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

Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#81

Post by krapp »

civilized wrote: post #75
krapp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never found the argument that acknowledging, much less attempting to correct for, systemic biases in hiring is always equally as discriminatory as the biases themselves to be compelling, as the only possible conclusion to reach from that rationale is to maintain the status quo and its biases at all times. If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discrimi…

> If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discriminating to some degree against those whom the bias favors. As Justice Roberts said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It's disturbing that so many people cannot see this. It seems to be a capitulation to the inevitability of bigotry, as if we ar…

And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#82

Post by belorn »

nnvvhh wrote: post #49

The argument you point out, about treating well-off groups equally as bad as those less well-off, is a bad argument and not what you should be thinking about. The practices you point out have nothing to do treating everyone equally bad. You are focusing on the unfortunate consequence of attempting to make right past injustices, rather than the effort to right past injustices. The goal is not to discriminate against y…

Allowing a company culture that reduces people down to their race and gender during recruiting has a rather significant risk that it may spread to other part of the company.

Do we want a company cultures that operate based on biases and stereotypes? I don't. I also do not believe in collective punishment in order to improve society. The best thing we can do to society to remove biases and stereotypes is to encourage a culture of understanding, by seeing individuals as individuals rather than single bits information like skin color or gender identification. Be the change that society need to be, encourage others to do the same, and culture will slowly change in the same direction.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#83

Post by jkhdigital »

melff wrote: post #53
jkhdigital wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like that rhetoric either, but unfortunately certain radical ideologies do not acknowledge neutrality. Maybe we can turn to John Stuart Mill for a more eloquent appeal: “ Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man w…

> certain radical ideologies do not acknowledge neutrality So what? Why can't we acknowledge neutrality because some other people don't?

Just providing a nuanced counterpoint, not denying or refuting anything you said.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#84

Post by civilized »

krapp wrote: post #81
civilized wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discriminating to some degree against those whom the bias favors. As Justice Roberts said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It's disturbing that so many people cannot see this. It seems to be a capitulation to the inevitability of bigotry, as if we ar…

And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination.

> And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?"

I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity

Again, if you didn't hear me say it the first time, it involves not discriminating on the basis of race, rather than establishing racial discrimination in the opposite direction. Majorities of Americans of all races, including blacks, support this principle and oppose racial preferences. See for example this poll on considering race in college admissions https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ...

> You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination.

I already called you out for making baseless claims that are completely at odds with everything in the OP's message. Now you're doing it to me. You're making stuff up in your head that no one said and projecting it on others.

You should spend more time considering the difference between your feelings about what someone said and the words they actually said. You can't point to any words that I actually said that remotely suggest what you claim I said.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#85

Post by krapp »

civilized wrote: post #84
krapp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination.

> And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity Again,…

>I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity

These are your words, verbatim, with emphasis added by myself:

>OP's ideas are squarely in the tradition of the early US civil rights movement, which was focused on rather than simply discriminating in the opposite direction.

So again, how was the early US civil rights movement successful given its focus rather than "discriminating in the opposite direction?" And it's not a rhetorical question.

Or, to put it more specifically, in what ways were unjust power and privilege taken from white people, as they must have been during the days of the civil rights movement in the process of "working hard to bring about equal treatment," that did not also discriminate against white people?

>I already called you out for making baseless claims that are completely at odds with everything in the OP's message. Now you're doing it to me.

That basis of my claim is the argument that it is impossible to achieve equality in an unequal system without biasing that system against those who benefit from its bias. The simple act of achieving equality itself is discriminatory. Or, put more succinctly, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

>You should spend more time considering the difference between your feelings about what someone said and the words they actually said.

No, I should waste less time getting baited into fruitless arguments on this site. Good night. I'm closing this thread and forgetting it ever happened.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#86

Post by civilized »

krapp wrote: post #85
civilized wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity Again,…

>I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity These are your words, verbatim, with emphasis added by myself: >OP's ideas are squarely in the tradition of the early US civil rights m…

Most civil rights law is concerned with preventing and punishing disparate treatment based on race and other protected characteristics. It does not discriminate against whites unless you believe that whites are entitled to discriminate. So there's the answer to your question. Equality is not the same as discrimination in the opposite direction.

Equality doesn't feel like oppression to me. Equality feels like equality. I can tell the difference between equal treatment and racial preferences, and so can large majorities of Americans of all races.

You're the one who's deeply confused about the difference between equality and discrimination. Ending a bias in favor of white people doesn't mean discriminating against white people, and large majorities of all races know that. Large majorities prefer equal treatment to racial preferences.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#87

Post by nnvvhh »

belorn wrote: post #82
nnvvhh wrote: post #49

The argument you point out, about treating well-off groups equally as bad as those less well-off, is a bad argument and not what you should be thinking about. The practices you point out have nothing to do treating everyone equally bad. You are focusing on the unfortunate consequence of attempting to make right past injustices, rather than the effort to right past injustices. The goal is not to discriminate against y…

Allowing a company culture that reduces people down to their race and gender during recruiting has a rather significant risk that it may spread to other part of the company. Do we want a company cultures that operate based on biases and stereotypes? I don't. I also do not believe in collective punishment in order to improve society. The best thing we can do to society to remove biases and stereotypes is to encourage…

You are not being charitable with the arguments of those you disagree with. People are not reduced down to their race or gender, those aspects are one factor among multiple. No company is hiring random people matching their desired profiles off the street simply because of those characteristics.

I have a lot to say about your views on this. First of all, I am not concerned about company cultures. There are way bigger concerns in life than company culture. And if that really matters to you and you don't like your company culture, go to a company you like.

Your phrasing of "collective punishment" is really telling. You seem to really focus on the hardship incurred by the candidates discounted a bit because they are historically privileged. I find it very easy not to dwell on the temporary misfortunes of well-qualified software engineers. They will be fine. It's not a big deal. I care much more about fixing the "collective punishment" that has been inflicted on certain groups for hundreds of years.

And to your point claiming you know how to fix these problems: I like what you advocate. I disagree that it will be sufficient. Nothing has worked. We need to try everything, because the problem is so hard. To me, what the OP describes is part of the price society has to pay for the ill-gotten gains we've enjoyed for hundreds of years. It's not a punishment, but it's like tech debt. We backed ourselves into a corner where things are so bad that the only feasible ways to address inequality among groups is hacky solutions like affirmative action. Nobody WANTS to do that. But the problem is just so old and stuck.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#88

Post by rob_c »

yssrnjm wrote: post #41
rob_c wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow "best candidate for the job" translates far top much into "but they can't perform as well so need help" I've found. I do find myself covering myself whenever I have to say no candidate X is just not as suited for the role and I don't care what their name/gender is. For reference, I work with some excellent people of various combinations of gender, orientation, creed, background (unis are great for this) and f…

If both get a "1" on the table, then can you please the explain the comparison you made to reach that conclusion (that they're both equal)? I'm just confused as to how diversity relates to the competence of an individual/team. I am myself considered a "minority", which I have always felt quite patronizing (let alone the fact that it's incoherent: I'm a North African arab, the US Census considers me white but Canada c…

No that the table would be taking into account many factors.

Even deciding to prioritise say a certain quality or skill work out what the bast candidate is from a score of say a total of 30/40 based on their application. Then shortlist to give the top few a chance at interview.

Performance at interview doesn't reflect the choice of who is interviewed. The choice of who gets to interview can be based on many factors and if it was important to choose a certain attribute then you can base your weighting on that. Ironically the exact equivalent I have is an example of something which isn't allowed because it discriminates, it was many as a very rough example.

This wasn't meant to be exact its a very rough example of a concept and not to be taken literally. Frankly three use of metrics like this are needed to explain brain dead comments like are you sure you're not biasing against certain applicants... To which we have to show no they just don't meet certain criterion.

Actually allowing the team to reach correct diversity ratios would probably only be a "good" metric to the bosses, bosses, boss. Again never has impact at interview as the hiring decision is made by a panel. Just shows were aware our field is dominated by older white males...

Betting this will get down voted too...)

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#89

Post by polski-g »

rob_c wrote: post #22
captainredbeard wrote: post #2

Your perceptions are accurate and you are not alone in your distaste of modern racism.

Somehow "best candidate for the job" translates far top much into "but they can't perform as well so need help" I've found. I do find myself covering myself whenever I have to say no candidate X is just not as suited for the role and I don't care what their name/gender is. For reference, I work with some excellent people of various combinations of gender, orientation, creed, background (unis are great for this) and f…

What you are doing is breaking the law. You cannot use protected characteristics, at all, in hiring or firing decisions.

Re: Ask HN: Is discrimination to promote diversity okay?

#90

Post by rob_c »

polski-g wrote: post #89
rob_c wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow "best candidate for the job" translates far top much into "but they can't perform as well so need help" I've found. I do find myself covering myself whenever I have to say no candidate X is just not as suited for the role and I don't care what their name/gender is. For reference, I work with some excellent people of various combinations of gender, orientation, creed, background (unis are great for this) and f…

What you are doing is breaking the law. You cannot use protected characteristics, at all, in hiring or firing decisions.

As I said the example was maybe written to quickly, bit you'd be amazed at how flexible the rules are when it comes to seconding things like "brings contacts within the field", " helps promote blah" and these are usually code for something close to "nepotism" IMO and something I strongly personally discourage against, but that example is still legal so ...
Post reply on HN