241–250 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well we are shutting down the Department of Education...
Since education is a state level responsibility, why not handle it there? We don’t have a federal education ministry in Canada for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I really fail to see how doubling in on the importance and reality of race and skin color in particular (as opposed to culture) everywhere is going to make that problem go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So why did companies adopt quotas? In theory if DEI was about being race, sex, gender, sexuality, age blind, it wouldn't be controversial. But companies went in hard with things such as quotas, and there's even cases in the courts at the moment where Red Hat/IBM supposedly awarded bonuses based on hiring managers fulfilling diversity quotas.
And that's only those who directly materially lose out. Implicit in DEI is a suggestion that the American system is not a meritocracy, and if you accept that claim you are attacking the identity of a lot of powerful people who genuinely believe they got to where they are through unique skills and effort and not because they had any sort of advantage.
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…
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.
You can tell because pretty soon people start in with the justifications of why it is so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You got brainwashed into thinking it's not.
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…
https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 yo…
Governments are responsible for addressing social inequity, while companies simply hire whoever best meets their needs (within the constraints of antidiscrimination laws).
In America these responsibilities seem to have become blurred, resulting in an XY problem whereby people debate which hiring policies are best at addressing certain societal problems, without questioning whether it is even appropriate for companies to be taking on that responsibility in the first place.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> ...is how the right wants to use it, but it is also racist, sexist, and ablist... You forgot transphobist and whatever the -ist form of Nazi is. National Socialist, possibly. No point going with half-measures on the insults.