Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

resumebuilder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#31

Post by willnonya »

didibus wrote: post #17
LorenPechtel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Balance it against nothing. The beneficiaries are not the same people as the victims.

That's debatable. What was the impact of the biases against women towards them working STEM jobs? Could it still linger today in having created the cultural environment which is why few women pursue STEM and why it's still predominantly men? > Research has shown that women are no less capable than men in science and mathematics. But, according to the AAUW, external factors, like a lack of role models, cultures that t…

It's a fallacy to believe you can fight discrimination with more discrimination. But then that isn't the only fallacy you're promoting is it...

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#32

Post by peoplefromibiza »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #26
tharne wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing to balance here. Discrimination is wrong or it isn't. If you're using race or gender as a factor when hiring you're in the wrong.

Is this just a "the means justify the means" argument or am I missing something? Discrimination is wrong because of the harm it causes , not because it's a violation of an immutable law of fairness or whatever. There's a fucking lot to balance after all.

honestly no.

it is considered wrong because it is unjust.

In the constitution of my Country (and many others) there's written that "all citizen are equal in front if the law, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age (..)" etc

Nowhere it is said "because it's economically inconvenient"

They are considered human rights, that people inherit as humans when they are born and are inalienable.

So, no.

Even people who discriminate have the right to not be discriminated.

Retaliation is not a human right.

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#33

Post by tharne »

altairprime wrote: post #8
pylua wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like a potential lawsuit. I do wonder what sort of whistle blower status you could be awarded in this circumstance if any at all.

The lawsuit would flop if there’s more men than women in the group being hired for, since it’s absolutely permissible to correct diversity imbalances. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

> (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

Good thing you're not a lawyer and this not legal advice because what you're suggesting is in a legal gray area at best.

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#35

Post by awinder »

random314 wrote: post #6

Sounds like a crap survey. Literally, every company has been training staff to not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, national origin etc because it would run afoul of Civil rights law. Is this a new bogeyman like the evil Jews who were conniving against the majority Germans in the 1920s as per Nazi propaganda.

I’m inclined to believe it’s a crap survey:

“All participants had to pass through demographic filters to ensure they were age 18 or older, currently employed for wages or self-employed, and manage at least 25% of the hiring at their workplace.”

Manage 25% of total company hiring? So what, they’re tiny companies with big fat DEI programs? Who actually got interviewed here?

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#36

Post by didibus »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #30
didibus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's debatable. What was the impact of the biases against women towards them working STEM jobs? Could it still linger today in having created the cultural environment which is why few women pursue STEM and why it's still predominantly men? > Research has shown that women are no less capable than men in science and mathematics. But, according to the AAUW, external factors, like a lack of role models, cultures that t…

> What was the impact of the biases against women towards them working STEM jobs? I guess what OP is saying is that the beneficiaries are largely not people that actually suffered discrimination, they are just people that tick all the boxes. Otherwise it wouldn't take much to find them.

Yes, and that's debatable.

You can make an argument that women today are still being discriminated against or are in a disadvantaged position because of past discriminations against women. Therefore the women they hired was an appropriate beneficiary.

As research shows, there is still bias against women in hiring, especially in the resume selection process.

And as research also shows, women don't pursue STEM jobs because of historically induced cultural biases.

If you discriminated against women in the past so that the profession got taken over by men, had only men's in it, men became all the professors, men became all the role models for the profession, it shouldn't be surprising from a sociological level that women today don't find STEM appealing because it's all men dominated and doesn't seem friendly or inviting to them.

How do you break this cycle is a separate discussion, and there's a seperate argument that affirmative action doesn't work.

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#37

Post by peoplefromibiza »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #11
random314 wrote: post #6

Sounds like a crap survey. Literally, every company has been training staff to not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, national origin etc because it would run afoul of Civil rights law. Is this a new bogeyman like the evil Jews who were conniving against the majority Germans in the 1920s as per Nazi propaganda.

Supposedly, it's all about don't discriminate. In practice, however, discrimination is measured by diversity. The safe path is to choose the diversity hire. It's pretty hard to get in trouble for not hiring the white male.

> In practice, however, discrimination is measured by diversity.

How?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

measuring diversity is the equivalent of filing the workers, which is illegal, at least in my country.

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#38

Post by peoplefromibiza »

didibus wrote: post #36
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What was the impact of the biases against women towards them working STEM jobs? I guess what OP is saying is that the beneficiaries are largely not people that actually suffered discrimination, they are just people that tick all the boxes. Otherwise it wouldn't take much to find them.

Yes, and that's debatable. You can make an argument that women today are still being discriminated against or are in a disadvantaged position because of past discriminations against women. Therefore the women they hired was an appropriate beneficiary. As research shows, there is still bias against women in hiring, especially in the resume selection process. And as research also shows, women don't pursue STEM jobs bec…

> Yes, and that's debatable

You said it, ok, but what do you wanna debate about?

Data shows that, at best, some people in some categories are being hired.

> And as research also shows, women don't pursue STEM jobs because of historically induced cultural biases.

Doesn't imply that women hired today have ever been discriminated or come from families that were.

My family was anti fascist and discriminates during fascism, more than that, they were persecuted.

Should I get some kind of preferential lanes, even thought nothing of the sort ever happened to me?

> got taken over by men, had only men's in it, men became all the professors

this is at best unprovable.

in the worst case it is simply bad faith.

What about truck divers' industry, where what you are claiming as discrimination is undisputable?

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#39

Post by hotpotamus »

LatteLazy wrote: post #3

It took us 4 months to hire a woman to our team while we wasted the time of over a dozen qualified men interviewing people we knew we would not hire. I found this deeply distasteful.

I assume you weren't hiring for a Hooter's server position?

Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit

#40

Post by tharne »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #27
Bud wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. Now balance this against a century or so of injustice pointing the other direction, and just honestly consider whether it might be worth it.

the 100 year time frame is completely bogus For example women in Europe, especially east Europe, were hired to program computers back in the 50s and 60s because it was considered a job for typists, which were mainly women. Some men were scientists, some were engineers, teachers were highly regarded, but most of them worked horrible jobs in farms where women were never seen, because the job required physical skills an…

> Unless you're from the ruling class, we are all largely in the same boat in the end.

At least in the U.S., both major political parties will do everything in their power to prevent the majority of people from realizing this.

Post reply on HN