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

231–240 of 300 posts

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#231

Post by lazycog512 »

KingMob wrote: post #225
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.

> because they've had to work harder to get to the same place Which implies they're actually the stronger candidate.

by the arbitrary scenario's description, they are the same strength

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#232

Post by relaxing »

ithkuil wrote: post #216
rendaw wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that should be the goal. Using skin color as a proxy for being disadvantaged works only inasmuch the proxy is precise enough. If it's not, it's just another bias. If you had a better metric that can be used to help people from marginalized cummunities, wherever they happen to be, you should be using those if the goal is to be more inclusive, more diverse and more equitable. But the problem is that the very same p…

You seem to be reasoning from the standpoint that anti-black racism is no longer a factor today.

This is not the case.

Once you understand this, it is easy to see that actual, first-order racism is what destroys the dream of a colorblind society.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#233

Post by relaxing »

xnx wrote: post #26

Would be great to be more resources put in at the very start of the pipeline (e.g. early childhood education). It's very hard to "solve" "diversity" at the time of hiring when candidates have already had decades of disadvantage.

We have programs like Head Start, school meals, etc. but they’re currently being defunded.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#234

Post by jjslocum3 »

leoqa wrote: post #54
thaumasiotes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 For most diversity purposes, Asians and Indians both count as white, if not "even more white". Government programs, other than schools, are the main exception.

I think the real metric should be childhood household income. That transcends race or gender and universally inhibits the child in almost every measurable way.

The real metric should be how good looking they are. That transcends household income, race, and gender. /sarc

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#235

Post by relaxing »

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…

Or maybe Google rejects the vast majority of applicants, so there’s no way to know.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#236

Post by relaxing »

jncfhnb wrote: post #64

I worked on some DEI programs. The problem was mixed. Most companies (at least the ones with DEI programs) thought they had big DEI issues because minorities had worse outcomes. But if you looked hard, that wasn’t usually the case. It was merely that minorities were more represented at lower levels and lower levels had higher attrition and what not. On the whole, it tended to look like hiring, retention, and even pro…

> I do think DEI programs somehow greatly streamlined a meritocratic highlighting of talented folks from diverse backgrounds.

This has been my experience as well. It’s sad that it feels like the contrarian opinion. Thanks for taking the time to write a sane accounting.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#238

Post by veggieroll »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #82
goalieca wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.

The goal was to ensure that there was a more balanced result of education across the country. California can afford to spend way more per child than Kentucky can, so without some sort of federal level balancing, California's children are just going to be more likely to prosper than Kentucky's. This doubly applies to funds for disabled or underdeveloped children who needs extra support from the school system to be suc…

If spending is so important why are the most expensive districts the worst. Shouldn’t that money have helped them? And yet year after year, they remain the worst despite $20k+ per student.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#239

Post by relaxing »

rib3ye wrote: post #205

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

You would think family support aligns with conservative values, but no.

The conservative value they’re most interested in the freedom to be homeless and starve on the streets if you can’t stay employed.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#240

Post by SilverBirch »

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…

The truth is it comes down to the exact details of the policy whether it's legal. There's tonnes of things you can do to increase diversity in legal ways. For example, Google recruits at college campuses, they must have selection criteria for which campuses they visit, no matter what that policy is it's de facto a diversity strategy.

As for whether it's fair. It seems pretty dependent on your view of the world. If your base case is that without any regulations you'll just get the best person for the job, then these programs all look like an aberration. But if your base case is that hiring isn't fair - people hire their family, their friends, people from their alma mater, people from their church etc. Then putting in a programme to mitigate the biases that do exist seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Post reply on HN