Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take care not to mistake “not your lawyer” as “not a lawyer”.
Whoops, my bad. That makes your previous comment look even worse though, not better.
1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#52My gut says it's worse than the numbers here suggest. I've been in more than one situation where no one outright said "Don't hire any more white men", but they made themselves clear nonetheless. The 'ole, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?".
> Don't hire any more white men
Where/when are white men the majority? Everywhere I’ve ever worked has been overwhelmingly Indian.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure that the law doesn’t allow discrimination to correct diversity imbalances. DEI initiatives are about driving recruiting efforts and targeting towards underrepresented groups (e.g. having recruiters reaching out to qualified women, running recruiting drives at colleges with high minority populations, etc.) but the ultimate hiring decision cannot exclude anyone on the basis of a protected class.
Selectivity is not necessarily discriminatory. For further reading, I recommend: - United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 US 193 (1979) - Johnson v. VTA; 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
Thanks, these are interesting cases. However, I suspect that these both hinge of the fact that they are related to specific training and internal promotion, which (to me at least) seems like it’s easier to judge that those not selected do not have their interests “unnecessarily trammeled” (they are still employed and will have other opportunities to make progress in the organization). Curious if you know of any pertaining to the external hiring decision itself? I am not debating anything, but the nuances are interesting to me.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selectivity is not necessarily discriminatory. For further reading, I recommend: - United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 US 193 (1979) - Johnson v. VTA; 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
Thanks, these are interesting cases. However, I suspect that these both hinge of the fact that they are related to specific training and internal promotion, which (to me at least) seems like it’s easier to judge that those not selected do not have their interests “unnecessarily trammeled” (they are still employed and will have other opportunities to make progress in the organization). Curious if you know of any perta…
The references above are all that I have prepared for today, apologies.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 fascis…
I'm responding to: > Balance it against nothing. The beneficiaries are not the same people as the victims. This makes two claims: 1. That the woman that was hired is not at risk of discrimination. I challenge the truth of this statement, because as the research I linked shows, it seems likely there are still biases against women in hiring processes even today. 2. That women are no longer disadvantaged when it comes t…
> This makes two claims
It makes only one claim: that the people being hired now are not the victims of past discrimination.
Which arguably very probable, unless proven otherwise.
> I challenge the truth of this statement, because as the research I linked shows, it seems likely there are still biases against women in hiring processes even today.
there are biases even against men. There are biases against almost every category you can think of.
Look t the layoffs, it's men in majority.
The reason is obvious, still the statistics don't lie, right?
I'll ask you again, why isn't that a problem in the truck driver industry, were it's only men?
And if that's true, why is it so hard for companies to find women to hire.
A thing that is evident to anyone working in tech, there are simply much less women candidates than men, companies that need employees should or shouldn't be allowed to look in the largest possible pool?
Last but not least, tech is not STEM.
Tech is simply a job, you don't need a PHD or a thesis on the theory of everything to participate.
In US in the 50s and 60s women accounted for 40-50% of computer programmers, according to research by Claire L. Evans. In the 80S it was 36%. Now it's 26%.
What changed is not discrimination, but that the industry first started asking for prior experience with computers, which men had more than women.on average, also professors started to ask more from their students, thanks to the boom of personal computers, programming classes were in high demand and the number of seats was still very limited. The real divide became between who had a computer at home and who hadn't. So many men too had no access to tech jobs or higher education in tech, it's not only women.
A fun fact: I was born in Italy in the 70s, I had a C64 as a kid that my sister hated, not because it was for boys, but because she thought it was boring. She liked books. She has become a scholar of literature.
Fast forward to my teen years, I was playing volleyball and had no interest for computers or programming, I was a sports guy.
Then in high school there was a limited number course for the final 3 years that taught CS and programming that I enrolled to given I had very good grades because if I was admitted I could stop studying German and Geography, that I had no love for. We were half boys and half girls in my class, the girls simply had no interest for computers, except a couple that went to study CS at uni with me. Boys were even worse, they could only think about soccer. I was very hood at it, I don't think that's because I'm special, it's simply because I studied and did the exercises at home. On paper before buying my first PC! But AFAIK many of my classmates, men and women, are now working as some kind of programmers because the request is so high that even the not so skilled have a good chance of being hired (yeah, some are doing Cobol...)
> There are second order effects to the discrimination your family suffered
I disagree.
There are other effects that are more important than me and my family: fascism was defeated and nobody suffered again because of it.
Which is exactly what my family wanted.
Being a victim is not a full time job, you are a victim only if you are one, not if you think you are.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm responding to: > Balance it against nothing. The beneficiaries are not the same people as the victims. This makes two claims: 1. That the woman that was hired is not at risk of discrimination. I challenge the truth of this statement, because as the research I linked shows, it seems likely there are still biases against women in hiring processes even today. 2. That women are no longer disadvantaged when it comes t…
> This makes two claims It makes only one claim: that the people being hired now are not the victims of past discrimination. Which arguably very probable, unless proven otherwise. > I challenge the truth of this statement, because as the research I linked shows, it seems likely there are still biases against women in hiring processes even today. there are biases even against men. There are biases against almost every…
I'm not really seeing what you're rebutting?
Are you denying the results of the research I linked that shows resume bias? Or think the research wasn't thorough enough?
Are you saying that you believe the only reason for there being less woman in tech is their nature, that their gender makes them naturally less interested in tech? And your only data point here is an anecdote about you and your sister?
> What changed is not discrimination, but that the industry first started asking for prior experience with computers, which men had more than women
You don't see this as gender discrimination? Why did men have more access to computers? Why was the access to computers based on gender?
> It makes only one claim: that the people being hired now are not the victims of past discrimination.
I guess we interpret what they meant differently. I didn't interpret it to mean the victim of past discriminations, they never use the word "past" or refer to the past in any way.
My interpretation and what my rebuttal was for is that they're saying that the current women are no longer at a disadvantage and don't suffer any disproportionate discrimination anymore.
Basically the question is, are women today being pushed away from pursuing a tech career, and do they face additional obstacles in doing so if they try?
The person I responded too seemed to imply that the answer is No they're not. I'm not convinced because research still demonstrates that obstacles do exist which aren't seen for men.
> The real divide became between who had a computer at home and who hadn't. So many men too had no access to tech jobs or higher education in tech, it's not only women
Class discrimination is also important to fight. Access to opportunities shouldn't be reserved only to the rich. But women are in an even worse position if they're also from a poor family.
> Look t the layoffs, it's men in majority.
It's obvious that when most employees are men, most of the employees laid off would be men as well? Maybe I didn't get what you meant here?
> A thing that is evident to anyone working in tech, there are simply much less women candidates than men, companies that need employees should or shouldn't be allowed to look in the largest possible pool?
Exactly, that's the other point, there's less woman in the pool, so you need to make sure they don't get starved out, and to increase the representation of women in the pool you need to go out of your way to recruit women, it's one possible way to break the cycle.
I feel like we're talking a bit past each other at this point though. Maybe I get the impression the disagreement is on the Nature vs Nurture part? Are you explaining all the discrepancies as inherent to being a woman vs a man? That it's all just caused by natural interest and motivation?
I think this is an unanswered question personally, and I'm not seeing conclusive evidence that you can conclude it's purely a natural based outcome. Your anecdote about your sister really doesn't meet my bar for proof unfortunately.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> however, discrimination is measured by diversity No law measures discrimination by diversity. However, the law punishes actual discrimination by race and gender. This however does not ameliorate the victim complex/ mentality that a nations most powerful group experiences. Statistically speaking, in American society, this group is typically the white Christian male. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unravel…
The law punishes "actual" discrimination--but determines discrimination by disparate results, not by observing actual discrimination. Thus the de-facto result is you're punished for not meeting quotas.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What the law says and what happens in the courtroom differ.
It's illegal to discriminate, but in practice that means it's "illegal" to have a workforce skewed too far towards the white male. Businesses are simply obeying the law as enforced, not the law as written.
We see the same thing from both sides--look at the recent cases where hospitals have refused to perform life-saving abortions. They're not going to jail if she dies, they might go to jail if they save her. Hence despite the law saying they have to do it they don't.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#59Earlier 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…
You miss the point.
Let's take as a given that there was discrimination in the past. Unless you have a time machine you can't go back and change that. Hiring more people of the discriminated-against group now benefits new workers of that group (who haven't been discriminated against because they haven't had jobs before) but that does nothing to rectify the past wrongs, it just creates new victims (those who lost out on jobs that they should have gotten.)
The fundamental problem here is that attempts to redress discrimination pretend that groups can be victims. Nope, victims are always individuals. Does killing a Hatfield bring back a McCoy?? (Note that the original implementation of affirmative action was needed to break the problem of the social contract against hiring blacks. That's long since been done, the program should have been dismantled 40 years ago.)
As for continuing discrimination against "women", look more carefully at the pattern--the "discrimination" is the result of having children. Taking time out of the labor market (or working fewer hours while still in the labor market) translates to less experience and thus a lower value. When you control for actual hours worked (do *not* have a "full time" category!!), actual years of experience (maternity leave is at best zero experience, likely negative experience as that's time not keeping current with changes) and actual position (no lumping similar categories--pediatrician pays less than cardiologist) almost all the supposed discrimination vanishes. Compare young, childless, degreed women and they're making *more* than their male counterparts.
Re: 1-in-6 managers told to deprioritize hiring white men, 48% diversity over merit
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This makes two claims It makes only one claim: that the people being hired now are not the victims of past discrimination. Which arguably very probable, unless proven otherwise. > I challenge the truth of this statement, because as the research I linked shows, it seems likely there are still biases against women in hiring processes even today. there are biases even against men. There are biases against almost every…
I'm not really seeing what you're rebutting? Are you denying the results of the research I linked that shows resume bias? Or think the research wasn't thorough enough? Are you saying that you believe the only reason for there being less woman in tech is their nature, that their gender makes them naturally less interested in tech? And your only data point here is an anecdote about you and your sister? > What changed i…
>> What changed is not discrimination, but that the industry first started asking for prior experience with computers, which men had more than women
>You don't see this as gender discrimination? Why did men have more access to computers? Why was the access to computers based on gender?
If this is evidence of gender discrimination it's by the parents, not by the companies doing the hiring. The companies are doing nothing wrong in hiring the most qualified even if that skews highly male.
The reality is that the autism spectrum is *highly* overrepresented in STEM, especially the solitary pursuits (things like programming where the job is a worker at a computer.) The autism spectrum skews highly male. That's going to skew such jobs male. (And, personally, I think this actually understates it--autism is not binary, but a spectrum. That means there's plenty more that lean in that direction without reaching the point of qualifying for a diagnosis.)
> Class discrimination is also important to fight. Access to opportunities shouldn't be reserved only to the rich. But women are in an even worse position if they're also from a poor family.
And the antidiscrimination efforts do virtually nothing about this. Companies neither know nor care what someone's class background is, they just care what they can do.
> Exactly, that's the other point, there's less woman in the pool, so you need to make sure they don't get starved out, and to increase the representation of women in the pool you need to go out of your way to recruit women, it's one possible way to break the cycle.
You're assuming discrimination perpetuated by the employers, yet the only sources of discrimination you cite have nothing to do with the employers. There's no cycle to break.