No post body was provided.
Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
21–30 of 414 posts
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#22How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
The University of South Florida has this to say about affirmative action and how it isn’t the same as discrimination rooted in prejudice: https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-...
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#23How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies like reddit haven't been sued enough for it to sink in that this is discrimination yet. Assuming that courts would uphold that it is discrimination. Which, in today's climate, I am not even sure would happen.
Given the current supreme court you'd be making a truly terrible bet.
If it were this clear of an obvious win, why has the issue not been brought up when we have such high profile cases as the position for VPOTUS being reserved for a woman of color?
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
Yes. Not to mince words, as others frequently do, but that's basically what's happening. The alterntive, so-called "pure meritocracy", is a farce because the implied implicit "merit" is, by the very nature of the systemic inequalities that exist, unequally distributed. And merit is transferred down the generations. Privilege begets privilege. Etc. This is the issue that we are rightfully trying to counter.
It is right to try to take systemic steps to equalize access to opportunity across the board. The best (but imho still incredibly flawed) way of doing this is to use "anti-biased" hueristics to increase representation of certain people. In school admissions, for example, this might mean prioritizing applications from poorer areas. In other places this means having minimum quotas for hiring certain genders or ethnicities.
Yes, to be utterly semantic, it is discriminatory. I don't know how this sits with me, but it is technically true. But, whether it sits well or not, it is virtually impossible to fiddle ourselves out of this quagmire of inequality without taking proactive _opposite_ steps. We need to somehow equalise the playing field, thus equalising access to merit, thus equalising the soundness of the so-hailed "pure meritocracy" that so many seem to uphold as the ideal.
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#26Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
It can be a bad thing and still the best option you got, a lesser of two evils. I don't think anybody should lose out on a opportunity because some minority quota needs to be filled, but I also don't think minorities and discriminated groups should live in a perpetual self-reinforcing unhirability loop either.
What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? Doesn't that Peter-Principle them right out of the gate? Are we sure that this leads to better long term outcomes?
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
The classical view about violence. It is good when its done against bad people, bad when its done against good people. The world has no place for pacifists.
"the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways... by force!"
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#29How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
People that are for race based hiring generally consider Indian and Asian people to be overrepresented in tech so they’re not considered minorities.
Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
#30> and candidates aged 50 or above. Ageism is so bad they didn't even bother include the complete sentence in the headline. My main 'career goal' at the moment is find an exit path out of software development. Nothing else really matters. Its now or never.
learn COBOL, lots of old contractors over here :)