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

Tech's DEI backlash is here

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#211

Post by Manuel_D »

asadotzler wrote: post #108
anonporridge wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group. Then you end up with a wider range of quality levels among the underrepresented group (because you had to scrape deeper in the barrel to fill your quota, and the overrepresented group ends up being in the higher quality band…

"If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group." This is uninteresting thinking. If the pool doesn't have enough qualified candidates, you expand the pool. That requires more effort. That's good effort that should be taken. It's lazy to do otherwise.

But you can't unilaterally expand the pool. You can't force people to do jobs they don't want to do. At least not outside of forced labor (this is part of why Israel has above average women in STEM, since their conscription forces women to gain technical experience in the military). Some suggest that underrepresented demographics should be attracted with higher wages. But that's illegal, you can't pay people differently for the same job.

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#212

Post by Always_Anon »

AlexandrB wrote: post #45

I like how this debate never changes. 20 years ago everything I see in the comments was being said about "affirmative action". The only thing that's really changed is the terminology. affirmative action -> DEI PC (political correctness) -> "woke" Can't wait to see what the language for the next iteration of this looks like, because I doubt the debate itself is going away anytime soon.

Affirmative Action != DEI

PC != Woke

These are different terms for different concepts, even if there's some overlap.

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#213

Post by asadotzler »

Manuel_D wrote: post #211
asadotzler wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group." This is uninteresting thinking. If the pool doesn't have enough qualified candidates, you expand the pool. That requires more effort. That's good effort that should be taken. It's lazy to do otherwise.

But you can't unilaterally expand the pool. You can't force people to do jobs they don't want to do. At least not outside of forced labor (this is part of why Israel has above average women in STEM, since their conscription forces women to gain technical experience in the military). Some suggest that underrepresented demographics should be attracted with higher wages. But that's illegal, you can't pay people differen…

You expand the pool by sending your recruiting team to more colleges. This isn't hard unless you want to make it hard.

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#214

Post by Manuel_D »

asadotzler wrote: post #213
Manuel_D wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't unilaterally expand the pool. You can't force people to do jobs they don't want to do. At least not outside of forced labor (this is part of why Israel has above average women in STEM, since their conscription forces women to gain technical experience in the military). Some suggest that underrepresented demographics should be attracted with higher wages. But that's illegal, you can't pay people differen…

You expand the pool by sending your recruiting team to more colleges. This isn't hard unless you want to make it hard.

And how does that change the demographics of the applicant pool? If I get 80 men and 20 women applying, and I send my recruiters to twice as many colleges I'll probably get 160 men and 40 women. The proportional representation is unchanged. You can get more applicants, but you're drawing from the same pool that's 80% men and 20% women. I could direct my recruiters to exclusively advance women to the interview stage, but that's illegal.

There are a few universities where there are above average proportions in STEM fields like MIT and Harvey Mudd. But these are few and far between, and their graduates have heavy competition for offers. There aren't enough graduates to meaningfully make a dent in representation. Furthermore, these universities have big gender disparities in admissions rates - over two to one [1] - so directing recruitment at these universities is still achieving "better" representation through discrimination, just indirect discrimination.

1. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/can-your-gender-give...

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#215

Post by gmm1990 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #206
gmm1990 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The articles based on a questionable paper. 15 to 35 isn’t a tight band. The top of the range would have twice as many as the bottom.

Do you have a substantive criticisms of the paper? Or will you just proclaim that it's questionable without any elaboration? The possible ranges of representation are from 0% to 100%, but almost all fall within a band of 20%. This is a pretty tight band. Proportionality between the lowest and highest isn't that relevant. A range from 10-20% is still a wider band than 1% to 5%, even though the latter has a bigger prop…

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_...

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#216

Post by aydyn »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #195
aydyn wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s not cynically accusing, he is accurately accusing.

Go is making a cynical assumption about their motives.

Gp is making no such assumption of motives. Lots of people actively peddle scams while believing in the product. For a less controversial example, MLMs.

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#217

Post by Manuel_D »

gmm1990 wrote: post #215
Manuel_D wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a substantive criticisms of the paper? Or will you just proclaim that it's questionable without any elaboration? The possible ranges of representation are from 0% to 100%, but almost all fall within a band of 20%. This is a pretty tight band. Proportionality between the lowest and highest isn't that relevant. A range from 10-20% is still a wider band than 1% to 5%, even though the latter has a bigger prop…

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_...

Basically, that response just used a different metric for gender equality instead of GGGI and the negative correlation between gender equality and women's representation in STEM was less pronounced using the alternative metric for equality. Also, the response you linked did not account for women's overall higher rate of attending postsecondary education (and they try to argue that this is somehow a good thing). Stoet and Geary normalized for disparate rates of college attendance, which makes it more useful for exploring men's and women's relative interest in STEM.

My point, though, is still reinforced by your linked study. There is no wide variance in gender representation in STEM. Nearly all countries fall within a band 20% wide (figure 1, page 3). Women's lower interest in STEM is indeed universal. The "wide variation" is from 1/5th to 1/3rd of STEM graduates. Not nothing, but by no means enough to suggest that the disparities in STEM are driven by culture to any significant degree.

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#218

Post by Hnrobert42 »

aydyn wrote: post #216
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go is making a cynical assumption about their motives.

Gp is making no such assumption of motives. Lots of people actively peddle scams while believing in the product. For a less controversial example, MLMs.

GP literally says, “in a cynical manner.”

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#219

Post by aydyn »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #218
aydyn wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gp is making no such assumption of motives. Lots of people actively peddle scams while believing in the product. For a less controversial example, MLMs.

GP literally says, “in a cynical manner.”

The fact that you’re trying to read the tea leaves on gp’s post rather than discuss them correctly calling out the DEI corporate scam tells all you need to know about the bad faith of this discussion.

Re: Tech's DEI backlash is here

#220

Post by Hnrobert42 »

aydyn wrote: post #219
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP literally says, “in a cynical manner.”

The fact that you’re trying to read the tea leaves on gp’s post rather than discuss them correctly calling out the DEI corporate scam tells all you need to know about the bad faith of this discussion.

What tea leaves? I took GP’s comment at face value that DEI proponents are cynics. I don’t share your belief that DEI is corporate scam.

I am sure some execs institute DEI exclusively to generate goodwill with no belief in it as a program. Most do it without deep thought because everyone else is. Still others truly believe diversity is valuable, and they are doing the best they know how.

To me, that doesn’t equate to corporate scam. To me, it is misguided at worst.

Since we aren’t mind readers and we don’t know what’s in their hearts, assuming DEI proponents are all bad faith actors is itself cynical. Much as it is cynical to assume I am arguing in bad faith.

We may disagree, but that doesn’t mean I am trolling you. I don’t assume you are trolling me.

Post reply on HN