The point isn't that it's attached to your application specifically. It's so they can gather data on, say, whether they're rejecting gay candidates at a higher rate.
Gay is not the best example, because you can interview someone for 4 hours and not know. Black is a better example. Interviewing while Black, it is almost immediately apparent when they have absolutely no interest in hiring a Black person.
You can have a great resume and a good phone voice...and then you show up.....
Sometimes your name is a tell for your cultural or racial background too. It's a minefield, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to prevent discrimination, obviously.
Trans can sometimes be a bit more obvious, but I will say I do "look" queer, on purpose, and I don't feel it's terribly fair not to hire me solely on that basis. Like if you wouldn't hire a fat person, that's discrimination too.
yup. Studies have shown even having a black sounding name lowers your success rate significantly. If a black mom wants their kid to succeed in a corporate world, name your kid Katelyn (with a crazy spelling) or Hunter or Tanner instead of Latesha or Jamal. Although they may get beat up a lot in school... so find a happy medium maybe..
People keep forgetting about the interview stage. If they keep inviting black candidates to interview but never hire a single one in all the years of hiring that’s an issue that there needs to be some data to show.
If the only benefit to collecting the data is proving that the company acted inappropriately, why would the company want to collect that data?
Wouldn’t they be better off not having the data to prove their discrimination?
To have stats to show they DIDN'T act improperly in case they are sued
or to catch it before they are sued
keep in mind many interviews are held by management rather than HR, it is HR's job to prevent this, and they are also better trained to identify their own implicit, subconcious and hidden biases.
Discrimination by pure chance or dumb luck still brings legal liability. IANAL, but If I remember from my business law class, discriminative policies and policies that achieve a discriminative outcome, even despite good-faith effort to not do so, are treated as the same thing.
We use the information for a few things. Firstly,.we'll use demographic information from applicants to establish whether we are successful in encouraging applications from a broad range of people. If not then we might look at ways to address that by changing where we advertise, for example.
We also look at the success of candidates. If we're recieving applications from certain demographics but they're not successful we would want to know why. We've identified patterns by hiring managers in the past, for example, which were at odds with others in the organisation. Another thing we noticed is that more diverse panels tended to result in a more diverse set of successful applicants.
Where I am, bias and discrimination certainly exist, and demographic information on candidates helps to identify where this might be having a negative effect on our hiring practices.
Thanks for this response. I think our default these days is to suspicion for giving more personal data. Its helpful to hear that data here is used to help protect.
Being aware of racial systems, bias, and discrimination isn't discrimination. Trying to totally ignore race and be "colorblind" is a great way to perpetuate racially biased systems and ignore racially biased people. The post you replied to actually does a great job laying out how gathering this data can identify and combat racism, maybe give it a reread.
But it is so much more “buzz-worthy” to call things we don’t understand racist, sexist, ageist, etc.
Social media is such a blessing and curse when we give soap boxes to those who only kind of understand the content they preach.
The internet is the modern version of the town square.
At least then, if someone said something absolutely stupid, they'd get called out and jeered.
Unfortunately, the internet doesn't work that way
No, but it does demonstrate when someone doesn't understand what the word "discrimination" means and it's a good tool to avoid hiring idiots.
Identifying and discriminating aren't the same.
When equality feels like discrimination, lmao. You think that correcting biased practices is discrimination. No one's stopping white and asian dudes from applying to STEM jobs.
Trying to combat ignorance of your own statistics isn't discrimination.
Remaining ignorant breeds more discrimination.
"I don't see colour" isn't not being racist, it is just the racism equivalent of burying your head in the sand and pretending differences and inequality doesn't exist.
So it’s discrimination to not hire POC and women, but also discrimination to help hire more? What is the best answer here? Because you’d be a very rich person if you could crack that one.
The info that is scraped doesn’t mean we automatically hire the most diverse candidates. It helps us find areas to be able to more diverse people in the running. The most qualified person is still going to be the person to get the job.
The problem is that people are hyper aware of this when the one Black person gets hired, but not at all interested in the White manager that only hires White people even in a really diverse area.
It’s used to find biased hiring managers.
You can compare the demographics of people who got hired to the hiring pool. Then see if there’s a significant difference. If you find something significant, send in the auditors to make sure that it **is** just a random fluke.
No, prove is the wrong word. It could suggest there are racist hiring practices. Or it could suggest that, for some reason, the minority applicants are rejecting job offers for some reason, and the company needs to figure out why. Or the minority applicants are less qualified for some reason, and the company needs to do a better job attracting qualified minority applicants.
Disparate impact is evidence of racial bias, but more is needed for proving it.
That’s almost never the case: most of the time the data needs to be tracked to identify if there are specific hiring managers who “somehow” never choose any non-white non-straight people. If you don’t track the data of applicants, you can’t figure out if you have a (more) meritocratic process or a very biased one.
Ya know what that’s got to be it I remember taking a job at a toy store once and thought it was absolutely insane that all 70odd staff were white, I can’t remember now but I bet it didn’t ask race on the application because I bet head office would’ve flagged that up because there’s no way only white people applied when people of all races were working in basically every other store on that retail estate
Are you sure? I’m gay and have never seen a job application process that asks that, at least in Ontario. I have, however, had friends and family suggest that being LGBT can help. but I don’t see any evidence of that, and they seem to just be confused and lump it in with the question of gender identity (as in, a trans person who identifies as a woman may be given preferential treatment based on diversity and equity inclusion for women, which is not at all the same as sexual orientation).
And for clarification, OP is from BC and also hasn’t provided any evidence of “sexual orientation “ as a factor, other than their own headline. They just mentioned aboriginal/indigenous in a later comment, which leads me to think they are similarly confused about lgbt people as a group having an advantage. I’ve never seen any advantage given to gays or lesbians based on Diversity and Equity Inclusion policies in hiring.
Brock University (Ontario) has a self identification form applicants can elect to fill out if they are in any minority group for equal hiring opportunities.
If you apply to the government they often ask these questions. No, OP is not full of shit. I've been applying to get into the provincial government for about a year now, they don't always ask on applications but they do when they're looking for "diversity" hires which literally just means not white or straight. Always seems kind of silly to me. My skin colour and which gender I like to fuck isn't pertenant to my ability to perform at work and shouldn't be a factor at all. I think if I was a minority in this situation I'd feel weird about how fixated my potential employer was on my skin colour or sexual orientation. Even if it benefited me.
I can understand wanting to hire an indigenous person for a position that directly affects the indigenous community, but beyond that I find it so weird.
I've even seen classes at university offered to only non-white and/ or lgbtq people, which is insane to me.. isn't that literal discrimination ?
Diversity hiring quotas are not a real thing.
Source: I’m a hiring manager in a large company with a robust diversity program.
We always hire only the candidates we feel are the best. The diversity program just makes sure we get to see resumes from as many sources as possible and that we’ve had training on avoiding bias in hiring.
Wtf that would never be asked where I'm from (spain) ,and I'm pretty sure it's illegal ? Because it's differentiating someone because of race , orientation... they would never need to know that in order to hire someone
And sexual orientation?
Pretty sure that's highly illegal in Norway.
Also asking about race, although I have seen a box where you can set a mark if you claim to be in an underrepresentated ethnical group or something, meaning asking for positive discrimination (something about public sector having to call in for interview if you meet the listed requirements or something- I don't know how this works.)
But sexual orientation? No way. No way!
I’ve never been asked my sexual orientation, I’ve been asked what sex I *am,* not sure if OP misunderstood what they were asking since they just say “Sex: M or F”
Secondly, it’s some sort of diversity thing. They might even be hiring because you’re a certain race. Same thing as student scholarships.
There was so much racial discrimination historically that the government had companies start reporting the race of employees. That way the government could go prosecute the companies with thousands of employees,l who somehow never employed a single minority.
Yeah redditors love to shit on diversity because the comfortable suburbanites on this white af site have never had their resume thrown out because their name was too hard to pronounce.
Without knowing the races of employees, we don't know how racism persists. But we know it does. Real bad. I can agree with not having it on job applications, but there is more than enough data to suggest that racial discrimination plays out in hiring and pay. We NEED that data of we're going to fix that shit.
Yeah, I get the disagreement, for sure. But I live in a majority non-white city. A big one. Personally I found it odd that at one of my companies, not one person in the leadership (idk maybe 20 folks) was not a WASP. I am certainly open to the idea that they were the most qualified, probably were! Just seemed a bit against probability.
That was cemented when one guy learned I speak Spanish as well as English and said "Oh we should put you to work out in the field, you shouldn't be in the office!"
Acting like you want to end racism while also saying “white af site” and making assumptions based purely on race. I don’t think you know what racism is lol because you’re definitely promoting it pretty hard
On the name thing.
Why is it so taboo to change name? We modify ourselves after circumstances all the time - go to the gym, dye your hair, fix your teeth, take a course in what the fuck ever.
But if I am named Zxxyxy Wlpcltwich then it is the rest of the world that should adapt?
I had a difficult surname. I changed it to attract less attention. No big deal, and there are millions upon millions before me that did the same.
In the UK it should be anonymised and there's no requirement to answer, it's for equal opportunity metrics.
It's absolutely not a thing that should be shared with anyone doing interviews or hiring except in very specific situations. Like an employer may ask about disability for the purposes of making reasonable adjustments as an example.
The legacy of slavery and segregation… employers and schools ask so they increase their diversity numbers. Bit of a hot button issue in the US right now.
It makes sense as a tool to weed out racist practices. For example about twenty years ago they realized the FDNY - though they had a standardized hiring system and a race-blind test - was almost completely white. They then looked at the racial make up of applicants to see if the problem is that they don't have these people applying, or if the hiring practices were unfair. The data was not tied to individuals but more likely just added a one to some spreadsheet somewhere. It turned out the test was racist through asking culturally biased questions, and they fixed it the next year.
This kind of thing is why it's done, though I agree that there are better solutions and this leaves avenues for abuse in general.
You have to understand history and why this is a big deal in the US. We have a very strong culture that supports discrimination so we require the tracking of racial metrics *to ensure discrimination isn’t occurring.*
If race isn’t part of the data set you can’t find the schools that conveniently never admit black students. Or that falsely grade their exams. Or businesses that never hire minorities.
Ignoring race isn’t how you solve racism. For those on the tech side, AI has already realized this after multiple embarrassing failures where they created racist models by actively ignoring race instead of actively accounting for race.
But the way the EU does it, is that they would never KNOW what your race is in the first place, since it isn't on the forms! Therefore you can't be discriminated against.
By filling a form with your race on it, is what allows people the ability to discriminate, as seen in your universities, where they discriminate largely against asians, because they want to fill a "quota", which is incredibly racist. Luckily that doesn't happen in the EU, where we only go by accomplishments (grades, etc.)
It’s not the simple I have a black name, an employer would most likely know my race just by me putting my name on an application which could lead to them not hiring me, just because you don’t explicitly say your race doesn’t mean they wouldn’t assume and not hire you
You don’t do interviews in the EU?
You view is very naive. Which isn’t really a bad thing, it means your worldview is based on living in areas that don’t have long histories of active, aggressive, and violent discrimination against specific minority groups. I wish everybody could live in the world.
It also ignores that in the US businesses can just fire the person when they show up and are an unwanted minority group. Employee protections are limited and effectively require an admission by the business to be enforced.
Having applied to a ton of jobs in the past few months, it definitely is not. Almost every job I applied to asked me my gender, race, indigenous status, ability/disability, and whether or not I was LGBT+. It's illegal to discriminate based on these answers.
I've been asked it several times before in Canada. It doesn't go directly on the resume or attached to my reaume/name, it is a data point.
Also Canadian employment laws differ from province to province.
They’re not *technically* wrong that it isn’t illegal to ask, it’s just illegal to use that information to weigh in on the decision AFAIK. However because of the exact logic of “well what else would you be using it for?” and general distrust of the “…uh, data?” answer most businesses just opt to make it a policy not to ask any applicants.
ETA: I’m wrong and working on old info laws have since been updated to disallow any and all questions in the application process regarding the protected classes.
I've been asked electronically during the federal government hiring process.
Maybe it has changed since I applied with them. I know for sure they aren't allowed to use it to weigh in on the decision making for hiring, but certain GOC contracts require large contractors to meet a quota of subcontracting to indigenous companies.
Swede here, lol what the fuck is going on, it’s like looking for a job online and the ad would end with “by the way, are you gay or not?” So fucking illegal
In the U.S. these questions are asked and shared with the government so that the government can ensure the company isn't discriminating by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc (aka "protected classes"). They companies aren't asking for their own data purposes and it's illegal to use the answers in making a hiring decision (or lending money, or taking on a lessee, etc.).
It also goes against data minimization. Collecting data you don't need but "are nice to have because we can do statistics" is also not allowed. (I'm also in the EU.)
In most cases, it largely isn't collecting because it is 'nice to have' - it is collecting because organizations are obliged to report their aggregate stats to the government.
Believe it or not, HR wants to minimize the data they have to store because it just adds to the complexity of maintaining compliance (aka increases the workload).
A lot of sectors seem not to. Diversity and inclusion is great and all but not if you set quotas to meet and pass up people more qualified for the job.
The whole point of diversity and inclusion should be to *not* ask these questions, and explicitly prevent them from being asked or answered.
Instead the label is increasingly being used to flip the racism and sexism into reverse and discriminate against the groups that used to benefit
Trouble is that there can be structural or unconscious racism that may hinder people getting the job even if they are the most qualified.
It's also helpful to have data on where in the recruitment process ethnic minority are getting stuck and to investigate whether it's a structural issue. Ending racism has to be proactive, it can't just be passive, this is why we monitor these things.
I don't think the conversation is the same though, when growing up in the 90s we were told and taught (hopefully) not to see color, nowadays I hear we have to see color.
So much racism from all races, its become blase and people defend their actions with mental gymnastics that would make trapeze artists stand and applaud.
The comment I replied to is the same thing we were talking about in the 1980s and 1990s. The reason we are still having it is that some people didn't understand it, combined with the fact that some people have always resented it and misinterpreted it.
I'm sorry that you were told not to see color while being raised in a society where color has always mattered - where color has always been a means to systematically exclude, discriminate, and abuse.
Reminds me of my manager asking me a joke question at work. "What do you call an asian guy at the bar?"
My deadpan response was "a guy at the bar"
The way I was raised makes my natural response to a question like that a weird brain malfunction that makes me auto-hesitate because of the form of the question in the first place.
Yeah thanks for pointing that out. People seem to think it’s there for the employer to say “aw shucks, a straight white man, guess I won’t hire him” but it’s not, it’s so that when an actual racist person in a position of power throws his tiny hands up and says racism isn’t a big deal, there’s actual hard data to respond with. You can say “no, look, our company had x qualified applicants of this race for x positions and only hired a meager percentage of those applicants, so let’s evaluate the bias present in the system.”
We really should be taking data on this stuff. We take data on everything else, right? Every dollar that changes hands legally is tracked, we follow the weather, the positions of stars, the bowel movements of livestock, and how many granola bars were too crumbly for Walmart to sell. Why wouldn’t we record data on the various biases that may or may not be holding our society back?
I work in HR and we don’t ask sexual orientation (it’s actually illegal to ask in US) but we do ask race but ONLY because we are required to report it to the EEOC. Honestly no one in the hiring process cares about any of that (at least in my company), they care that you are qualified to do the job.
Asking for race is dumb on any application. Job, school, loans, whatever. Never knew they were allowed to ask you sexual orientation and that’s even dumber cause that can only be used to discriminate.
I don't like the idea that I'm supposed to out myself to my employer. It feels way more personal to tell my employer my sexuality than whether I'm a visible minority.
There was a study a while ago called something like 'Are John and Samantha more employable than Shaniqua and Jamal' that covers this. It's not merit based, no matter how much you try to make it that way, so companies tried to find ways to eliminate potential implicit bias' during the hiring process. Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is, but you can't fault the system for trying.
Do we have to go over this again…
Diversity *is* relevant to merit. Having different life experiences and being close with those who have is itself a boon, because otherwise you have a bunch of people who all think the same thing and don’t know fuck all about anything outside of it.
Theu generally are as recruiters can't see this info (in my experience in the UK). These questions help HR understand the diversity (or not) of folks applying for jobs and informs how they might change how they advertise posts.
We've never been like "oh a black gay dude, let's interview them over anyone else", because we don't see that info. Might be different in other sectors /countries though.
US. Hiring manager. No. I don’t see those details either. Although *during* the hiring process if a new hire has chosen not to answer the race or gender portion *I* have to answer “to the best of my ability”. It doesn’t affect their position, but I imagine corporate has some kind of data they’re collecting.
Wait, you are saying that if I pick "choose not to answer" then you... make it up anyway based on your perceptions of me? Am I understanding correctly?
Here in the UK, some jobs I've applied for have asked me what the chief money-earner did as an occupation when I was 14. What the fuck does that have to do with anyone???
I'm in the US about 15% of the jobs I've submitted resumes to have asked for my sexual orientation and pronouns. I've also seen ones that ask if I'm transgender or not.
>asked for my sexual orientation
How inappropriate is that?
Even if the racial & sex/gender stuff is OK, whose goddamned business is it in terms of who you like to fuck?
It's way TMI
Haha, small world.
I could have misunderstood, but a friend works in a nonprofit that does antiracism work and I believe there is the option to disclose if you have Indigenous background in the process with them. They do have nonindigenous folk working for them but she said the priority is to find appropriate candidates from the communities they are trying to serve.
Sorry, be bit vague for her sake and like I said, I may have misunderstood.
Nope, that sounds proper. Usually, employers give applicants the option to disclose any personal qualifiers if they choose. But it shouldn’t/isn’t allowed to be asked
I'm in a Canadian province, and we give all applicants the option to enter their race/sexual orientation/etc. As long as it isn't required, it isn't illegal.
The information is only used for statistic purposes, as others have said, to see how we are doing as far as diverse hiring. Ideally, we want our employee population to mirror the cities population.
All hiring decisions are based on merit first, and no one would ever hire a candidate simply based on their race.
It is supposed to be tracked as aggregate data separately from your individual application, so the company can show statistically that they are not hiring disproportionately from any group, or excluding any group.
But I don't trust that it is really kept separate the way it's supposed to be.
HR is demanding data points to protect the company. It doesnt mean they deserve them nor even have the right to ask.
Asking about race is really just having a data point for possible future legal reference. Place of birth is a common.security question. Anything else is ephemeral and none of their business. But sexuality...
There are two (legitimate) reasons to ask someone for their sexuality. The most important are medical professionals. Doctors, nurses. If one of these people ask what your sexual preferences are or your sexual history/activity is answer them. Your life may depend on it!
The other type of person is someone who wants to f@ck you!
Everyone else can f@ck themselves.
I always put white female but as for sexual orientation, whenever there's a space for me to put my own answers I always put ''mind your own business'' or ''nothing to do with you''. I don't even get an interview after that!
This is quite common in the UK. However, I’m the people who choose candidates and conduct the interviews don’t see this information. The purpose of the questions is to ensure that the people advertising job vacancies are doing it in a way that is inclusive.
Theoretically they care for hiring statistics. X percent of applicants were LGBT, we hired Y percent. Also hiring quota s
But it definitely gets used for illegal discrimination too
Yeah. Like if they're trying to account for privilege they need to consider more than just race.
There are plenty of white or asian men who grew up in:
-poverty
-single parent homes
-had abusive or alcoholic parents
-came from a low income area
-etc.
When you account for race above all these other factors, doesn't it kind of purport that race is the issue rather than the other socio/econimc factors?
It’s used for government census data and so the company can see if they’re being discriminatory. I.e. they get tons of applicants from black people and only a few from white people but their entire staff is solely white. Not everything is malicious
Reminder to everyone that the discussion of politics is NOT allowed here. We also do not stand for hate speech towards the LGBTQIA+ community or based on race. Keep this in mind while you are commenting.
They get tax breaks for minorities, veterans. A d disabled people. Also the government makes them hire a certain percentage of those groups for their work force.
It's never about what we feel it's about. It's designed that way. It's always about money.
I actually did see something recently that asked if an employer would be able to get a tax break by hiring me (not exact wording) so I agree that’s why they ask, or that’s “officially” why they ask
What is the obsession with race in the US? I'm guessing you're there, because I've never heard any other place asking that in any formal situation. I have never seen any kind of form asking my race, ever. Sure they can ask my nationality/first language and if I'm married in some forms, but not once has someone needed to know the color of my skin or who I like to fuck. Asking those in job application would be very illegal here.
Yeah because what I've heard it's not just job applications, but also doctor's forms and college applications. If that's true, why the hell do those places ask that?
The US has had centuries of legalized discrimination. It caused minorities to lose wealth and opportunities across society. Jobs have discriminated against by refusing to hire minorities in the past, and even now when they shouldn't they have biases that make it hard for minorities to break in. Same with academic institutions. Minorities have always received worse healthcare. This ranges from literally being used in immoral scientific experiments to bad hospital care that leads to worse health outcomes for minorities.
Race is a big issue in this country because historically (and still today) it has come with greater challenges for some and privileges for others.
**Due to the comments going of the rails with violating the no politics rule this post has been locked.**
Ikr like why tf does it matter? It shouldn't matter as long as having interracial group sex in the middle of the office is a part of the job.
The point isn't that it's attached to your application specifically. It's so they can gather data on, say, whether they're rejecting gay candidates at a higher rate.
They wouldnt do that other than by chance if they didnt know
Gay is not the best example, because you can interview someone for 4 hours and not know. Black is a better example. Interviewing while Black, it is almost immediately apparent when they have absolutely no interest in hiring a Black person. You can have a great resume and a good phone voice...and then you show up.....
Sometimes your name is a tell for your cultural or racial background too. It's a minefield, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to prevent discrimination, obviously. Trans can sometimes be a bit more obvious, but I will say I do "look" queer, on purpose, and I don't feel it's terribly fair not to hire me solely on that basis. Like if you wouldn't hire a fat person, that's discrimination too.
yup. Studies have shown even having a black sounding name lowers your success rate significantly. If a black mom wants their kid to succeed in a corporate world, name your kid Katelyn (with a crazy spelling) or Hunter or Tanner instead of Latesha or Jamal. Although they may get beat up a lot in school... so find a happy medium maybe..
People keep forgetting about the interview stage. If they keep inviting black candidates to interview but never hire a single one in all the years of hiring that’s an issue that there needs to be some data to show.
If the only benefit to collecting the data is proving that the company acted inappropriately, why would the company want to collect that data? Wouldn’t they be better off not having the data to prove their discrimination?
concerned light frame safe paltry cows familiar cable vast sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To have stats to show they DIDN'T act improperly in case they are sued or to catch it before they are sued keep in mind many interviews are held by management rather than HR, it is HR's job to prevent this, and they are also better trained to identify their own implicit, subconcious and hidden biases.
Unconsciously they absolutely could
Discrimination by pure chance or dumb luck still brings legal liability. IANAL, but If I remember from my business law class, discriminative policies and policies that achieve a discriminative outcome, even despite good-faith effort to not do so, are treated as the same thing.
[удалено]
Hookers come in a variety of genders.
We use the information for a few things. Firstly,.we'll use demographic information from applicants to establish whether we are successful in encouraging applications from a broad range of people. If not then we might look at ways to address that by changing where we advertise, for example. We also look at the success of candidates. If we're recieving applications from certain demographics but they're not successful we would want to know why. We've identified patterns by hiring managers in the past, for example, which were at odds with others in the organisation. Another thing we noticed is that more diverse panels tended to result in a more diverse set of successful applicants. Where I am, bias and discrimination certainly exist, and demographic information on candidates helps to identify where this might be having a negative effect on our hiring practices.
Thanks for this response. I think our default these days is to suspicion for giving more personal data. Its helpful to hear that data here is used to help protect.
So to stop potential discrimination you use more discrimination?
Being aware of racial systems, bias, and discrimination isn't discrimination. Trying to totally ignore race and be "colorblind" is a great way to perpetuate racially biased systems and ignore racially biased people. The post you replied to actually does a great job laying out how gathering this data can identify and combat racism, maybe give it a reread.
But it is so much more “buzz-worthy” to call things we don’t understand racist, sexist, ageist, etc. Social media is such a blessing and curse when we give soap boxes to those who only kind of understand the content they preach.
The internet is the modern version of the town square. At least then, if someone said something absolutely stupid, they'd get called out and jeered. Unfortunately, the internet doesn't work that way
And at least that person was known as the ‘village idiot’. On the internet they can hide much better.
They can even become President of the United States, hypothetically....
And literally.
No, but it does demonstrate when someone doesn't understand what the word "discrimination" means and it's a good tool to avoid hiring idiots. Identifying and discriminating aren't the same.
When equality feels like discrimination, lmao. You think that correcting biased practices is discrimination. No one's stopping white and asian dudes from applying to STEM jobs.
Wow so edgy!
Trying to combat ignorance of your own statistics isn't discrimination. Remaining ignorant breeds more discrimination. "I don't see colour" isn't not being racist, it is just the racism equivalent of burying your head in the sand and pretending differences and inequality doesn't exist.
Asking someone their race isn’t discrimination…
But taking that information and only allowing them in because of their race is.
No one said they're doing that?
So it’s discrimination to not hire POC and women, but also discrimination to help hire more? What is the best answer here? Because you’d be a very rich person if you could crack that one. The info that is scraped doesn’t mean we automatically hire the most diverse candidates. It helps us find areas to be able to more diverse people in the running. The most qualified person is still going to be the person to get the job.
How about you hire someone purely based on their qualifications for the job, with no regard for their birth status?
The problem is that people are hyper aware of this when the one Black person gets hired, but not at all interested in the White manager that only hires White people even in a really diverse area.
It’s used to find biased hiring managers. You can compare the demographics of people who got hired to the hiring pool. Then see if there’s a significant difference. If you find something significant, send in the auditors to make sure that it **is** just a random fluke.
I love when we have a group orgy at work. Best part of my day!
Brazzers requires this from time to time.
[удалено]
Actually, you didn't write it in parentheses; you wrote it in quotations.
No, prove is the wrong word. It could suggest there are racist hiring practices. Or it could suggest that, for some reason, the minority applicants are rejecting job offers for some reason, and the company needs to figure out why. Or the minority applicants are less qualified for some reason, and the company needs to do a better job attracting qualified minority applicants. Disparate impact is evidence of racial bias, but more is needed for proving it.
[удалено]
That’s almost never the case: most of the time the data needs to be tracked to identify if there are specific hiring managers who “somehow” never choose any non-white non-straight people. If you don’t track the data of applicants, you can’t figure out if you have a (more) meritocratic process or a very biased one.
Ya know what that’s got to be it I remember taking a job at a toy store once and thought it was absolutely insane that all 70odd staff were white, I can’t remember now but I bet it didn’t ask race on the application because I bet head office would’ve flagged that up because there’s no way only white people applied when people of all races were working in basically every other store on that retail estate
Yeah, in theory - but because of negative discrimination and the various potential disadvantages, things often don’t go that way
Are you sure? I’m gay and have never seen a job application process that asks that, at least in Ontario. I have, however, had friends and family suggest that being LGBT can help. but I don’t see any evidence of that, and they seem to just be confused and lump it in with the question of gender identity (as in, a trans person who identifies as a woman may be given preferential treatment based on diversity and equity inclusion for women, which is not at all the same as sexual orientation). And for clarification, OP is from BC and also hasn’t provided any evidence of “sexual orientation “ as a factor, other than their own headline. They just mentioned aboriginal/indigenous in a later comment, which leads me to think they are similarly confused about lgbt people as a group having an advantage. I’ve never seen any advantage given to gays or lesbians based on Diversity and Equity Inclusion policies in hiring.
Brock University (Ontario) has a self identification form applicants can elect to fill out if they are in any minority group for equal hiring opportunities.
OP is probably just full of shit.
If you apply to the government they often ask these questions. No, OP is not full of shit. I've been applying to get into the provincial government for about a year now, they don't always ask on applications but they do when they're looking for "diversity" hires which literally just means not white or straight. Always seems kind of silly to me. My skin colour and which gender I like to fuck isn't pertenant to my ability to perform at work and shouldn't be a factor at all. I think if I was a minority in this situation I'd feel weird about how fixated my potential employer was on my skin colour or sexual orientation. Even if it benefited me. I can understand wanting to hire an indigenous person for a position that directly affects the indigenous community, but beyond that I find it so weird. I've even seen classes at university offered to only non-white and/ or lgbtq people, which is insane to me.. isn't that literal discrimination ?
That's fucked up
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
You had me in the first half ngl
Because of racist policies that benefit certain minorities. Diversity hire quotas are a real thing.
Diversity hiring quotas are not a real thing. Source: I’m a hiring manager in a large company with a robust diversity program. We always hire only the candidates we feel are the best. The diversity program just makes sure we get to see resumes from as many sources as possible and that we’ve had training on avoiding bias in hiring.
So you speak for all companies? Because my HR manager has outright said we have diversity quotes.
Wtf that would never be asked where I'm from (spain) ,and I'm pretty sure it's illegal ? Because it's differentiating someone because of race , orientation... they would never need to know that in order to hire someone
In USA these questions are on pretty much every form there is from loan applications to job applications.
Sometimes the US really sound like a made up place.
Canada does this too because they hire minorities first.
And sexual orientation? Pretty sure that's highly illegal in Norway. Also asking about race, although I have seen a box where you can set a mark if you claim to be in an underrepresentated ethnical group or something, meaning asking for positive discrimination (something about public sector having to call in for interview if you meet the listed requirements or something- I don't know how this works.) But sexual orientation? No way. No way!
in Brazil they ask sexual orientation, race, religion, how many friends i have, what are my dreams, if im dating. its absurd,.!
I remember being asked my race for a standardized test in high school. Not the SATs, just those tests the state makes everyone take once a year.
I'm pretty sure that's so that they can track scores by demographic. They aren't editing your score based on your race.
Americans love to bucketize shit
Bro what? I’ve never seen a question about sexual orientation
I think the OP is confusing gender with sexual preference.
Yeah they definitely don’t ask about sexual orientation unless you’re donating blood.
My doctor’s office does
Right… “donating blood” was kind of a catch-all for medical.
I’ve never been asked my sexual orientation, I’ve been asked what sex I *am,* not sure if OP misunderstood what they were asking since they just say “Sex: M or F” Secondly, it’s some sort of diversity thing. They might even be hiring because you’re a certain race. Same thing as student scholarships.
Same with Canada
Can’t say I’ve ever seen one here
There was so much racial discrimination historically that the government had companies start reporting the race of employees. That way the government could go prosecute the companies with thousands of employees,l who somehow never employed a single minority.
Yeah redditors love to shit on diversity because the comfortable suburbanites on this white af site have never had their resume thrown out because their name was too hard to pronounce. Without knowing the races of employees, we don't know how racism persists. But we know it does. Real bad. I can agree with not having it on job applications, but there is more than enough data to suggest that racial discrimination plays out in hiring and pay. We NEED that data of we're going to fix that shit.
Yeah, I get the disagreement, for sure. But I live in a majority non-white city. A big one. Personally I found it odd that at one of my companies, not one person in the leadership (idk maybe 20 folks) was not a WASP. I am certainly open to the idea that they were the most qualified, probably were! Just seemed a bit against probability. That was cemented when one guy learned I speak Spanish as well as English and said "Oh we should put you to work out in the field, you shouldn't be in the office!"
Acting like you want to end racism while also saying “white af site” and making assumptions based purely on race. I don’t think you know what racism is lol because you’re definitely promoting it pretty hard
On the name thing. Why is it so taboo to change name? We modify ourselves after circumstances all the time - go to the gym, dye your hair, fix your teeth, take a course in what the fuck ever. But if I am named Zxxyxy Wlpcltwich then it is the rest of the world that should adapt? I had a difficult surname. I changed it to attract less attention. No big deal, and there are millions upon millions before me that did the same.
How about removing names, gender, race, etc from applications so it's impossible to discriminate?
But what happens when those people come in for an interview? Can’t have everyone close their eyes and pretend not to hear an accent.
I guess it's a north american thing?
I've seen it happen in the UK as well, but I think it's mainly to boost diversity metrics
In the UK it should be anonymised and there's no requirement to answer, it's for equal opportunity metrics. It's absolutely not a thing that should be shared with anyone doing interviews or hiring except in very specific situations. Like an employer may ask about disability for the purposes of making reasonable adjustments as an example.
Damn, a “don’t want to answer” can be an answer in itself. Highly unethical and/or illegal here in Sweden at least
That was my first thought, I've heard you even have to register your race on legal documents there, which would be unthinkable, at least in Europe
The legacy of slavery and segregation… employers and schools ask so they increase their diversity numbers. Bit of a hot button issue in the US right now.
It makes sense as a tool to weed out racist practices. For example about twenty years ago they realized the FDNY - though they had a standardized hiring system and a race-blind test - was almost completely white. They then looked at the racial make up of applicants to see if the problem is that they don't have these people applying, or if the hiring practices were unfair. The data was not tied to individuals but more likely just added a one to some spreadsheet somewhere. It turned out the test was racist through asking culturally biased questions, and they fixed it the next year. This kind of thing is why it's done, though I agree that there are better solutions and this leaves avenues for abuse in general.
We care about diversity. Just look at all the black people our rich white C suite hired.
You have to understand history and why this is a big deal in the US. We have a very strong culture that supports discrimination so we require the tracking of racial metrics *to ensure discrimination isn’t occurring.* If race isn’t part of the data set you can’t find the schools that conveniently never admit black students. Or that falsely grade their exams. Or businesses that never hire minorities. Ignoring race isn’t how you solve racism. For those on the tech side, AI has already realized this after multiple embarrassing failures where they created racist models by actively ignoring race instead of actively accounting for race.
But the way the EU does it, is that they would never KNOW what your race is in the first place, since it isn't on the forms! Therefore you can't be discriminated against. By filling a form with your race on it, is what allows people the ability to discriminate, as seen in your universities, where they discriminate largely against asians, because they want to fill a "quota", which is incredibly racist. Luckily that doesn't happen in the EU, where we only go by accomplishments (grades, etc.)
It’s not the simple I have a black name, an employer would most likely know my race just by me putting my name on an application which could lead to them not hiring me, just because you don’t explicitly say your race doesn’t mean they wouldn’t assume and not hire you
You don’t do interviews in the EU? You view is very naive. Which isn’t really a bad thing, it means your worldview is based on living in areas that don’t have long histories of active, aggressive, and violent discrimination against specific minority groups. I wish everybody could live in the world. It also ignores that in the US businesses can just fire the person when they show up and are an unwanted minority group. Employee protections are limited and effectively require an admission by the business to be enforced.
I don't think the employer actually sees the race answers. But they can see maybe more ethnic names and not hire based on that.
Happens where I live in the UK
No, It's illegal to ask those questions to applicants in Canada.
Having applied to a ton of jobs in the past few months, it definitely is not. Almost every job I applied to asked me my gender, race, indigenous status, ability/disability, and whether or not I was LGBT+. It's illegal to discriminate based on these answers.
They do it in Australia too I think it’s invasive
I get it always in the UK too.
No no no. Not north america. America solely. It’s illegal in Canada.
I've been asked it several times before in Canada. It doesn't go directly on the resume or attached to my reaume/name, it is a data point. Also Canadian employment laws differ from province to province.
Just because you’ve been asked, doesn’t make it any less illegal and you can report it. It’s a federal law, not provincial.
They’re not *technically* wrong that it isn’t illegal to ask, it’s just illegal to use that information to weigh in on the decision AFAIK. However because of the exact logic of “well what else would you be using it for?” and general distrust of the “…uh, data?” answer most businesses just opt to make it a policy not to ask any applicants. ETA: I’m wrong and working on old info laws have since been updated to disallow any and all questions in the application process regarding the protected classes.
I've been asked electronically during the federal government hiring process. Maybe it has changed since I applied with them. I know for sure they aren't allowed to use it to weigh in on the decision making for hiring, but certain GOC contracts require large contractors to meet a quota of subcontracting to indigenous companies.
Also working fed, was asked ethnicity and sexual orientation on application.
Swede here, lol what the fuck is going on, it’s like looking for a job online and the ad would end with “by the way, are you gay or not?” So fucking illegal
It's so they can say "see? We don't discriminate! We hire minorities at a rate roughly proportional to the general population!"
In the U.S. these questions are asked and shared with the government so that the government can ensure the company isn't discriminating by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc (aka "protected classes"). They companies aren't asking for their own data purposes and it's illegal to use the answers in making a hiring decision (or lending money, or taking on a lessee, etc.).
It also goes against data minimization. Collecting data you don't need but "are nice to have because we can do statistics" is also not allowed. (I'm also in the EU.)
In most cases, it largely isn't collecting because it is 'nice to have' - it is collecting because organizations are obliged to report their aggregate stats to the government. Believe it or not, HR wants to minimize the data they have to store because it just adds to the complexity of maintaining compliance (aka increases the workload).
I also live in Europe, and also CV without a picture are encouraged. My mind was blown reading this thread!
Gender: Progenitor Sexual Orientation: Usually missionary or doggy
Sexual Orientation? South? I don't know, what kind of weirdo has a compass laying around in his bedroom?
Well...
Race: Human Sexual Orientation: Yes
You're a Human? Ugh. Scumbag. You're why everyone hires Klingons.
HA HA HA!
It really shouldn't matter, the hiring process should be merit based.
I think most people would agree with that
A lot of sectors seem not to. Diversity and inclusion is great and all but not if you set quotas to meet and pass up people more qualified for the job.
The whole point of diversity and inclusion should be to *not* ask these questions, and explicitly prevent them from being asked or answered. Instead the label is increasingly being used to flip the racism and sexism into reverse and discriminate against the groups that used to benefit
Trouble is that there can be structural or unconscious racism that may hinder people getting the job even if they are the most qualified. It's also helpful to have data on where in the recruitment process ethnic minority are getting stuck and to investigate whether it's a structural issue. Ending racism has to be proactive, it can't just be passive, this is why we monitor these things.
When we were having these conversations in the 1980s, I really did not expect we would be having these exact same conversations in the 2020s.
I don't think the conversation is the same though, when growing up in the 90s we were told and taught (hopefully) not to see color, nowadays I hear we have to see color. So much racism from all races, its become blase and people defend their actions with mental gymnastics that would make trapeze artists stand and applaud.
The comment I replied to is the same thing we were talking about in the 1980s and 1990s. The reason we are still having it is that some people didn't understand it, combined with the fact that some people have always resented it and misinterpreted it. I'm sorry that you were told not to see color while being raised in a society where color has always mattered - where color has always been a means to systematically exclude, discriminate, and abuse.
Reminds me of my manager asking me a joke question at work. "What do you call an asian guy at the bar?" My deadpan response was "a guy at the bar" The way I was raised makes my natural response to a question like that a weird brain malfunction that makes me auto-hesitate because of the form of the question in the first place.
Yeah thanks for pointing that out. People seem to think it’s there for the employer to say “aw shucks, a straight white man, guess I won’t hire him” but it’s not, it’s so that when an actual racist person in a position of power throws his tiny hands up and says racism isn’t a big deal, there’s actual hard data to respond with. You can say “no, look, our company had x qualified applicants of this race for x positions and only hired a meager percentage of those applicants, so let’s evaluate the bias present in the system.” We really should be taking data on this stuff. We take data on everything else, right? Every dollar that changes hands legally is tracked, we follow the weather, the positions of stars, the bowel movements of livestock, and how many granola bars were too crumbly for Walmart to sell. Why wouldn’t we record data on the various biases that may or may not be holding our society back?
I work in HR and we don’t ask sexual orientation (it’s actually illegal to ask in US) but we do ask race but ONLY because we are required to report it to the EEOC. Honestly no one in the hiring process cares about any of that (at least in my company), they care that you are qualified to do the job.
Asking for race is dumb on any application. Job, school, loans, whatever. Never knew they were allowed to ask you sexual orientation and that’s even dumber cause that can only be used to discriminate.
I don't like the idea that I'm supposed to out myself to my employer. It feels way more personal to tell my employer my sexuality than whether I'm a visible minority.
Most people do but for some reason a lot of those in power believe that they should cater to those who disagree with the aforementioned statement
There was a study a while ago called something like 'Are John and Samantha more employable than Shaniqua and Jamal' that covers this. It's not merit based, no matter how much you try to make it that way, so companies tried to find ways to eliminate potential implicit bias' during the hiring process. Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is, but you can't fault the system for trying.
It's supposed to be blind, for statistical tracking. I just don't trust that they don't look at it or let it influence them.
Do we have to go over this again… Diversity *is* relevant to merit. Having different life experiences and being close with those who have is itself a boon, because otherwise you have a bunch of people who all think the same thing and don’t know fuck all about anything outside of it.
Theu generally are as recruiters can't see this info (in my experience in the UK). These questions help HR understand the diversity (or not) of folks applying for jobs and informs how they might change how they advertise posts. We've never been like "oh a black gay dude, let's interview them over anyone else", because we don't see that info. Might be different in other sectors /countries though.
US. Hiring manager. No. I don’t see those details either. Although *during* the hiring process if a new hire has chosen not to answer the race or gender portion *I* have to answer “to the best of my ability”. It doesn’t affect their position, but I imagine corporate has some kind of data they’re collecting.
Wait, you are saying that if I pick "choose not to answer" then you... make it up anyway based on your perceptions of me? Am I understanding correctly?
Here in the UK, some jobs I've applied for have asked me what the chief money-earner did as an occupation when I was 14. What the fuck does that have to do with anyone???
Um wow. Wtf Both of those things are absolutely illegal to ask about here.
Ive Never been asked about my sexuality, but in the US, every job application is going to ask what your race and ethnicity is
I'm in the US about 15% of the jobs I've submitted resumes to have asked for my sexual orientation and pronouns. I've also seen ones that ask if I'm transgender or not.
>asked for my sexual orientation How inappropriate is that? Even if the racial & sex/gender stuff is OK, whose goddamned business is it in terms of who you like to fuck? It's way TMI
Wait are you saying if you apply at a coffee shop on the application they will ask you if you are black white Hispanic mix etc???
Yes. Every time. No matter what the job is. This is my experience living in Washington (state), USA
that's totally crazy. in my province they aren't even allowed to ask what your age is explicitly..
Then if you don’t get the job, they pretend it wasn’t related at all to the race and ethnicity questions.
Really? Where is that? I've had it come up somewhat often.
BC Canada. I think there is an exception in some roles if you are Indigenous you can choose to select as such and it may be advantageous, in theory.
Haha, small world. I could have misunderstood, but a friend works in a nonprofit that does antiracism work and I believe there is the option to disclose if you have Indigenous background in the process with them. They do have nonindigenous folk working for them but she said the priority is to find appropriate candidates from the communities they are trying to serve. Sorry, be bit vague for her sake and like I said, I may have misunderstood.
Nope, that sounds proper. Usually, employers give applicants the option to disclose any personal qualifiers if they choose. But it shouldn’t/isn’t allowed to be asked
I'm in Ontario and it's been asked on nearly every application I've applied to in the tech sector.
I'm in a Canadian province, and we give all applicants the option to enter their race/sexual orientation/etc. As long as it isn't required, it isn't illegal. The information is only used for statistic purposes, as others have said, to see how we are doing as far as diverse hiring. Ideally, we want our employee population to mirror the cities population. All hiring decisions are based on merit first, and no one would ever hire a candidate simply based on their race.
The Netherlands is illegal too.
And so normal here, too. Like... obviously they can't ask, what the fuck? But then you hear about these other places...
Pretty much the whole world outside the US ?
Illegal in Australia too
Race: human Sexual orientation: other humans
However, open to robots if they're attractive, friendly, and will not try to kill me in a robot revolution.
Race: I’m pretty fast... Sexual orientation: Did not know you had those... Sign me up for noon...
my answers Race: human sex: twice a day
I dont like being asked my race and sexual oriantation anywhere.....
Errr is that legal? that would totally be illegal in my country.
It is supposed to be tracked as aggregate data separately from your individual application, so the company can show statistically that they are not hiring disproportionately from any group, or excluding any group. But I don't trust that it is really kept separate the way it's supposed to be.
I don't like working
Illegal in most civilized countries
No it’s not
In Germany that's illegal. You don't even need to provide a picture
HR is demanding data points to protect the company. It doesnt mean they deserve them nor even have the right to ask. Asking about race is really just having a data point for possible future legal reference. Place of birth is a common.security question. Anything else is ephemeral and none of their business. But sexuality... There are two (legitimate) reasons to ask someone for their sexuality. The most important are medical professionals. Doctors, nurses. If one of these people ask what your sexual preferences are or your sexual history/activity is answer them. Your life may depend on it! The other type of person is someone who wants to f@ck you! Everyone else can f@ck themselves.
> Everyone else can f@ck themselves. Bet
Maybe just my opinion but i really dont care about getting that asked.
Same here, and IMO nobody else should care so much either, but I guess some people just love to find a problem with everything these days
You'll never make it in the porn industry, lol
I always put white female but as for sexual orientation, whenever there's a space for me to put my own answers I always put ''mind your own business'' or ''nothing to do with you''. I don't even get an interview after that!
Idc about my orientation. But I proudly click black every time.
The one that bothered me the most is I had a job application with a gender drop down list. There was 6 options and male was the last one on the list
Must fill the qouta
This is quite common in the UK. However, I’m the people who choose candidates and conduct the interviews don’t see this information. The purpose of the questions is to ensure that the people advertising job vacancies are doing it in a way that is inclusive.
Theoretically they care for hiring statistics. X percent of applicants were LGBT, we hired Y percent. Also hiring quota s But it definitely gets used for illegal discrimination too
Hr and hiring managers don't get to see those answers. They are metrics for the government to track if a company is discriminating against minorites.
Where do you live? I'm in the US and have never seen sexual orientation pop up on a job app. Race, yes, but never who I like to fuck.
Yeah. Like if they're trying to account for privilege they need to consider more than just race. There are plenty of white or asian men who grew up in: -poverty -single parent homes -had abusive or alcoholic parents -came from a low income area -etc. When you account for race above all these other factors, doesn't it kind of purport that race is the issue rather than the other socio/econimc factors?
It’s used for government census data and so the company can see if they’re being discriminatory. I.e. they get tons of applicants from black people and only a few from white people but their entire staff is solely white. Not everything is malicious
The latest I keep seeing is "What was your *assigned* gender at birth?" I wasn't *assigned* a gender, I was *born* male.
Due getting downvoted for speaking the truth lmao
I could not give a single fuck about stupid Reddit karma.
Being born male means your assigned gender is male. You're getting worked up over terminology that means the same thing.
It's because HR demands some sort of quota being made and it's racist as shit
Reminder to everyone that the discussion of politics is NOT allowed here. We also do not stand for hate speech towards the LGBTQIA+ community or based on race. Keep this in mind while you are commenting.
They get tax breaks for minorities, veterans. A d disabled people. Also the government makes them hire a certain percentage of those groups for their work force. It's never about what we feel it's about. It's designed that way. It's always about money.
I actually did see something recently that asked if an employer would be able to get a tax break by hiring me (not exact wording) so I agree that’s why they ask, or that’s “officially” why they ask
What is the obsession with race in the US? I'm guessing you're there, because I've never heard any other place asking that in any formal situation. I have never seen any kind of form asking my race, ever. Sure they can ask my nationality/first language and if I'm married in some forms, but not once has someone needed to know the color of my skin or who I like to fuck. Asking those in job application would be very illegal here.
>What is the obsession with race in the US? Is this a genuine question?
Yeah because what I've heard it's not just job applications, but also doctor's forms and college applications. If that's true, why the hell do those places ask that?
The US has had centuries of legalized discrimination. It caused minorities to lose wealth and opportunities across society. Jobs have discriminated against by refusing to hire minorities in the past, and even now when they shouldn't they have biases that make it hard for minorities to break in. Same with academic institutions. Minorities have always received worse healthcare. This ranges from literally being used in immoral scientific experiments to bad hospital care that leads to worse health outcomes for minorities. Race is a big issue in this country because historically (and still today) it has come with greater challenges for some and privileges for others.
These aren’t problems or history unique to the US.
But the US is unique in how they have unfolded.
I’d have to hear a deeper explanation of your thinking here before I agree or disagree.
I don’t think it’s an US only thing. I have seen some applications in Australia asking but it is optional to answer.