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

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#291

Post by p0w3n3d »

relaxing wrote: post #235
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.

They virtually didn't ask of anything else: mail, and discriminatory information

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#292

Post by p0w3n3d »

dazilcher wrote: post #228
Eextra953 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#293

Post by vlasky »

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…

It's not "strictly illegal" in Australia. Our anti-discrimination bodies across the country frequently grant exemptions to employers allowing sex-based or race-based discrimination in favour of certain groups (e.g. women, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people), in order to "improve access to specific jobs, programs or services".

Here is a list of the current exemptions in NSW:

https://antidiscrimination.nsw.gov.au/organisations-and-comm...

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#294

Post by Ferret7446 »

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.

I'm not sure "craven" is the right word, but it's definitely something.

> These executive orders (and what "DEIA" exactly means or constitutes, legally speaking) have not been litigated or clarified yet.

All of these DEI efforts were and are blatantly illegal. They were just never litigated for long enough that everyone was comfortable with doing them openly. The point of the executive orders isn't necessarily the orders themselves, but a clear signal the new administration will litigate these efforts that have always been illegal.

So many of these companies are backing away from the efforts and hoping that show of goodwill will ameliorate their potential upcoming legal risk. If they play ball, the new administration might accept the peace offering and not go full legal scorched earth.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#295

Post by rajnathani »

like_any_other wrote: post #13

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 [1]. If they've rolled over for anyone, it was for the Asian lobby, who is over-represented at 23/23 of those tech companies, and now won't be facing DEI pressures to reduce their numbers. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250127210140/https://informati...

Well, the top US engineering colleges which they're hiring from also has an under-representation of whites and this is due to the Asian disapora being higher from also international students' representation (thus, analyzing diversity metrics is less so relative to the US population and more so for the global population).

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#296

Post by Ferret7446 »

42772827 wrote: post #55
aurareturn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading his memo and agreed with many things he said. I think the public overreacted. He was right that DEI ignore the hard questions and discriminates another group. I'm no Trump lover. However, I do think DEI was the wrong approach. Many here work in tech. I'm sure some or many of us here have silently experienced unfair DEI hiring and promotion practices at least once. I've seen some truly incompetent p…

Damore’s letter was extremely balanced and had all the appropriate caveats about being applied to individuals. But what we’re seeing as the countervailing force to “woke” and “DEI” is unfortunately not like this. It’s as reactionary as the most egregious DEI programs.

Do not blame the pendulum for swinging back. Blame the person who pushed the pendulum in the first place.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#297

Post by emchammer »

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…

Skin color is visible, but it is not a marker unless you allow it to be one.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#298

Post by KingMob »

lazycog512 wrote: post #231
KingMob wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Yes, but interviewers can never know the candidates' real underlying strength, only their perception of their strength.

Re: Google kills diversity hiring targets

#299

Post by katehenshaw »

Looking for help with your relationship to catch a cheating spouse? Advice and support for you when you need it. Plus, all you need to know about the logistics of divorce, gathering information about infidelity and separation when you have kids. Hire tomcyberghost@gmail.com private investigator for such services. Call/Whatsapp +1(404)941-6785.
Post reply on HN