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

201–210 of 300 posts

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#201

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

anon7000 wrote: post #178
AlotOfReading wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI is nominally about adjusting the situation so that the end result is equal. For example, paying women equally even if they don't negotiate as aggressively as men. The nominal case doesn't always match the reality, but the reality is that no one has a level playing field to begin with.

The whole thing is about trying to eliminate sources of bias that we can. For example, blind screening of resumes where names and similar personal info aren’t given is a way to avoid racial bias while focusing on what matters. People have pre-determined opinions about many things, even if it’s subconscious. That’s an example of DEI policies trying to level the playing field to avoid unfair discrimination.

That's a great example of a DEI-inspired policy that should be, at least in most cases, pretty non-controversial, and very beneficial to the company itself.

I think there are also some other types of policies (whether formal or informal) that were much more controversial. For example: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/lawsuit-claims-google-...

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#202

Post by Hatchback7599 »

Eextra953 wrote: post #199
p0w3n3d wrote: post #195

DEI is fun and games until I am the person that won't be hired because I am not the niche to be de-discriminated. I remember coming to a Google stand on a conference, where they gave me form asking besides my email address, what is my ethnic background (strange word they used in my language, which I associated with gender etc, whatever would make me a minority) and would I mind share. I chose not to share and they ev…

Ya maybe cause you refused to fill out a form that everyone else could fill out just fine. They probably thought you couldn't follow instructions and thought if they can't do this why would we proceed? You ever consider that?

[dead]

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#203

Post by rijoja »

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…

What makes you believe that just because there is X percent of category 1 in set A it is "unjust" if there is not X percent of category 1 in an unrelated set B?

Also why do you think this principle applies to the categories Women and Blacks, and not for instance people with diabetes, psychopaths and people who like Taylor swift?

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#204

Post by imiric »

pkulak wrote: post #179
pertymcpert wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot address systemic inequalities at the hiring level without some preferential treatment. The idea was that if you had two candidates who were equally strong, you pick the one from an underrepresented/disadvantaged background because they've had to work harder to get to the same place. At a surface level that is a disadvantage at the hiring level to the other one because the other gets a bonus tie-breaker.

The idea is that instead of just interviewing the people right next to you, who look exactly like you and have your exact background, you make the effort to interview a diverse set of candidates. Then you try to get rid of bias in the hiring process, and make the workplace somewhere that doesn’t make folks who are slightly different miserable. That’s it.

How does a company make an "effort" to interview a diverse set of candidates? There's an applicant queue not under their control, and a filtering phase at every step of the interview process.

What you're suggesting is that companies favor candidates who have a different appearance or background than existing employees, which is the definition of bias and discrimination. This is based on ignorant beliefs that people who look the same, have the same gender, ethnicity or background, will inevitably think the same way.

These programs are judging people by superficial traits, while claiming they somehow make the hiring process fair. It's ludicrous.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#205

Post by rib3ye »

One lesser known DEI policies that I think aligns with current conservative thinking:

- Parental Leave & Caregiving Support: Providing paid maternity and paternity leave, flexible work arrangements, and childcare support

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#206

Post by roomey »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #190
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?

Kind of yes. This was what it was attempting to do.

Now I must say, in practice. In over 12 years of working in two large multinationals as a "tech interviewer" (That is, once someone went through the management interview and HR interview), I never interviewed a black person or a woman. Anicdotal? Yes. But 12 years is a loooooong time.

Anyway, just literally look around an office, or look at a leadership tree, and you can see for yourself. This isn't hard to demonstrate.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#207

Post by roomey »

rijoja wrote: post #203
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…

What makes you believe that just because there is X percent of category 1 in set A it is "unjust" if there is not X percent of category 1 in an unrelated set B? Also why do you think this principle applies to the categories Women and Blacks, and not for instance people with diabetes, psychopaths and people who like Taylor swift?

[flagged]

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#208

Post by Tuna-Fish »

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…

This is precisely why the programs got so weird.

It is, and always was, illegal to hire or not hire someone based on their race (or other protected class). You cannot legally just use quotas. At the same time, the EEOC will find a way to sue you if you are a large company with a lower proportion of minority employees than population. So companies had to get creative.

Trump EEOC will not do that. It's questionable if the EEOC even has the power to do that anymore after recent supreme court decisions that weaken regulators in general.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#209

Post by rendaw »

sheepdestroyer wrote: post #97
thaumasiotes wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero. Impoverished white children outscore wealthy black children by a significant margin on standardized tests, and there are a lot more poor white children than poor black children. There used to be programs like that, and they mostly helped the children of Chinese and Vietnamese refugees…

"childhood household income. That transcends race or gender" vs "targeting childhood household income will see representation of the groups you're trying to help drop to nearly zero" Did you misunderstand the point? It seems right that if you want to help poor people, you should target poor people, how could that be counterproductive?

I think GP's point is that if the goal is to help those disadvantaged by childhood poverty, assuming similar levels of poverty, it will help white children who are relatively less disadvantaged and not help relatively more disadvantaged black children.
Post reply on HN