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

Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

timesnownews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 414 posts

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#41

Post by dendriti »

seper8 wrote: post #5
aliqot wrote: post #4

How 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?

It doesn't, but you can't discriminate against white men. /s

Folks, this is not difficult to understand unless you're deliberately being obtuse.

There's legal and illegal discrimination.

Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people.

When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.

Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#42

Post by mxkopy »

belorn wrote: post #19
Huh1337 wrote: post #9

Earlier 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.

If that's how it is, then that's how it is.

And by most people's definition of good and bad, this can't be incorrect. Unless they don't believe in good or bad as truthful labels, which is fair but makes things more complicated.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#43

Post by throwaway894345 »

newZWhoDis wrote: post #31
newsclues wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?

Some leftists support “corrective discrimination”, as they are not interested in equality of opportunity but instead equality of outcome.

Very specifically, I think they're interested in achieving parity between races, genders etc, and in their eyes, a totally valid approach is to give already privileged women, minorities etc even more privilege or to further disenfranchise already underprivileged whites, men, etc. Humans are merely fungible tokens of their identity categories. Identity groups are all-important; the individuals who comprise them are expendable. At least this is the impression one gets when looking at their rhetoric and the policies they advocate.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#44

Post by gilbetron »

aliqot wrote: post #4

How 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?

Some people are running a marathon, half way through it is discovered half of them had been given weighted shoes that made them run significantly slower. The organizers and racers agree this is wrong and unfair, and so they make sure everyone has correct shoes for the rest of the race. Yet those half of the racers that had weighted shoes are several miles behind the rest. What would you suggest be done?

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#45

Post by steve_taylor »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #12
aliqot wrote: post #4

How 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?

As someone who's spent time in countries where discrimination is rampant, i can tell you my personal opinion that it is not different at all. In fact, that is a dangerous trend in liberal America that needs to be debated on its merits (or lack thereof). You can't FORCE these things by doing the exact thing you stand against.

You naively believe that quotas come from a desire to end discrimination, when in fact it comes from the “it’s our turn” mentality. It’s not liberal at all.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#46

Post by lifeformed »

aliqot wrote: post #4

How 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?

Because some societal imbalances are stuck in a local minimum, and it requires some artificial pressures to get out of it. The goal is to improve opportunities for groups that historically had less of them. Manually adjusting the workforce demographics is one of the tools to nudge things towards the goal, to help shift attitudes and education. It's not perfect, but it's not like market forces are going to do it.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#47

Post by aliqot »

pfisch wrote: post #38
throwaway894345 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not making a pro or con judgement but it does help future women/minorities for current women/minorities to break glass ceilings and get into new industries/positions. Just like the first black kids sent to white only schools during integration helped make things less terrible for future minorities.

This falls apart because it quickly becomes a question of who are the accepted minority classes, as we see certain groups being excluded.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#48

Post by yrgulation »

svnpenn wrote: post #32
aliqot wrote: post #4

How 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?

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'

#49

Post by azangru »

peteradio wrote: post #27
Drakim wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate?

If a person making hiring decisions says that the next candidate for such-and-such role should be a person from such-and-such group (a woman, a person of color, etc.), then the criterion of being the better candidate doesn't apply. Or, rather, it gets adjusted such that belonging in the desired group is included in the list of what makes a candidate better.

Post reply on HN