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

Google kills diversity hiring targets

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 300 posts

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#181

Post by scarmig »

scblock wrote: post #151
likeabatterycar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduate…

You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal charact…

On the one hand, you have DEI policies like Harvard's college admissions or the air traffic controller hiring scandal. And of course DEI advocates always claim that these are obvious perversions of True DEI, which is only about expanding opportunities and never about discriminating against disfavored groups of people.

On the other hand, the tricky bit comes in when it's only in retrospect everyone agrees those were terrible perversions of DEI. When they're actually in place, anyone who criticizes them is considered a racist neo-Nazi.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#182

Post by Digory »

scblock wrote: post #151
likeabatterycar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? No, because that would obviously be racist. DEI would be favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal characteristics, not their qualifications for the job. The just thing would be students from HBCUs having a level playing field along with everyone else. It's no different than hiring managers selectively preferring graduate…

You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Using it as a pejorative in the way you are is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist. It doesn't reflect the purpose of the concept at all. In fact your description of "favoring one candidate over another specifically due to immutable personal charact…

“Recognizing personal and institutional bias” sounds nice, until someone has to decide which biases or differences to overcome, and at what cost.

There’s a bias against tattoos. What price should the company pay to overcome multigenerational tattoo-phobia? Tattoo activists will tell you any amount of money and inefficiency is morally required.

The shift from “non-discrimination between races” to “offsetting differences attributable to society’s bias” necessarily calls for special treatment of those perceived as disadvantaged, and so becomes illegal where the law lays down a nondiscrimination rule. Kendi was honest about that part.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#184

Post by protocolture »

scarab92 wrote: post #168
strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

It surprises me that these programs were ever legal. It is strictly illegal in Australia to consider factors like gender or race when hiring. Even capturing these details from applicants is problematic in most cases. The compensation payable if caught can be enormous, in the order of a years salary per applicant. It’s not even necessary to prove that a specific applicant was discriminated against, simply having a pro…

I recall we have a specific carve out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders, and I recall seeing specific hiring drives especially around the public service (I also am aware that elements of the federal government had a program specifically targeting autistic people too, which is also a protected characteristic)

Theres also 2 forms these DEI programs took.

1. (The FAA Thing) where they specifically manipulated their hiring system to ensure a greater percentage of african americans.

2. (What a lot of the tech companies did) Write tons of new HR documentation, and add checks and balances to ensure that the implicit bias of the hiring manager didn't result in a biased outcome.

Theres really nothing wrong with 2 in an Australian context other than the extra overhead. The overhead was carried for a while as it allowed companies to signal alignment with political stances. They are shelving these programs to signal differently.

Honestly I cant completely hate the idea of 2 either. I despise the idea of more HR people drawing paychecks, but I recall an incident 20 years ago where our team couldn't hire a woman because the all female HR team unilaterally decided she wasn't technical enough, and bounced her out of the running without telling the hiring manager. (The applicant was conventionally attractive and younger than the HR team)

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#185

Post by baggy_trough »

scarab92 wrote: post #168
strangeloops85 wrote: post #148

Independent of whether these goals are appropriate or not, these actions (and those of so many other companies) are just so predictably craven. These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet. Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? At least Costco seems to have a logical reason for what they do and stood by it.

It surprises me that these programs were ever legal. It is strictly illegal in Australia to consider factors like gender or race when hiring. Even capturing these details from applicants is problematic in most cases. The compensation payable if caught can be enormous, in the order of a years salary per applicant. It’s not even necessary to prove that a specific applicant was discriminated against, simply having a pro…

They never were legal, but people looked the other way. Now that will come back to haunt them.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#187

Post by roomey »

Take a breath and take this from first principles...

People tend to be tribal. People, when interviewing and select, will tend to hire people that look like them. A white guy from a white school from a white neighbourhood is far more likely to hire another white guy because that's what the've spent their whole lives surrounded by. This is justified a million ways, but what it boils down to is favouring someone who is a certain race.

And when tech is already full of white guys, it just means more white guys will be hired in tech... Cause maths.

All DEI was doing in the tech world was saying, "try interview at least one woman/ black person etc". Also maybe some training on how to avoid the pitfall in an interview of just hiring someone the same as you.

But look around you in the office. How many women are there? How many black people? How many... Black women?!?! Yea, I thought so.

If you are talking about "merit based" then that is "DEI". If you are talking about "people who look and act like me", then you are racist.

Anyway, excluding people leads to worse outcomes. Unfortunately, it makes life harder for people on the way.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#188

Post by tommiegannert »

paxys wrote: post #79
Quarrelsome wrote: post #42

When I came over to the states to go to a tech conference at a NASDAQ listed billion dollar corp that bought us, the only black people I met were either working at the hotels (90% of that staff) or living in the nearby inner city. I don't pretend to understand the USA, and maybe that conference wasn't representative, but to me it was quite shocking that the disparity was so clearly visible. So I think its a bit of a…

What you say is true, but these corporate diversity efforts are mostly used for PR and aren't actually making a difference to any race or community. The simple truth is that tech companies are going to hire any qualified engineer they can find, regardless of whether they are in a minority group or not and whether there is a DEI department at the company or not. So the question that should be asked is – why are black…

Part of DEI at Google is to engage with universities to understand why some prefer not to study STEM/PR/whatnot. Shutting it down at Google will also affect the education pipeline.

Agreed on PR (or avoidance of negative publicity) being the main driver for Pichai to engage in the discussion, but there are many people at Google who care.

Disclaimer: worked at Google in Europe.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#189

Post by brigandish »

icameron wrote: post #180
bufferoverflow wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You misunderstand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is. It's not about favoring anyone despite qualifications and never has been. Yes, it has. Look at the college admissions. The test score requirements for black students were way way lower than those for the Asian students in many universities and colleges. That's favoring people by their skin color. Which is illegal since at least 1964.

Where can I look at these college test score requirements? I have never heard of such a thing besides minimum SAT score to be considered. Is that adjusted based solely on race at some university? Where?

Probably in the NBER report[1] on the data that came out of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case[2]. It's an interesting read, as is the other one on legacy applicants.

[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w29964

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#190

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

roomey wrote: post #187

Take a breath and take this from first principles... People tend to be tribal. People, when interviewing and select, will tend to hire people that look like them. A white guy from a white school from a white neighbourhood is far more likely to hire another white guy because that's what the've spent their whole lives surrounded by. This is justified a million ways, but what it boils down to is favouring someone who is…

> All DEI was doing in the tech world was saying, "try interview at least one woman/ black person etc". Also maybe some training on how to avoid the pitfall in an interview of just hiring someone the same as you.

A lot of people are strongly in favour of this, of course, including me. But are you sure that's all that it was doing?

Post reply on HN