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

2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

techrights.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#41

Post by bahlhala »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #3

> (2) Expand our diversity recruitment programs specifically targeting women, people of color, and LGBT people with the goal of doubling recruitment of these groups in 2017 and steadily increasing the share of these groups as a proportion of new hiring in subsequent years. Initiatives like this worry me that we'll end up like my previous employer where we were off-the-record instructed not to hire a white male for ou…

Is the off the record instruction not just re-explaining what they are supposed to be doing? i.e. diversify who you are hiring.

I can see that it is annoying but I don't get the hostility around this stuff. are there many thousands of white males not able to get a job... probably not (at least not due to this).

How else are we meant to have more diverse teams if we don't hire diversely? Personally I would take a theoretical 20% hit in productivity as part of male dominated environment to learn what a more diverse environment should look like.

Having this density of basically white men is often pretty toxic imho (fyi i am a white male) I see so many "harmless" jokes made by people who literally don't have enough experience to be respectful outside of their gender and race.

It also makes me sad that people say "its fine look we have Susan" or whatever.. no, Susan has learned to put up with your bullshit and keep her mouth closed.. and if you think "hey I put up with bullshit too" then that only means you agree your environment is toxic and no amount of white males is fixing it.

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#42

Post by [deleted] »

teekert wrote: post #8
stateofnounion wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already happening.

The technical University of Eindhoven (the Netherlands) announced they'd only hire women from a certain point in time on and they did for months. Then a judge called them back. In their defense, it was needed, almost all professors were male so I understand how they came to this action. Generally I think it is better to stimulate people to hire outside their comfort-zone and build heterogeneous teams in all dimension…

[deleted]

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#43

Post by raxxorrax »

bahlhala wrote: post #41
CincinnatiMan wrote: post #3

> (2) Expand our diversity recruitment programs specifically targeting women, people of color, and LGBT people with the goal of doubling recruitment of these groups in 2017 and steadily increasing the share of these groups as a proportion of new hiring in subsequent years. Initiatives like this worry me that we'll end up like my previous employer where we were off-the-record instructed not to hire a white male for ou…

Is the off the record instruction not just re-explaining what they are supposed to be doing? i.e. diversify who you are hiring. I can see that it is annoying but I don't get the hostility around this stuff. are there many thousands of white males not able to get a job... probably not (at least not due to this). How else are we meant to have more diverse teams if we don't hire diversely? Personally I would take a theo…

If you don't think this to be a problem, I don't see how you could criticize people only hiring certain skin colors, which is probably extremely rare in the western world.

I know that bias is the next argument, but it is just as baseless.

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#44

Post by throwaway_35345 »

bahlhala wrote: post #41
CincinnatiMan wrote: post #3

> (2) Expand our diversity recruitment programs specifically targeting women, people of color, and LGBT people with the goal of doubling recruitment of these groups in 2017 and steadily increasing the share of these groups as a proportion of new hiring in subsequent years. Initiatives like this worry me that we'll end up like my previous employer where we were off-the-record instructed not to hire a white male for ou…

Is the off the record instruction not just re-explaining what they are supposed to be doing? i.e. diversify who you are hiring. I can see that it is annoying but I don't get the hostility around this stuff. are there many thousands of white males not able to get a job... probably not (at least not due to this). How else are we meant to have more diverse teams if we don't hire diversely? Personally I would take a theo…

But I'm an individual. You're not denying an abstract concept of 'white men' jobs. You're denying me a job.

Just like diverse candidates I also need a job. Just like diverse candidates I also need to house and feed my family. Just like diverse candidates I aspire to get promoted.

I can't get my head around why people think it's ok to not let me try for an opportunity because I'm a white man. I can't understand how people can't see this is wrong.

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#45

Post by raxxorrax »

supergeek133 wrote: post #36
humanrebar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that the existing diversity in tech is best described as "white". Tech has a lot of diversity. It's that some groups, especially women, are still underrepresented.

Pick whatever gender and/or race you like. That's just the most commonly used example. My point is just as in there have been and are people that are willfully malicious and ONLY hire white men/women, it seems we have a hard time accepting there will be some willfully malicious enforcement of a policy such as "we need to make an effort to hire more outside of a gender or race group".

But these people are the only racists you will find in general hiring, so here discrimination would make sense.

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#46

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

bahlhala wrote: post #41
CincinnatiMan wrote: post #3

> (2) Expand our diversity recruitment programs specifically targeting women, people of color, and LGBT people with the goal of doubling recruitment of these groups in 2017 and steadily increasing the share of these groups as a proportion of new hiring in subsequent years. Initiatives like this worry me that we'll end up like my previous employer where we were off-the-record instructed not to hire a white male for ou…

Is the off the record instruction not just re-explaining what they are supposed to be doing? i.e. diversify who you are hiring. I can see that it is annoying but I don't get the hostility around this stuff. are there many thousands of white males not able to get a job... probably not (at least not due to this). How else are we meant to have more diverse teams if we don't hire diversely? Personally I would take a theo…

This reads like you don't see individuals, you just see representatives of racial and gender groups.

That's the same vibe I get from racists and sexists.

What is the fundamental difference between these essentialising, group-identity-based views?

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#47

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

asutekku wrote: post #38
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people believe that men and women are identical (except for socialisation), and so any less than 51% representation is under-representation and evidence of sexism.

There's zero reason why in computer science and tech women and men should have so drastically different ratios. Even back in the day programming was seen as a women's job.

What ratio "should" they have then? What is the right ratio based on non-social causes, from which any deviation is evidence of bias or cultural sexism?

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#48

Post by bluedevil2k »

asutekku wrote: post #38
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people believe that men and women are identical (except for socialisation), and so any less than 51% representation is under-representation and evidence of sexism.

There's zero reason why in computer science and tech women and men should have so drastically different ratios. Even back in the day programming was seen as a women's job.

Zero reason?? More opportunity in other traditionally male jobs like doctors, nurse pay has increased, tech jobs require longer hours than they used to, the opening of various CS-parallel fields like UX/UI design that don't count as computer science, more economic freedom for top earning families to not require 2 incomes. There are literally dozens of reasons why women's interest in CS might decrease.

* - https://www.payscale.com/compensation-today/2020/05/for-nati...

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#49

Post by jaywalk »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #28

"...reaffirmed IBM’s moral leadership by refusing to discriminate on the basis of race, resisting the prevailing attitudes of governors in the southern United States." "[We petition you to prohibit] IBM and its employees from using any Trump owned or Trump branded properties for business purposes..." Ugh. When did so many employees become fifth columns pushing a very narrow and minority political view? This is happen…

The problem is that companies started giving in to these fringe groups, which just emboldens them. These people can never be pacified, so giving them an inch is the worst mistake you can make.

Re: 2,445 IBM Employees Openly Condemned IBM for Enabling Racist Regimes

#50

Post by bahlhala »

raxxorrax wrote: post #43
bahlhala wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the off the record instruction not just re-explaining what they are supposed to be doing? i.e. diversify who you are hiring. I can see that it is annoying but I don't get the hostility around this stuff. are there many thousands of white males not able to get a job... probably not (at least not due to this). How else are we meant to have more diverse teams if we don't hire diversely? Personally I would take a theo…

If you don't think this to be a problem, I don't see how you could criticize people only hiring certain skin colors, which is probably extremely rare in the western world. I know that bias is the next argument, but it is just as baseless.

Honestly I find it kind of easier to get on with northern European white males.. because I am one and I hav elots in common with them..

Our parents did similar things, we eat similar foods, we grew up in similar houses.. I find it easier to predict their moods and behaviours etc.. cos they are like me.

However, that doesn't mean to say we are in any way right or better than any one else.

When i work with people who are different to me it often makes me feel somewhat outside of my comfort zone (not in any kind of major way - just like getting a new pair of slippers or something, it feels a little different to yesterday).

I just think we cannot help this at all.. so when i am asked to visualise a new start before they join.. who do i imagine, well mostly someone like me. i mean i have all sorts of practices techniques to mitigate this, but its inherently true, true of all people imho.

So we have lots of jobs and areas that are thick with white men.. everything is tailored to what their needs are. start times, lengths of holidays and breaks, how long is taken for parental leave after a child is born, even the temperature of most offices is tuned to middle aged white men.

We (white men) dont know what an inclusive environment is.. no single group of people does. so really we have to go for immersion therapy (or fake it till you make it).. we just have to kind of force a more diverse group of people into these roles and see what happens.. all the time trying to be respectful and accommodating.

I wanted to work with computers as it was something I saw my dad doing it when i was very young (its not this simple but it almost is).. if our daughters dont see their mothers working in IT why would they put any effort into learning it?

Its a chicken and egg scenario to a certain extent and this is basically the only route in we have to change the feedback loop imho. if someone comes up with another idea i am all ears.

Post reply on HN