation based on gender, race, religion, nationality, veteran status, etc., and from that infer possible discrimination. I can also understand the reasons for having civil rights laws to protect members of those groups, and I fully acknowledge the long history of discrimination in the US (I'm from the US) against Native Americans, blacks, women, non-heterosexuals…

> freedomben? Can you tell me how one might meaningfully characterize "diversity of thought"? For lack of a better definition, by "meaningful" I mean "incorporate it into hiring decisions such that the result is to the overall benefit of the company and the society which allows the company to exist".

You make some good philosophical points (that "assholes" are part of the diversity of thought), but practically I don't think "assholism" is what you want to look for.

When I say "diversity of thought" I think of things much like the author of the piece mentions: different socio-economic status (if you've never been dirt poor, you think differently than someone who has been well off. both viewpoints can be good), different political views, different learning styles, etc.

Political diversity is also good I think. I think progressives bring good stuff to the table, as do conservatives, libertarians, and socialists. When one view predominates, the organization tends to suffer (not a universal truth, just an observation I've made (so clearly not scientific)).

Your desire for a "meaningful" definition however that one could "incorporate it into hiring decisions such that the result is to the overall benefit of the company and the society which allows the company to exist" is really hard however (at least for me). I'm not currently part of hiring, but I have been in the past (tho my involvement is typically limited to technical questions, and I rarely delve into anything other than technical stuff). I like to look for areas where we are strong and weak. For example, if we have mostly people that love UI design and front end work, a candidate that feels strong on the backend may be more desirable. I think it's good to remember that diversity of thought is insanely broad, and encompasses tons of areas (which seem to me to be the point you are trying to make). As such, coming up with an example that generally demonstrates it is likely not possible.

I feel like I just rambled and didn't answer very well. Sorry about that. I think it's time for bed ;-)

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#16

Post by [deleted] »

manigandham wrote: post #11
themarkn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that this was well said. I think the underlying is point that blind tests of skill reduce bias and lead to increased diversity is a good one. As is the idea that we need to measure diversity on more than one axis. (My wife is not Caucasian but she looks Caucasian... The cultural and ethnic diversity she brings to her team is invisible to most people.) What's missing in this is the acknowledgement that "div…

All that is covered under "make the process fair", but enforcing quotas based on random unchangeable physical characteristic is the opposite of fair.

[deleted]

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#18

Post by eadmund »

> I think it’s important to ask ourselves what we want to accomplish with diversity quotas in the first place. Are we trying to level the playing field for marginalized groups? To bring in the requisite diversity of thought that correlates so strongly with a better bottom line? Or to improve our optics so that when the press writes about our company’s diversity numbers, we look good?

Honestly, I believe it's the last reason. Levelling the playing field would be relatively easy: blind auditions (easy in some fields, like music, more difficult in ours — but doable). I'm really not convinced that diversity of thought has all the benefits we attribute to it. At the end of the day, I think it's fashion: we want to be seen as fashionable, and diversity is in fashion.

Regarding diversity of thought, her example is a great one: 'And look, if you put a gun to my head and asked me, given absolutely identical abilities to do the job, whether I should hire a woman who came from an affluent background, aced her SATs because of access to a stellar prep program and supportive parents, went to a top school and interned at a top tech company over a man who dropped out of high school and worked a bunch of odd-jobs and taught himself to code and had the grit to end up with the requisite skills… I’ll take the man.' I'd take the woman, not because she's a woman, but because she almost certainly has more of the requisite skills than the man in the situation. If they actually have identical relevant skills, then maybe he'd be more interesting, just because he's so unusual, but judging by appearances the woman is more likely to have the skills I'd need.

Re: Diversity quotas suck. Here’s why

#19

Post by Leary »

American Companies and universities will rarely admit they are using quotas. Rather, diversity initiatives boost the probability of hire for certain demographics. This may help correct existing prejudice and discrimination, but it is also unfair to the other demographics. Hopefully companies will consider other avenues to increase their diversity rather than having differing hiring standards.
Post reply on HN