Google kills diversity hiring targets • Hacker News Board

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#221

Post by mobiuscog » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 10:47 AM UTC

teractiveodular wrote: post #145

Quarrelsome wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're assuming there is no genetic component whatsoever to human skills and interests Are you seriously suggesting that black people are genetically less predispositioned to program? Explain the evolutionary advantage to that please because that sounds absolutely absurd.

Here's a strawman: White people are more likely to diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). If people with ASD are more likely to opt for CS degrees, by induction we'll have more white people in CS.

Except for the fact that people with ASD / Neurodiversity are often more likely to be passed over during interview and selection processes as they don't fit the social norms that hiring manager also expect.

So even if they are more likely to be diagnosed - and I presume you mean White 'Men' explicitly, as Women are even less likely to be - they're also more likely to not 'sell' themselves during applications in the expected corporate way, and therefore not get the high-paying jobs.

Diversity is not just Race or skin colour, but that's easier to see (and to consciously bias).

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#222

Post by mobiuscog » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 10:49 AM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #143

wahnfrieden wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of conservatives and American libertarians do say that some races are genetically inferior including in terms of intelligence and that they get what they deserve given their subhumanity

That's some real Nazi shit right there and I thought y'all were on the side of the free world or whatever. How does someone exist in 2025 with such ignorant views? I don't get it. MLK was like 60 years ago.

Have you not seen Trump, the 'leader' of the 'Free World', also inaugurated on MLK day...

He is the best example of how someone exists in 2025 with such ignorant views, and those who voted for him share that.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#223

Post by mobiuscog » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 10:49 AM UTC

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #173

"we will no longer have aspirational goals" - google in a nutshell

I bet they still expect their employees to write 'aspirational goals' each review, just as every tech company seems to do now.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#224

Post by rob74 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 11:00 AM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #152

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.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? Why won't they? It's not like black people can't be hired anymore. It's just they have to compete like everyone else without being treated like disabled people.

Well, if they prefer a black candidate to a white one, the white one can complain of being discriminated against and accuse them of promoting DEI, which under the new administration can have all sorts of bad consequences for them. So they'd better play it safe and hire the white candidate...

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#225

Post by KingMob » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 12:04 PM UTC

pertymcpert wrote: post #171

pacomerh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been misinformed of how DEI works. Its goal is basically equal access to resources, addressing systemic inequities, and fostering an inclusive culture where everyone feels valued.

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.

> because they've had to work harder to get to the same place

Which implies they're actually the stronger candidate.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#226

Post by Jensson » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 12:38 PM UTC

rob74 wrote: post #224

bufferoverflow wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Google going to avoid interviewing anyone from a HBCU now? Why won't they? It's not like black people can't be hired anymore. It's just they have to compete like everyone else without being treated like disabled people.

Well, if they prefer a black candidate to a white one, the white one can complain of being discriminated against and accuse them of promoting DEI, which under the new administration can have all sorts of bad consequences for them. So they'd better play it safe and hire the white candidate...

That is no different than a black guy accusing them of racism, so it evens out.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#227

Post by Jensson » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 12:48 PM UTC

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…

> And when tech is already full of white guys

Its also full of Asian guys, so its way more diverse than most sectors in USA.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#228

Post by dazilcher » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 1:05 PM UTC

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?

Unless you know more about that incident than the op, it sounds like they didn't refuse to fill anything but instead chose to skip and optional section.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#229

Post by eesmith » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 1:08 PM UTC

imiric wrote: post #204

pkulak wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> There's an applicant queue not under their control

Not 100%, sure, but that's far different from 0%.

Which job fairs do your company reps attend? Is there a built-in bias causing you to miss out on good candidates?

Can employees recommend a friend as a potential recruit? What effect does that have on promoting favoritism over a better candidate?

> 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.

No. The suggestion is that companies should not favor candidates because they have the same appearance or background than existing employees.

If the core team is all from Local Church, and their friend network is all from Local Church, then should they favor that network to hire someone else from Local Church, or should other candidates be judged with equal weight?

The former discriminates on the basis of religion, and is prohibited in most cases.

Bearing the latter in mind is DEI.

Requiring new candidates to not be fro Local Church is also discrimination on the basis of religion, and is equally prohibited. It is not DEI.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#230

Post by cmsj » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 1:12 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #160

pkulak wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how DEI works at all, and you probably know that, but being “short, quippy and wrong” is just so easy.

Your response is shorter than my comment. And is factually wrong. Pot, meet kettle. As far as DEI, that's exactly how it works: https://i.imgur.com/SFf8IL7.png You see, I show evidence. Unlike you.

If that's what you consider to be useful evidence in a topic as complex as this one, heaven help whoever is paying you to make smart decisions for them.