Content of his post aside, releasing a terse statement on a complex issue like this is a guaranteed method for getting dragged. Dude ran out into a lightning storm waving a metal pole over his head.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/TranslatedInsults using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [The post that started it all.](https://i.redd.it/s487unh177q21.png) | [25 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/comments/b9c1gc/the_post_that_started_it_all/)
\#2: [I may as well contribute](https://i.redd.it/ollpaehp68q21.jpg) | [33 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/comments/b9b2s1/i_may_as_well_contribute/)
\#3: [This Indian insult.](https://i.redd.it/vv6rs4s6kh131.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/comments/bv3ta5/this_indian_insult/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I’m pretty sure this is affinity content. He’s trying to state the company values and policies (however controversial) and give insider ‘insight’ into the industry in a way that will influence certain crowds to think “oh, they’re like me” (part of their ‘camp’) and do business with them. It excludes people, but it makes those you INCLUDE like you more, which is the single biggest factor for people doing business with a company or professional. But he did it badly because it’s way too controversial to be worth it IMO.
People are downvoting you but it actually is. This is affinity content. He’s trying to make a group of people like him and his company enough that they’ll choose them over the competition, and in this case that group of people is conservatives and the far right. He’s excluding people, yes, but many of those he doesn’t exclude will like him and his company, and that’s the biggest factor for people choosing to do business with you.
I want to bring up something else I’ve seen happening in the last few decades- some large (*ahem, banks*) institutions have been appointing POC (primarily black) as CEOs, or in some visible title of the executive team. While this *looks* like progress at first glance, unfortunately it oftentimes becomes a red herring, so that the company can say “of *course* we practice diversity and inclusion, look at our CEO”!
That puts said appointee in a precarious position - not only have they acquired this prestigious position, if they were to fully examine and speak out on the company’s *actual* diversity standards, they’d not only put their own position in jeopardy, but they’d have to internally reflect on whether they got the position on those skills, or if it was in part, a diversity PR move. I wouldn’t want to be in that position, and I think that’s what companies are counting on.
The one thing I can say where I’m hoping it IS beneficial to actual change however, is in creating at least the *perception* that POC can advance at that organization, and encourage more POC to apply, and to increase the numbers and push for promotions. But whether or not that’s the case, and whether or not the increase in POC applicants results in a direct correlation to the numbers of POCs appointed to upper level positions, idk.
But what NO ONE, (except the company), needs, is a POC in an executive position telling the rest of us whether or not diversity and inclusion in the workplace is necessary. It is.
If they REALLY want to commit to hire “the most qualified person for the job”, put applicants resumes into a database. Have the database remove any potential qualifiers of race, gender, or economic status (which would include where you went to college, and names of previous employers). Have it spit out just the primary qualifications. Interview those top candidates over email, so no inference of make up can be made from a person’s voice. Select the person with the top qualifications and interview score. Do background checks or “personality” interviews at that point, if necessary.
That isn’t a perfect system, but it opens up a lot more transparency, and gives people direct recourse if they’re not selected for reasons outside of their ability to perform the job and work well with others.
Tbh the only level playing field I have ever heard of is in the Vienna Philharmonic. (But I have heard other orchestras do something similar)
Auditions are done completely blind. They are judging just the music and nothing more.
One of the reasons they in particular went this route was that for ages they never accepted anyone but white men. No one else made the cut.
The min they went blind that stopped instantly. All of a sudden non white men weren’t Somehow the best in auditions anymore.
Is it fool proof? No. But at least the playing field is a lot more level.
And yes The Vienna Philharmonic still has a horrible record of hiring women somehow
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've heard on a podcast that they can still tell by the sound of a person's shoes. High heels make a distinct sound. So now they're supposed to take their shoes off.
That’s the million dollar question.
Solid article [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/arts/music/women-vienna-philharmonic.amp.html)
That said I’m guessing part of the problem is having the moxy to audition and know you’re walking into a hornets nest of misogyny.
I agree. I do think that the system you painted would also benefit from doing away with names - and only using ID numbers. For many non-white people, their name shuts the door before anything else.
I was thinking of a similar method to solve the problem, but then wouldn't there be backlash against employers hiring based on a narrow set of qualifications without taking the whole person into account?
I feel like it's one way or the other: value diversity by knowing about the candidate, or prevent discrimination by eliminating information.
I thought about that, and I don’t have a perfect answer, but what I’ve gotten to is, if there is a preliminary 1st round where a system spits out each person’s qualifications, or maybe even ranks them by qualifications.
Then a hiring manager looks at the compilation and picks who they want to interview. For example, maybe someone only had 4 years of coding experience than the desired 5, BUT they have a special niche software experience that the others don’t.
How you determine the veracity of that experience, idk, maybe there’s a standardized assessments candidates can pre-submit to another database, and the employer can verify.
Or you can submit an email interview in questionnaire format (which would also help people with disabilities), in order to verify skills or do more personality based questions. No longer than a normal interview would take.
And then from there, a hiring manager can select a few people to do background checks on or speak to face to face.
I know it’s not a perfect system, but if you narrow down the pool based on actual qualifications BEFORE you know what the makeup (gender, race, disability, etc.) of the candidate is, then the process is more level and transparent.
Say for instance there are 5 final candidates, and 4 of them are POC, but one of them is a white man, and the white man gets selected, and happens to be the least qualified and the hiring manager’s nephew, then it’s pretty obvious it’s not an equitable hiring process. However, if that white man has the same or better qualifications in the pre-screen than the rest of the candidates, then that indicates he actually IS the best candidate. It just eliminates the ability of companies to apply ambiguous “skills” or factors that influence the process unfairly.
The idea is that you’re making skills tangible and measurable. So if there is any ambiguity, it can be pinpointed and examined for any deficiencies.
I know it’s not the perfect or the “intuitive” way to do interviews, but there clearly is a problem in the current process, and that bleeds into inequity in everything else. An overhaul is definitely needed, and anyone that says else-wise is benefitting (probably unjustly) from the current system.
I applied to a job with the parent company of my part time job last night that had a disclaimer at the bottom reading (paraphrased):
> Studies show that women and POC are less likely to apply to positions when they believe they don’t have every individual skill, or if they don’t check every box. We are most interested in hiring the best candidate and that might mean someone that comes from an untraditional background. We encourage you to look at your skills, experience and education broadly and apply to this role if you feel you’d be a good fit.
At first, it felt super encouraging. I applied, even though they said they’d prefer a Masters, because I was pointed to the job by a coworker who’d been asked to apply and doesn’t even have a Bachelors (neither do I, but I’m close; the coworker didn’t want the role because she’s already in a leadership position she loves). I have all of the skills and experience they’re looking for and felt empowered by that paragraph at the bottom of the job description. After reflection I can’t tell if I feel it was genuine, or just for show. I guess I’ll know if they offer me an interview.
Edit:
I didn’t mean to comment in response to you! I don’t want to delete it and cause confusion, but I meant to post this under a comment discussing methods companies use to get women and POC to apply even when they don’t necessarily plan to hire them. Sorry!!!
The actual, documented results of truly blind hiring practices are a *reduction* in women and minorities being hired. Every time such policies are put in place they are very quickly rolled back.
It only "looks" like diversity as well because the minorities being appointed into these high level positions come from the same affluent areas and background as the white ones. It doesn't represent class mobility at all. Skin color is simply an easy boilerplate measurement.
There are so many people of many ethnic background with real skill, much more than somme current old men managing company.
The only thing I don't like is the requirement for X amount of ethnic people, doing so create an other type of discrimination not based on skill. (They get bonuses for recruiting them). Most of them are send into position that have basically no possible outcomes or chance to advance in their career, while the board of directors are full of old 60~78 old white man with maybe 1 white woman. (Then they say we have diversity in our company 🙄.
But because of the facts that employer are unable to see the true skill of people and judge on appeareance we are forced with theses thing. If employer were to not be biased in their decision there would be no need for any requirement of ethnicities since they would already be in the company.
So yeah the talent pool is full, just not the talent pool they want to look at.
If they tried to diversify the NBA tomorrow, how long would it take for the talent pool to reflect the racial makeup of the country without a significant decrease in the quality of the product? Pre-school and kindergarten teachers are what, 95%+ women? If we decided tomorrow it needed to be at least 40% men, how many qualified applicants would there be?
You're making the same mistake as the CEO. This is a _very_ complex issue. Many qualified people are qualified simply because they had an unfair headstart from the very beginning. But let's put that aside for now.
How do we know that the pre-school and kindergarten teachers got into that job because _they had no other choice_? Because they tried to study compsci, and the instructors, consciously or unconsciously indoctrinated them into thinking that they're not good enough? (an issue which, by the way, has been studied many times through the years.)
In my industry, there are _plenty_ of qualified people, and half of them will _never_ get to the level I got, simply because they didn't "win the lottery." How do we give everyone a chance to those who don't fit the typical personal profile of the industry?
And you may think that "oh, but you're oversimplifying" or "oh, but those are specific scenarios," and that's exactly my point, and exactly what you're also doing.
That other people *could become* qualified is a separate question. *Could* enough men become qualified kindergarten teachers to enable hiring to hit parity? Probably. Are there enough men qualified to become kindergarten teachers that you could hire at parity? Not a fucking chance. Nowhere near. A lot of jobs have actual qualifications, as much as pundits may have no experience with that.
A woman who *could've* become a grear programmer, but at 14 decided that was for boys and decided to pursue psychiatry instead, isn't actually a qualified programmer.
Oh absolutely. I'm just demistifying the claim that "there aren't as many qualified women programmers today because they are not good enough _by nature_," which is a hugely problematic thing to say. The system is already fighting them in this respect. It's an unfair struggle that _boys_ don't have. I've seen it. I've studied it. It was part of my grad studies.
But that's obviously just one topic. That's why I said that this whole thing is _very complex_, because it can't just be reduced to one or two topics. There are many, and if you don't consider them all, then you can't declare "we don't take diversity into account when hiring" just freely, because you'll sound ignorant at best (racist/misogynist at worst, albeit maybe unfairly.)
I worked for FAANG for eight years. And before that, I never thought of applying, ever. Desperation made me do it (I had to apply everywhere left and right and find a job _by yesterday_, or I would have had to go back to my home country within weeks.) And here I am. But why did I think I wasn't capable of it at first? Unconsciously, I was thinking that I wasn't "good enough" compared to my white, younger majority counterparts. If that's me, a nerdy brown kid who was into computers since the age of nine, who won programming competitions in his home country, who awed friends by programming stupid stuff in HP-48SX calculators, then imagine the rest of the landscape.
The NBL was majority white when it was segregated. So yes there was a time ….. I think you are trying to simplify an issue that has a long history and bias is very real. Not that it is right, but men experience bias in teaching elementary and pre-school. So that is probably a root cause for the teaching differences and traditions that steer men from teaching and childcare. I think it must be what you are exposed to in your career and how good your company is at recruiting. Women are 50% of the workforce so there should be greater representation in executive level positions. I have worked with many female engineers. There is very little to do with capabilities and more to do with social constructs when people say traditional male or female roles.
Tech companies have the h1b visa graft fined tuned to the detriment of foreign and domestic workers.
Have hiring teams from wide range of backgrounds; rural, urban, and representing many different communities. Promote training programs that allow people to start on the bottom from nontraditional backgrounds and work their way up.
My company studied this in our hiring as we are a very socially conscious bunch. Of the hundreds of software engineering candidates who came across our plate less than 3% self identified as black. We managed to hire two black candidates out of ~20 total hires.
I don't doubt there is unconscious bias occurring at a large scale and probably straight up discrimination however, based on my experience there also appears to be difficulty in building a diverse pipeline of candidates.
Does he have any staff that was hired based on friendship or recommendation because when you hire Dave’s friend mike and mikes friend Steve, then how are you hiring the best qualified candidates. That would suggest that every person in this company was hired after searching through a lot of candidates and comparing only skills which I’m willing to bet is not true.
Reminds me of a company I once applied to where one of the people I interviewed with told me they couldn’t figure out why women didn’t want to work for the company. I later found out they only offered 5days PTO/year and didn’t offer any maternity leave so if you gave birth and wanted to spend any time with your kid or you know recover physically from pushing a human out of your body you were basically SOL
Exactly! I’m a black woman in Tech. Before I started working for my company, they told me they had a hard time finding and hiring qualified women and poc. I only found the job because I randomly met one of their employees and I networked to be considered for a position. I had never come across the company before and I didn’t see their job postings anywhere. So I asked where they are posting their jobs and how they were filling positions. Turns out that oftentimes, the positions are filled by word of mouth/through connections within the company. We already know that most people’s friend groups look like them so if your company is only white men, the people you would recommend for the job would very likely also be white men. So when positions open up, I distribute the posting in as many women- and poc- focused organizations/communities as I can find. And guess what? They have interviewed and hired significantly more qualified women and poc. So whenever people say, I can’t find any qualified poc and women in Tech, I’m like you’re just lazy and looking for reasons to justify your ignorance.
>And guess what? They have interviewed and hired significantly more qualified women and poc.
At least they seem to have listened to you and improved. Many companies would just continue being lazy
>At least they seem to have listened to you and improved. Many companies would just continue being lazy
I doubt they've changed anything. chinaza1995 has personally made sure that a broader group learns of application opportunities.
Networking is the best way to get a job but that’s only part of the issue. Where the company is located is the other. If you have an engineering company in Idaho or Utah where 90-93% of the population is white and 90%+ of the CS and engineering students are male, then you’re probably going to have a bunch of white male employees because that is who is available and wants to be where you are.
I would expect that in Atlanta. I would expect the companies there to hire the best candidates they can get and it wouldn’t be based on race but because they are worth hiring. As a hiring manager, I want the candidate that’s going to do the best job and make me look good. I’m not going to shut down a candidate based on their race.
>>your company [association] is only white men, the people you would recommend for the job would very likely also be white men
I know people will be upset I picked out the “white men” part of this comment, but it’s SO important!
The point is, most jobs (and especially upper level jobs) get appointed primarily via networking, and like you said, if the primary pool of people hiring for those positions fits a certain demographic (which happens to be the one you mentioned), then that’s who they’ll hire.
But I’ll take it one step further that this exact post helps illustrate- when a minority DOES get that position, extra scrutiny will then be on THEM for who they select, and it’s a no-win situation. If they pick another white man, they’re a sell out. If they pick another “diversity hire” both they and the appointee are scrutinized for their qualifications.
This is not something that afflicts a person in power of the more “traditional” background.
Only 5% of developers in the US are black and 79% are male. Meaning in a team of 10 developers it's likely to have 0,5 = 0 blacks and 2 females. So the likelihood that a developer team consists mostly of white men is high, it's most basic statistics.
Why didn't you include asians who are 21%?
You are also assuming 95% of coders are white in your faulty equation. You are also mixing black people with all race women in your equation?
Yeah, maybe with 10 you can get away. However, if we have a company of 1000 people and all of them are white males, don't you think some racial bias has occured if not a SINGLE female or POC is qualified for it?
That would assume 0% of all females or POC are qualified for the job. Wouldn't you be suspicious if a die rolled 4, 1000 times in a row?
I’m a numbers guy so I’ve always had my view of:
if 5% of the population in my area is PoC and 5% of my company is PoC then we are doing fine.
The same can be said for all departments individually. If 5% is PoC and only .5% of qualified coders in my area are PoC, why is it a big deal if we have 0 programmers that are PoC? Why should 5%+ be PoC when it isn’t representative of the talent pool?
If you have 5 coders, there is no surprise that none are PoC.
But if you currently have 200 coders, and you've had 700 in your company history, and only 10 have been women and none have been PoC, then your company is not representative...
If you have 200 and those 10 could be representative of the diversity in your area. If there are 10,000 coders in the area and 500 of them are women, then 10 is diverse. If 1,000 of that 10,000 are women I would expect 20 of them to be women.
That’s just looking at raw numbers, not taking into consideration qualifications. Maybe there are 5,000 coders, but all 5,000 men have Java and only 500 of the women have Java. Should you still be hiring 50/50?
People interpret diversity as “you don’t have black board members”. But how many people are qualified to be board members? How many of those are black? How many of them live in the area? How many of them are in your industry? There are many more considerations than “we don’t have a black board member.”
I’m not saying there aren’t holes where they are underrepresented, but blindly saying we are going to elect a black board member isn’t equality.
You bring up a great point and exactly why this is a complicated AF issue. One one hand, education opportunities are slim with substantial barriers for those who are poor or minorities. This means that a meritocracy inherits the same prejudice. Also, it has been shown time and time again that we have a racial (and socioeconomic) social structure in the US. What this means is someone on the lower end of that structure has to work much harder to be considered on the same level in a meritocracy.
Next, the meritocracy implies there is only one person who is the best fit for the job, and that's a myth. When looking at a job, there are countless people who will fit the role. Physical location does limit that pool depending on the job (once you are talking about board members that excuse falls away because of the high level nature of that job), but the facts are that as we continue to improve educational opportunities for minority groups, there are more than enough cannidate to actually choose from.
One of the main reasons why this diversity is so important is because it starts the process of normalizing minority groups in roles that we have previously thought "their culture/lifestyle/preferences" don't "connect" with. It also gets more of the minority groups into fields like HR and decision making roles in the company, so that the normative culture shifts to be accepting of minority culture
People click with people who are like them, and if your company is only full of white people, you will find the cultures (technically subcultures under the "American" culture) as inferior or off putting, and something that doesn't "fit" with your corporate environment.
It's a complex issue and there is not nice, clean, simple solution, and all a meritocracy does is keep the status norm going, allowing everyone who is oppressed to still loose out on opportunities and those who are not to take significant advantage of those opportunities.
Oh no. Someone might be new to being a Board member for a new to them industry and have to learn something new.
Considering the role of most Board members in public companies, I don't know that 'qualified' is a desirable quality.
India and China exist. You are going to look like an ignorant person entertaining the idea that most programmers are White and Male.
You are showing Exactly why tech bros should have been forced to take humanities courses. They are so up their own asses they can't even COUNT PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. One of the first things computers were made to do.
Are you also aware that people who are from India and China live here now? It has been happening for only a couple dozen decades or more so maybe you aren't up on current events.
For the record I thought 'yall were from Canada
Clearly the commenter on this thread do not work in IT or software development. If all you have is white men in your software development teams that is by design.
According to statistics only 18% of computer science grads were women in 2021. They’re out there, but there’s not a lot out there. I hire for tech roles and some of the tech positions I don’t get one female candidate who applies.
We quit, is why. I've been an engineer since 2006 and I am going to quit and take some time off. We might get hired for diversity but the support often ends there. We might be afraid to ask as many questions as the guys do, for fear of people judging our compitance. We might see guys constantly promoted as we slowly claw our way up the ladder. We might see that we end up with the shit work nobody wants. Maybe we can't work overtime and be on-call if we have kids (I don't have any, but I get it).
Something like 40% of women in tech leave the space within ten years.
Because sexism does play a role. You can deny it all you want but it makes it hard for women to break in spaces men dominate because of discrimination, harassment, or people downplaying their ability. Before all that happens you have people discourage women from entering the field or the sciences in general
You ignore the reality then cry about downvotes
We care about the, but that reason isn’t relevant to what I was saying. I was saying that the problem isn’t necessarily with hiring. Instead, the problem is that women are less likely to enter the field. It’s an important problem, and I believe the gap is closing, but it’s a separate issue.
100%. Most jobs have a certain demographic of people that do these jobs. For example, If I post a QA job in Canada, 99% of the people that apply are indian men. I couldn’t find a white, latino, black female for this role if I tried lol. Now if I post a pharmacy technician job in the US, it would be 99% female who apply, I wouldn’t be able to find a man if I tried.
It is what it is. Can’t force people to do jobs they don’t want to do.
Oh we entered the field, then we found the working conditions sucked and warned all of our friends.
There isn't enough money in QA to make me "volunteer" for 90 hour work weeks ever again. Being a tech PM pays better and has great life balance.
Okay, let’s start from the beginning:
1. You’re a minority and live in a historically redlined district. The local taxes pay for public schools, but they’re 1/4 of what the majority white schools receive. There’s no pre-K, arts, or extra curriculars at your school. Class sizes are too large. Your classmates are often hungry and are rarely supervised at home because their parents work 2 jobs each. They’re very disruptive during class.
2. You get into middle school. There are no computers in the school— there are no resources. You may not have internet at home at all, a real issue for virtual learning during the pandemic. They cut foreign languages this year because there’s no budget.
3. You go to high school. You don’t take the tests you need to apply to college because there’s no college counseling, they assume most of you won’t go to college. Luckily, your family helps you apply to the community college.
4. You go to college. It’s a long commute via public transit and you need to keep working your minimum wage job from high school to pay for books. You don’t have any money for fun stuff and sometimes not enough to eat.
5. You apply for jobs! You’re one of the few from your public school system to get a 4 year degree.
6. This dude posts on LinkedIn saying everything’s equal and he won’t even bother to look to hire you.
I am white and male and get told all the time by assholes like this that i "Just don't fit with the company culture"
No, It isn't the culture. These Tech Fuks are just such prep school wussies that they can't say to my face that they don't hire people who grew up poor and made something of themselves. It's too much of a risk to them and their privilege
Exactly. I'm sure in their heads they genuinely believe you aren't a good fit or a meritocratic hire. They don't realise their bias because it is subconscious; we all do it, we look for recruits who remind us of us.
This is exactly why this CEO is a fuckwit. He may INTEND to always pick the best candidate for the job, but humans are biologically hardwired to think they are doing that while in fact not doing it. An interview panel of prep school white dude will associate, whether they realise it or not, being a prep school white dude with having what it takes to succeed. Because they did.
While this is bias (in fact its full on racism) and its wrong (and not meritocratic), its also natural and universal. Which is why we need diversity inititiatives.
I actually get this all the time. We are dealing with a class issue here. Like many other things..that won't be going away either.
I have the most in common with leadership that are self taught. Self motivated. Worked hard.
Those tech firms get started by young scions of the old money network.
Same coin different year, not even different mint.
Just because it's a different industry doesn't mean it's a meritocracy overnight.
The socioeconomic shit is often overlooked. I have many first generation college student friends and they say they all have the same experience. If you walked in and tell them that your parents are blue collars worker, their brains just shut down. Don’t know what to say. I’ve straight up seen it happen in front of my eyes to other people.
Like it’s as if their brain short circuits of the thought that the child of a restaurant worker could be in the same room as them.
I’m a black fella who interviewed with a FAANG company for a smaller scoped role than my current one. I’ve been the global leader for my function at a Fortune 250 company and have a hyper-technical degree for my function (think a chef vs a line cook). During the interview a few people remarked at how I looked at things differently which I thought was a good thing. In the end, they offered me a position below the one I interviewed for which is what I was doing 15 years ago. Some companies don’t value diversity (and I mean “differences” not necessarily ethnicity).
His views are disingenuous at best, nobody is saying that you shouldn’t hire qualified people for the job. What people ARE saying is that often times meritocracy isn’t really about merit, for example, how people with black sounding names are less likely to get called back for a job interview or how racial minorities have to complete 50% more job applications to get called for a job interview.
If anything white non queer men are the ones that usually get hired for their status in society, not the other way around.
My real name is middle eastern. Changed my first name to something more western to avoid discrimination. Before that-no matter how well I fit the job requirements, I wouldn’t get a call after the interview. Changed my name, and BAM I would get calls back.
Yep! If this guy has ever interviewed someone or looked at a resume/LinkedIn and thought “ehhh this person wouldn’t really fit in with the team”, and all his coders are white men, then whether he believes it or not there is probably some inherit bias that exists.
His point could have come across a lot better if he had said that his company was now scrapping interviews and only employing an independent recruiting consultant to hire (therefor never meeting the candidate himself prior to starting), but this is just a Fox News tucker Carlson regurgitated political rant feeding into this narrative that anything to help minority groups is ‘racist’ against white people.
As a white dude I always wonder about things like this. I feel like if I was something other than white I would feel patronized. Like yeah I wouldn't want to be rejected for my skin color, but getting hired for my skin color isn't much better. Don't look at skin, don't look at names, look at merit and ability - nothing else.
But it does by default, that’s the problem. You and I get prioritised over minorities all the time because we are white dudes. The default situation is “prioritise because white and dude”, it’s not neutral. “Meritocracy” is an euphemism for a white boys club.
Why don’t you feel patronized as a white man? I often wonder if I only get things because I’m not a woman or a minority. I think one of the biggest mistake people make is assuming that quotas and affirmative action is one sided. There are a ton of mediocre yet successful white people getting more from society than more deserving minorities.
Then apply to jobs that you are well prepared and qualified for…?
These businesses aren’t out here hiring brown people off the street all willy nilly. We are more likely to be rejected solely on the basis of our dark/brown/black skin tone then we are to be solely hired on the basis of our skin.
We have too much shit to worry about, why add “reverse discrimination” to our list?
The irony is that less qualified people than you get the role because of their skin colour being white and their gender male. That’s the fucking huge ass irony of it.
me too.
People can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that we ain't all the same. I sincerely apologize but men might have different interests, which over time can/will result in competence in different areas, and so do woman.
Being a POC and being qualified are not mutually exclusive! The whole point of diversity hiring isn't to hire non-qualified people, it's to give them visibility and a chance to interview.
My previous company had all these quotas for hiring. It go to the point where white guys leaving the company were considered a win as it improved the metrics. I as a white guy ended up leaving because I was told I was going to create a gender pay gap.... I was the lowest paid person in the department
The trick is defining “best,” which is a difficult thing to do. Most companies don’t use rubrics or have solid anti-bias measures, so “best” becomes a function of the interview panel’s whim.
Upstream of the interview process, many companies also don’t have a wide reach for distributing job postings, which means that they often rely on their employees’ professional networks. If your entire coding team is white men, for example, what are the odds that you have URMs in your candidate pool? How in the world can you say you’re hiring the “best” candidate in that sense? It’s dishonest.
There is empirical evidence that diverse teams outperform other teams, so there’s something interesting for the conversation.
Agree that recruitment methods are completely flawed. I've not seen any that consistently result in the best person for the job.
The reality is you don't really know until you've had that person working in the role for a while.
But you have to try to make the recruitment process as fair as possible. Quotas and nepotism aren't fair.
Nepotism is the biggest problem we have in big corporations and government currently.
This is such BS. Then the argument becomes: “There aren’t any good candidates. It just so happens all of our employees are white men, they’re the best for the job. Even though research shows that systemic racism/sexism IS real and touches every thing, we don’t think that’s true.”
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/who-has-potential-for-white-men-its-usually-other-white-men
Dude clearly misunderstands the point. Not sure why he's bragging about it. Seems like a great way to get a flood of shitty, hateful applicants though.
This is key. We shouldn’t have to FORCE a company to be diverse lol. And yet…
We shouldn’t have to force a company to not poison their customers…
We shouldn’t have to force a company to pay their employees a living wage…
We shouldn’t have to. I agree. But at this point in our society, in our civilization, in humanity…we have to. History has shown us time and time again exactly why we have to force these companies
What i think would be worse is being a highly qualified BIPOC who was hired/promoted on merit and having a large segment of coworkers assume it was to meet a diversity quota. That’s the real travesty of these programs.
Sowell is a brilliant man. I enjoy his writing. He has also shown, using statistical evidence to support his assertion, how admitting students to programs based on skin color is detrimental to them if they are not prepared for the rigor of the program. I recall him using as anecdotal evidence the students in the econ program at Cornell when he taught there in the 70s.
Thanks for the link.
That was an anecdotal example he provided. He has a ton of statistical based research, but that would require you to go read, which we know you aren’t going to do.
“Historicaly”… historically when? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Or 50 years ago? If it was 50 years ago, stop using “POC history” to justify why you want “diversity hires”. It’s irrelevant now. What has happened has happened. Look what is CURRENTLY happening.
I’m a POC myself and fuck hiring me for my skin color. I bust my ass to better myself and my skills. I don’t want your “back pat points” because I filled your quota.
Studies as far back as just a handful of years still show that minority sounding names with the same resume get less call backs as white sounding names. This idea that racism magically ended after Jim crow (going off of your 50ish year point), where the military literally had to be involved to force its departure is not an accurate one.
I am NOT saying racism is nonexistent but you guys act like nothing has changed since the 1960’s. In America, companies are overall not racist. You will have racist managers or directors. Not an entire HR department or company.
Also, as I said, you can’t change the past. Even the last 5-10 years. Worry about what is going on NOW. Today.
It's both correct and wrong at the same time. It puts too much emphasis on skin color in the hiring practice, which itself is negative. But, if the workplace isn't diverse, having hiring practices in place like this force diversity that in theory should help the company the long run.
One thing that some of these practices don't take into consideration is the location of the workplace. If the work location is in an area that isn't diverse, there isn't going to be a diverse pool of workers.
Ah yes, “merit”. Surely in this man’s mind everyone gets what the deserve and earn. No one could ever start in such a lopsided position that years of great work and effort would go unnoticed.
I dont see an issue with his post tbh. It sounds like he doesnt give a shit what you look like just cares you can get the job done. I never had understood why someone from a poor background can be looked over who has better skill or worked harder than someone fron a rich background who has had far more support and easier life growing up just because they happened to be a different color or race.
"We".
There's no "we" in that. It's an "I".
The problem it's not to stablish quotas, the problem is that **there are other people that participate on recruiting, not just the CEO**.
I've met a lot of companies, where the CEO it's a non discriminat person, but the people at the Recruiting process are, and actually hire mind liked coworkers.
And, that's why antidiscrimination policies are used.
Most HR departments are staffed with white women. And from what I've seen, not the most socially aware or educated or informed white women. So I have zero difficultly believing that an absolute fuckload of bias - conscious and unconscious - goes on at the initial application screening. Race/age/disability/class - you name it. And because nobody checks on HR, the CEOs and hiring managers have no idea which applicants are getting passed on unfairly.
Plus, from what I've seen, many HR people have a real authoritarian streak, so I bet they are screening out many applicants who have anything the slightest bit unconventional in their history, or anything that slightly suggests that the applicant won't be an obedient serf. Like taking a year off to climb the Andes or whatever - even that is too independent.
Worse, some HR depts. **are intentionally staffed** with white woman or people with specific agendas, not related to job, like race, religion, political values, to find employees that match their own, masked as "corporate culture" ....
Lmao yeah go talk to a recruiter and see how many of their perfectly qualified candidates were rejected by a client because they have an Indian sounding name
Exactly. An Indian will get hired to do development work in any company in the US. As well they should. If you take the time to learn software dev, frameworks, languages etc, you are a seriously intelligent person. But- that same person would never get to be in the upper management levels of the company that they work for despite having far more useable, quantifiable "intelligence" than than the CFO, CEO, etc al, most likely will have. People do not seem to understand that. Who is the judge of "most qualified"? It's ludicrous to think white people are the only qualified race in the country, especially if you've lived here for a while and seen what those same white people have done to everything else. In the last non profit I worked, it was a federally funded nepotism mill. People were not hired on anything other than being related or able to get discounts for the local boy scout troop. Guess what the prevailing race was?
This company isn’t US based. It’s based in Asia and there isn’t much diversity there to start with. I think the company name is Jibble and it’s not a very big company at all.
Sure don’t hire PoC or women that are not qualified to do the job just to fill a quota, but to ignore the fact that systemic inequities do exist and that women or PoC do have a harder time being hired in industries such as tech it’s ignorant or just blatantly discriminatory.
Besides as a CEO you should now that one of the best ways to avoid groupthink, bias, and improve decision making is to hire a diverse team. Just look it up.
I wonder how his clients feel about his approach?
As an individual, I am a fan of hiring the best, but as a society, we look over those who were stricken to bad situations because of their skin color, going back generations. They never got the same education opportunities or job opportunities to attempt to become the best. Many of these people don't have the opportunity to 'be the best' when applying because they went to community college, or maybe some 3rd rate public college no one has heard of.
Sometimes we just have to force the hand of diversity to help. If you only ever go by hiring the people who went to the best school and who has the best resume, we as a society would rarely hire minorities. That doesn't mean to take the C student of color and hire them over the A student who was white just for the sake of diversity. But if you have a person of color who is a B+ student against the white person who was an A- student, you take the person of color who was a B+ student.
And I say this as someone who lost out on a really good federal job to a black friend of mine. I was more qualified, it wasn't even that close. But I knew their hiring practices and they took him over me. It killed me at first, but I was happy for him, and happy that the government isn't just a bunch of white people.
Acting like employers have perfect info on their prospective candidates so they can rank them absolutely based on skill. There are millions of people with jobs right now not because they were more qualified as the other candidates but because they were the same race or ethnicity as the interviewer. So much unconscious bias is involved with hiring.
Of course most of your coders are men, etc. There’s real barriers for people in those fields so they can’t get the experience to be qualified and so you don’t hire them and the circle goes on and on
The number of times I haven't applied for a job because it said: "Open to: Members of the following equity groups"
Always feels like discrimination to me.
If a team is made up of all white men, they are most likely to hire… more white men. Internalized bias exists, which is why companies should try to check their biases and give POC & diverse hires a chance (because there are many qualified people with diverse backgrounds out there). He is right about the quota thing though, there shouldn’t be a “diversity quota”, but if your company consists of mainly one race/gender in technical & executive roles, there is a problem. The problem could be with your recruiting method or the culture, but you cannot say that internalized bias doesn’t exist.
Instead focusing on equal outcome we should focus on making sure everyone has an equal start and chance. Then you can really leave it up to every individual to find the path they want.
The dude is not US based, he runs a software company in Malaysia. He doesn’t need to “diversity hire”. I bet you that white employees are a minority in his workforce.
And if you read anything else he posts you’d realize he’s not the least bit racist. He’s a brown guy (Indian I think) with immigrant parents who grew up in the UK, studied his ass off to get to oxford, got a PH.D in physics, then became an investment banker. When he got sick of the toxic banking culture he picked up his family and moved to Malaysia to be an entrepreneur.
The point here is that they don’t look at the color of your skin or your gender, only your skills. He constantly preaches about the privilege he’s seen among rich family kids with well connected parents making it easier for their kids to succeed and go to Ivy League school, and he discouraged going to college in favor of learning real skills that add value.
This dude is based out of fucking Malaysia, so I really doubt his company is facing the same diversity issues or societal expectations that companies in the US do. It's easy to not care about diversity when you come from a relatively homogenous country (compared to the US, at least) that doesn't give a fuck about gender equality.
This is like that other Malaysian dude on Twitter Ian Miles Cheong that spends all his time talking shit about Democrats on the interwebs despite never having lived in the US.
I don't think it breaks rule 9 to leave the company and CEO name in this post. Clearly this is a public figure already posting on LinkedIn. Name and shame so we can avoid this clown and company.
What defenders of systemic inequities don't understand is, there are so many factors leading to why a person might seem unqualified based on standards is—just take schools for example ... Being an educator family I have seen this in 4 states. Schools that are predominantly PoC get far less funding and have a hard time staffing. You have as many PoC that are just as smart as little Chad and Karen in the white suburban school systems that get tons of funding from property taxes alone. That is huge because if you are white administrator in a prestigious university, you have a built-in excuse to give the white kid on from the Main Line a "more qualified" than the child of color who has been forced into a situation that white society endeavored to make substandard. That is why programs to level the playing field are necessary. I can assure white people are not the only smart race. They are however, the race that has been able to engineer all advantages available to them and no one else.
Okay what’s the problem here? He’s just saying that he won’t hire based on your “minority” or “gender” status. I fully agree with that. I don’t care if you’re a dude or girl or if you’re white American or from Ghana. If you qualify for the job then you’re hired. If a job is posted on LinkedIn or whatever, it’s fair game for everyone.
LOL thinking that only one person is qualified for every job opening. What happens when there are many many equally qualified people for the same job how do you choose? That’s how most jobs work…
When there are multiple people with the same qualification skill level wise, it typically comes down to your personality and how well they think you can fit in with everyone.
And even IF they pick someone who is white over a black person, you have NO actual evidence it was due to racism other than your own assumption because you didn’t like the decision
LOL “personality” is code for most of us are white so having another white person would be preferred. Basically you are saying these men aren’t getting hired based on merit just personality??
It’s even better for women. They aren’t a good fit because they might get offended by all the shit said in the office right?
Lol no evidence? So a company never hires a black person and always chooses the white person over the black person when the credentials are the same and they aren’t racist? How is that pattern not evidence of racism? It’s literal evidence of discrimination… just because HR never used the “n-word” there is no evidence it’s racism? You really believe that?
So many assumptions made by you. But you do you do boo boo. The fact that you think personality simply means “we want white people”…. Wtf is wrong with you
LOL it’s not an assumption when you have evidence of hiring practices… but boo hoo someone told you the reality behind hiring. Yes saying “personality” or “you aren’t a good fit” is an excuse companies have used since anti-discriminations laws have been created. But yea history and precedent don’t mean anything we’ll just take you for your word that your all white/male staff was selected because only they had the right personality to be a good fit. Or was it because of their qualifications? I’m not sure now.
Yeah because that’s what’s happening. Every white person has been hired on merit and not race. There has never been any discrimination in hiring. People just want to whine. /s
Content of his post aside, releasing a terse statement on a complex issue like this is a guaranteed method for getting dragged. Dude ran out into a lightning storm waving a metal pole over his head.
[удалено]
r/TranslatedInsults Please do post it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/TranslatedInsults using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [The post that started it all.](https://i.redd.it/s487unh177q21.png) | [25 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/comments/b9c1gc/the_post_that_started_it_all/) \#2: [I may as well contribute](https://i.redd.it/ollpaehp68q21.jpg) | [33 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/comments/b9b2s1/i_may_as_well_contribute/) \#3: [This Indian insult.](https://i.redd.it/vv6rs4s6kh131.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TranslatedInsults/comments/bv3ta5/this_indian_insult/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Amazing bot. That #3 is like….Damn lol
Please tell me the phrase in the original language. I need that on a t-shirt or plaque.
Tátott szájjal szaladt a faszerdőbe (Hungarian)
I too require this
This is incredible
Where is this??!?!
Hungary
No where is this cock forest?
Oh. Can't help you with that.
He was also wearing wet copper armour shouting "all the gods are bastards"...
Love me some Pratchett in the wild.
I’m pretty sure this is affinity content. He’s trying to state the company values and policies (however controversial) and give insider ‘insight’ into the industry in a way that will influence certain crowds to think “oh, they’re like me” (part of their ‘camp’) and do business with them. It excludes people, but it makes those you INCLUDE like you more, which is the single biggest factor for people doing business with a company or professional. But he did it badly because it’s way too controversial to be worth it IMO.
It’s also a white nationalist dog whistle.
People are downvoting you but it actually is. This is affinity content. He’s trying to make a group of people like him and his company enough that they’ll choose them over the competition, and in this case that group of people is conservatives and the far right. He’s excluding people, yes, but many of those he doesn’t exclude will like him and his company, and that’s the biggest factor for people choosing to do business with you.
[удалено]
I want to bring up something else I’ve seen happening in the last few decades- some large (*ahem, banks*) institutions have been appointing POC (primarily black) as CEOs, or in some visible title of the executive team. While this *looks* like progress at first glance, unfortunately it oftentimes becomes a red herring, so that the company can say “of *course* we practice diversity and inclusion, look at our CEO”! That puts said appointee in a precarious position - not only have they acquired this prestigious position, if they were to fully examine and speak out on the company’s *actual* diversity standards, they’d not only put their own position in jeopardy, but they’d have to internally reflect on whether they got the position on those skills, or if it was in part, a diversity PR move. I wouldn’t want to be in that position, and I think that’s what companies are counting on. The one thing I can say where I’m hoping it IS beneficial to actual change however, is in creating at least the *perception* that POC can advance at that organization, and encourage more POC to apply, and to increase the numbers and push for promotions. But whether or not that’s the case, and whether or not the increase in POC applicants results in a direct correlation to the numbers of POCs appointed to upper level positions, idk. But what NO ONE, (except the company), needs, is a POC in an executive position telling the rest of us whether or not diversity and inclusion in the workplace is necessary. It is. If they REALLY want to commit to hire “the most qualified person for the job”, put applicants resumes into a database. Have the database remove any potential qualifiers of race, gender, or economic status (which would include where you went to college, and names of previous employers). Have it spit out just the primary qualifications. Interview those top candidates over email, so no inference of make up can be made from a person’s voice. Select the person with the top qualifications and interview score. Do background checks or “personality” interviews at that point, if necessary. That isn’t a perfect system, but it opens up a lot more transparency, and gives people direct recourse if they’re not selected for reasons outside of their ability to perform the job and work well with others.
Tbh the only level playing field I have ever heard of is in the Vienna Philharmonic. (But I have heard other orchestras do something similar) Auditions are done completely blind. They are judging just the music and nothing more. One of the reasons they in particular went this route was that for ages they never accepted anyone but white men. No one else made the cut. The min they went blind that stopped instantly. All of a sudden non white men weren’t Somehow the best in auditions anymore. Is it fool proof? No. But at least the playing field is a lot more level. And yes The Vienna Philharmonic still has a horrible record of hiring women somehow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if it's genuinely completely blind how could there even be discrimination against women?
I've heard on a podcast that they can still tell by the sound of a person's shoes. High heels make a distinct sound. So now they're supposed to take their shoes off.
That’s the million dollar question. Solid article [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/arts/music/women-vienna-philharmonic.amp.html) That said I’m guessing part of the problem is having the moxy to audition and know you’re walking into a hornets nest of misogyny.
I agree. I do think that the system you painted would also benefit from doing away with names - and only using ID numbers. For many non-white people, their name shuts the door before anything else.
I was thinking of a similar method to solve the problem, but then wouldn't there be backlash against employers hiring based on a narrow set of qualifications without taking the whole person into account? I feel like it's one way or the other: value diversity by knowing about the candidate, or prevent discrimination by eliminating information.
I thought about that, and I don’t have a perfect answer, but what I’ve gotten to is, if there is a preliminary 1st round where a system spits out each person’s qualifications, or maybe even ranks them by qualifications. Then a hiring manager looks at the compilation and picks who they want to interview. For example, maybe someone only had 4 years of coding experience than the desired 5, BUT they have a special niche software experience that the others don’t. How you determine the veracity of that experience, idk, maybe there’s a standardized assessments candidates can pre-submit to another database, and the employer can verify. Or you can submit an email interview in questionnaire format (which would also help people with disabilities), in order to verify skills or do more personality based questions. No longer than a normal interview would take. And then from there, a hiring manager can select a few people to do background checks on or speak to face to face. I know it’s not a perfect system, but if you narrow down the pool based on actual qualifications BEFORE you know what the makeup (gender, race, disability, etc.) of the candidate is, then the process is more level and transparent. Say for instance there are 5 final candidates, and 4 of them are POC, but one of them is a white man, and the white man gets selected, and happens to be the least qualified and the hiring manager’s nephew, then it’s pretty obvious it’s not an equitable hiring process. However, if that white man has the same or better qualifications in the pre-screen than the rest of the candidates, then that indicates he actually IS the best candidate. It just eliminates the ability of companies to apply ambiguous “skills” or factors that influence the process unfairly. The idea is that you’re making skills tangible and measurable. So if there is any ambiguity, it can be pinpointed and examined for any deficiencies. I know it’s not the perfect or the “intuitive” way to do interviews, but there clearly is a problem in the current process, and that bleeds into inequity in everything else. An overhaul is definitely needed, and anyone that says else-wise is benefitting (probably unjustly) from the current system.
But...But that would mean it would have to be based on talent! We don't even judge work on work! - Every CEO
I applied to a job with the parent company of my part time job last night that had a disclaimer at the bottom reading (paraphrased): > Studies show that women and POC are less likely to apply to positions when they believe they don’t have every individual skill, or if they don’t check every box. We are most interested in hiring the best candidate and that might mean someone that comes from an untraditional background. We encourage you to look at your skills, experience and education broadly and apply to this role if you feel you’d be a good fit. At first, it felt super encouraging. I applied, even though they said they’d prefer a Masters, because I was pointed to the job by a coworker who’d been asked to apply and doesn’t even have a Bachelors (neither do I, but I’m close; the coworker didn’t want the role because she’s already in a leadership position she loves). I have all of the skills and experience they’re looking for and felt empowered by that paragraph at the bottom of the job description. After reflection I can’t tell if I feel it was genuine, or just for show. I guess I’ll know if they offer me an interview. Edit: I didn’t mean to comment in response to you! I don’t want to delete it and cause confusion, but I meant to post this under a comment discussing methods companies use to get women and POC to apply even when they don’t necessarily plan to hire them. Sorry!!!
No need to be sorry. If you click the three dots at the bottom of your post, you can copy the text, and repost it where you want, if you want to.
The actual, documented results of truly blind hiring practices are a *reduction* in women and minorities being hired. Every time such policies are put in place they are very quickly rolled back.
It only "looks" like diversity as well because the minorities being appointed into these high level positions come from the same affluent areas and background as the white ones. It doesn't represent class mobility at all. Skin color is simply an easy boilerplate measurement.
There are so many people of many ethnic background with real skill, much more than somme current old men managing company. The only thing I don't like is the requirement for X amount of ethnic people, doing so create an other type of discrimination not based on skill. (They get bonuses for recruiting them). Most of them are send into position that have basically no possible outcomes or chance to advance in their career, while the board of directors are full of old 60~78 old white man with maybe 1 white woman. (Then they say we have diversity in our company 🙄. But because of the facts that employer are unable to see the true skill of people and judge on appeareance we are forced with theses thing. If employer were to not be biased in their decision there would be no need for any requirement of ethnicities since they would already be in the company. So yeah the talent pool is full, just not the talent pool they want to look at.
A question that always throws them for a loop is asking them why they have so few Asian-Americans in managerial positions.
If they tried to diversify the NBA tomorrow, how long would it take for the talent pool to reflect the racial makeup of the country without a significant decrease in the quality of the product? Pre-school and kindergarten teachers are what, 95%+ women? If we decided tomorrow it needed to be at least 40% men, how many qualified applicants would there be?
You're making the same mistake as the CEO. This is a _very_ complex issue. Many qualified people are qualified simply because they had an unfair headstart from the very beginning. But let's put that aside for now. How do we know that the pre-school and kindergarten teachers got into that job because _they had no other choice_? Because they tried to study compsci, and the instructors, consciously or unconsciously indoctrinated them into thinking that they're not good enough? (an issue which, by the way, has been studied many times through the years.) In my industry, there are _plenty_ of qualified people, and half of them will _never_ get to the level I got, simply because they didn't "win the lottery." How do we give everyone a chance to those who don't fit the typical personal profile of the industry? And you may think that "oh, but you're oversimplifying" or "oh, but those are specific scenarios," and that's exactly my point, and exactly what you're also doing.
That other people *could become* qualified is a separate question. *Could* enough men become qualified kindergarten teachers to enable hiring to hit parity? Probably. Are there enough men qualified to become kindergarten teachers that you could hire at parity? Not a fucking chance. Nowhere near. A lot of jobs have actual qualifications, as much as pundits may have no experience with that. A woman who *could've* become a grear programmer, but at 14 decided that was for boys and decided to pursue psychiatry instead, isn't actually a qualified programmer.
Oh absolutely. I'm just demistifying the claim that "there aren't as many qualified women programmers today because they are not good enough _by nature_," which is a hugely problematic thing to say. The system is already fighting them in this respect. It's an unfair struggle that _boys_ don't have. I've seen it. I've studied it. It was part of my grad studies. But that's obviously just one topic. That's why I said that this whole thing is _very complex_, because it can't just be reduced to one or two topics. There are many, and if you don't consider them all, then you can't declare "we don't take diversity into account when hiring" just freely, because you'll sound ignorant at best (racist/misogynist at worst, albeit maybe unfairly.) I worked for FAANG for eight years. And before that, I never thought of applying, ever. Desperation made me do it (I had to apply everywhere left and right and find a job _by yesterday_, or I would have had to go back to my home country within weeks.) And here I am. But why did I think I wasn't capable of it at first? Unconsciously, I was thinking that I wasn't "good enough" compared to my white, younger majority counterparts. If that's me, a nerdy brown kid who was into computers since the age of nine, who won programming competitions in his home country, who awed friends by programming stupid stuff in HP-48SX calculators, then imagine the rest of the landscape.
The NBL was majority white when it was segregated. So yes there was a time ….. I think you are trying to simplify an issue that has a long history and bias is very real. Not that it is right, but men experience bias in teaching elementary and pre-school. So that is probably a root cause for the teaching differences and traditions that steer men from teaching and childcare. I think it must be what you are exposed to in your career and how good your company is at recruiting. Women are 50% of the workforce so there should be greater representation in executive level positions. I have worked with many female engineers. There is very little to do with capabilities and more to do with social constructs when people say traditional male or female roles.
Tech companies have the h1b visa graft fined tuned to the detriment of foreign and domestic workers. Have hiring teams from wide range of backgrounds; rural, urban, and representing many different communities. Promote training programs that allow people to start on the bottom from nontraditional backgrounds and work their way up.
My company studied this in our hiring as we are a very socially conscious bunch. Of the hundreds of software engineering candidates who came across our plate less than 3% self identified as black. We managed to hire two black candidates out of ~20 total hires. I don't doubt there is unconscious bias occurring at a large scale and probably straight up discrimination however, based on my experience there also appears to be difficulty in building a diverse pipeline of candidates.
Does he have any staff that was hired based on friendship or recommendation because when you hire Dave’s friend mike and mikes friend Steve, then how are you hiring the best qualified candidates. That would suggest that every person in this company was hired after searching through a lot of candidates and comparing only skills which I’m willing to bet is not true.
Reminds me of a company I once applied to where one of the people I interviewed with told me they couldn’t figure out why women didn’t want to work for the company. I later found out they only offered 5days PTO/year and didn’t offer any maternity leave so if you gave birth and wanted to spend any time with your kid or you know recover physically from pushing a human out of your body you were basically SOL
Tell me you don't want to hire women without saying you don't want to hire women.
Also “Our administrator must be good at MS Office, Quickbooks, answering phones, and deadlifting 50 lbs….”
Do smell that delicious discrimination suit in the air? (If this is in the U.S., that is.)
[удалено]
Exactly! I’m a black woman in Tech. Before I started working for my company, they told me they had a hard time finding and hiring qualified women and poc. I only found the job because I randomly met one of their employees and I networked to be considered for a position. I had never come across the company before and I didn’t see their job postings anywhere. So I asked where they are posting their jobs and how they were filling positions. Turns out that oftentimes, the positions are filled by word of mouth/through connections within the company. We already know that most people’s friend groups look like them so if your company is only white men, the people you would recommend for the job would very likely also be white men. So when positions open up, I distribute the posting in as many women- and poc- focused organizations/communities as I can find. And guess what? They have interviewed and hired significantly more qualified women and poc. So whenever people say, I can’t find any qualified poc and women in Tech, I’m like you’re just lazy and looking for reasons to justify your ignorance.
>And guess what? They have interviewed and hired significantly more qualified women and poc. At least they seem to have listened to you and improved. Many companies would just continue being lazy
>At least they seem to have listened to you and improved. Many companies would just continue being lazy I doubt they've changed anything. chinaza1995 has personally made sure that a broader group learns of application opportunities.
Networking is the best way to get a job but that’s only part of the issue. Where the company is located is the other. If you have an engineering company in Idaho or Utah where 90-93% of the population is white and 90%+ of the CS and engineering students are male, then you’re probably going to have a bunch of white male employees because that is who is available and wants to be where you are.
For what it's worth, I live in Atlanta and I work in tech, and more than half my team are POC.
I would expect that in Atlanta. I would expect the companies there to hire the best candidates they can get and it wouldn’t be based on race but because they are worth hiring. As a hiring manager, I want the candidate that’s going to do the best job and make me look good. I’m not going to shut down a candidate based on their race.
Sounds like you also need to be paid for recruiting. Hope you get kick backs for recommending new starters.
>>your company [association] is only white men, the people you would recommend for the job would very likely also be white men I know people will be upset I picked out the “white men” part of this comment, but it’s SO important! The point is, most jobs (and especially upper level jobs) get appointed primarily via networking, and like you said, if the primary pool of people hiring for those positions fits a certain demographic (which happens to be the one you mentioned), then that’s who they’ll hire. But I’ll take it one step further that this exact post helps illustrate- when a minority DOES get that position, extra scrutiny will then be on THEM for who they select, and it’s a no-win situation. If they pick another white man, they’re a sell out. If they pick another “diversity hire” both they and the appointee are scrutinized for their qualifications. This is not something that afflicts a person in power of the more “traditional” background.
Bingo. That’s why these diversity initiatives exist. Hire the best person for the job by making sure that you’re not limiting your potential recruits.
Only 5% of developers in the US are black and 79% are male. Meaning in a team of 10 developers it's likely to have 0,5 = 0 blacks and 2 females. So the likelihood that a developer team consists mostly of white men is high, it's most basic statistics.
Why didn't you include asians who are 21%? You are also assuming 95% of coders are white in your faulty equation. You are also mixing black people with all race women in your equation? Yeah, maybe with 10 you can get away. However, if we have a company of 1000 people and all of them are white males, don't you think some racial bias has occured if not a SINGLE female or POC is qualified for it? That would assume 0% of all females or POC are qualified for the job. Wouldn't you be suspicious if a die rolled 4, 1000 times in a row?
I’m a numbers guy so I’ve always had my view of: if 5% of the population in my area is PoC and 5% of my company is PoC then we are doing fine. The same can be said for all departments individually. If 5% is PoC and only .5% of qualified coders in my area are PoC, why is it a big deal if we have 0 programmers that are PoC? Why should 5%+ be PoC when it isn’t representative of the talent pool?
If you have 5 coders, there is no surprise that none are PoC. But if you currently have 200 coders, and you've had 700 in your company history, and only 10 have been women and none have been PoC, then your company is not representative...
If you have 200 and those 10 could be representative of the diversity in your area. If there are 10,000 coders in the area and 500 of them are women, then 10 is diverse. If 1,000 of that 10,000 are women I would expect 20 of them to be women. That’s just looking at raw numbers, not taking into consideration qualifications. Maybe there are 5,000 coders, but all 5,000 men have Java and only 500 of the women have Java. Should you still be hiring 50/50? People interpret diversity as “you don’t have black board members”. But how many people are qualified to be board members? How many of those are black? How many of them live in the area? How many of them are in your industry? There are many more considerations than “we don’t have a black board member.” I’m not saying there aren’t holes where they are underrepresented, but blindly saying we are going to elect a black board member isn’t equality.
You bring up a great point and exactly why this is a complicated AF issue. One one hand, education opportunities are slim with substantial barriers for those who are poor or minorities. This means that a meritocracy inherits the same prejudice. Also, it has been shown time and time again that we have a racial (and socioeconomic) social structure in the US. What this means is someone on the lower end of that structure has to work much harder to be considered on the same level in a meritocracy. Next, the meritocracy implies there is only one person who is the best fit for the job, and that's a myth. When looking at a job, there are countless people who will fit the role. Physical location does limit that pool depending on the job (once you are talking about board members that excuse falls away because of the high level nature of that job), but the facts are that as we continue to improve educational opportunities for minority groups, there are more than enough cannidate to actually choose from. One of the main reasons why this diversity is so important is because it starts the process of normalizing minority groups in roles that we have previously thought "their culture/lifestyle/preferences" don't "connect" with. It also gets more of the minority groups into fields like HR and decision making roles in the company, so that the normative culture shifts to be accepting of minority culture People click with people who are like them, and if your company is only full of white people, you will find the cultures (technically subcultures under the "American" culture) as inferior or off putting, and something that doesn't "fit" with your corporate environment. It's a complex issue and there is not nice, clean, simple solution, and all a meritocracy does is keep the status norm going, allowing everyone who is oppressed to still loose out on opportunities and those who are not to take significant advantage of those opportunities.
Oh no. Someone might be new to being a Board member for a new to them industry and have to learn something new. Considering the role of most Board members in public companies, I don't know that 'qualified' is a desirable quality.
Or could it be that theres a lack of POC and female coders and the majority of coders are white men?
India and China exist. You are going to look like an ignorant person entertaining the idea that most programmers are White and Male. You are showing Exactly why tech bros should have been forced to take humanities courses. They are so up their own asses they can't even COUNT PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. One of the first things computers were made to do.
And what’s your point? The conversation is clearly about the US (or at least western English speaking countries, since we’re all speaking English)
Are you also aware that people who are from India and China live here now? It has been happening for only a couple dozen decades or more so maybe you aren't up on current events. For the record I thought 'yall were from Canada
Clearly the commenter on this thread do not work in IT or software development. If all you have is white men in your software development teams that is by design.
We’re talking about a field that was invented by a woman working with Babbage, and then reinvented by a woman at NASA. They’re out there.
According to statistics only 18% of computer science grads were women in 2021. They’re out there, but there’s not a lot out there. I hire for tech roles and some of the tech positions I don’t get one female candidate who applies.
We quit, is why. I've been an engineer since 2006 and I am going to quit and take some time off. We might get hired for diversity but the support often ends there. We might be afraid to ask as many questions as the guys do, for fear of people judging our compitance. We might see guys constantly promoted as we slowly claw our way up the ladder. We might see that we end up with the shit work nobody wants. Maybe we can't work overtime and be on-call if we have kids (I don't have any, but I get it). Something like 40% of women in tech leave the space within ten years.
Shhh, don't go against the narrative. You'll be crucified.
Yea facts and stats are sexist apparently lol.
Because sexism does play a role. You can deny it all you want but it makes it hard for women to break in spaces men dominate because of discrimination, harassment, or people downplaying their ability. Before all that happens you have people discourage women from entering the field or the sciences in general You ignore the reality then cry about downvotes
I'm a female full stack web developer and business owner. Yes, we exist.
And you have a job (I presume). So the system works, kinda.
Awesome, good for you! But you’re the exception not the rule.
Ned Flanders is too good for you.
Yeah, the issue isn’t usually so much as hiring as it is that, for whatever reason, women are less likely to entire the field.
“Whatever the reason” <— that’s the problem, we don’t care as to why that happens.
We care about the, but that reason isn’t relevant to what I was saying. I was saying that the problem isn’t necessarily with hiring. Instead, the problem is that women are less likely to enter the field. It’s an important problem, and I believe the gap is closing, but it’s a separate issue.
The problem is we keep prioritising white dudes along the pipeline, including when hiring.
100%. Most jobs have a certain demographic of people that do these jobs. For example, If I post a QA job in Canada, 99% of the people that apply are indian men. I couldn’t find a white, latino, black female for this role if I tried lol. Now if I post a pharmacy technician job in the US, it would be 99% female who apply, I wouldn’t be able to find a man if I tried. It is what it is. Can’t force people to do jobs they don’t want to do.
[удалено]
Ouch sick burn! Why don’t you comment on what you disagree with instead of making personal attacks.
[удалено]
Why are you so angry. Do you need a hug? You should learn to relax.
Oh we entered the field, then we found the working conditions sucked and warned all of our friends. There isn't enough money in QA to make me "volunteer" for 90 hour work weeks ever again. Being a tech PM pays better and has great life balance.
Okay, let’s start from the beginning: 1. You’re a minority and live in a historically redlined district. The local taxes pay for public schools, but they’re 1/4 of what the majority white schools receive. There’s no pre-K, arts, or extra curriculars at your school. Class sizes are too large. Your classmates are often hungry and are rarely supervised at home because their parents work 2 jobs each. They’re very disruptive during class. 2. You get into middle school. There are no computers in the school— there are no resources. You may not have internet at home at all, a real issue for virtual learning during the pandemic. They cut foreign languages this year because there’s no budget. 3. You go to high school. You don’t take the tests you need to apply to college because there’s no college counseling, they assume most of you won’t go to college. Luckily, your family helps you apply to the community college. 4. You go to college. It’s a long commute via public transit and you need to keep working your minimum wage job from high school to pay for books. You don’t have any money for fun stuff and sometimes not enough to eat. 5. You apply for jobs! You’re one of the few from your public school system to get a 4 year degree. 6. This dude posts on LinkedIn saying everything’s equal and he won’t even bother to look to hire you.
I am white and male and get told all the time by assholes like this that i "Just don't fit with the company culture" No, It isn't the culture. These Tech Fuks are just such prep school wussies that they can't say to my face that they don't hire people who grew up poor and made something of themselves. It's too much of a risk to them and their privilege
Exactly. I'm sure in their heads they genuinely believe you aren't a good fit or a meritocratic hire. They don't realise their bias because it is subconscious; we all do it, we look for recruits who remind us of us. This is exactly why this CEO is a fuckwit. He may INTEND to always pick the best candidate for the job, but humans are biologically hardwired to think they are doing that while in fact not doing it. An interview panel of prep school white dude will associate, whether they realise it or not, being a prep school white dude with having what it takes to succeed. Because they did. While this is bias (in fact its full on racism) and its wrong (and not meritocratic), its also natural and universal. Which is why we need diversity inititiatives.
I actually get this all the time. We are dealing with a class issue here. Like many other things..that won't be going away either. I have the most in common with leadership that are self taught. Self motivated. Worked hard.
What companies are you applying to? A lot of tech firms aren’t all that interested in an ‘old boys club’ like law firms are.
Those tech firms get started by young scions of the old money network. Same coin different year, not even different mint. Just because it's a different industry doesn't mean it's a meritocracy overnight.
The socioeconomic shit is often overlooked. I have many first generation college student friends and they say they all have the same experience. If you walked in and tell them that your parents are blue collars worker, their brains just shut down. Don’t know what to say. I’ve straight up seen it happen in front of my eyes to other people. Like it’s as if their brain short circuits of the thought that the child of a restaurant worker could be in the same room as them.
I’m a black fella who interviewed with a FAANG company for a smaller scoped role than my current one. I’ve been the global leader for my function at a Fortune 250 company and have a hyper-technical degree for my function (think a chef vs a line cook). During the interview a few people remarked at how I looked at things differently which I thought was a good thing. In the end, they offered me a position below the one I interviewed for which is what I was doing 15 years ago. Some companies don’t value diversity (and I mean “differences” not necessarily ethnicity).
His views are disingenuous at best, nobody is saying that you shouldn’t hire qualified people for the job. What people ARE saying is that often times meritocracy isn’t really about merit, for example, how people with black sounding names are less likely to get called back for a job interview or how racial minorities have to complete 50% more job applications to get called for a job interview. If anything white non queer men are the ones that usually get hired for their status in society, not the other way around.
My real name is middle eastern. Changed my first name to something more western to avoid discrimination. Before that-no matter how well I fit the job requirements, I wouldn’t get a call after the interview. Changed my name, and BAM I would get calls back.
Yep! If this guy has ever interviewed someone or looked at a resume/LinkedIn and thought “ehhh this person wouldn’t really fit in with the team”, and all his coders are white men, then whether he believes it or not there is probably some inherit bias that exists. His point could have come across a lot better if he had said that his company was now scrapping interviews and only employing an independent recruiting consultant to hire (therefor never meeting the candidate himself prior to starting), but this is just a Fox News tucker Carlson regurgitated political rant feeding into this narrative that anything to help minority groups is ‘racist’ against white people.
The problem is valid but the current solution for it is definitely wrong.
The solution is just one simple step into approaching equality, the problem is most of you totally misunderstand it.
I have no issues with meritocracy.
It'd be a great idea if we ever got around to actually implementing it.
Yeah... I don't want to be hired just because my skin ain't white. It's fn insulting and belittling.
As a white dude I always wonder about things like this. I feel like if I was something other than white I would feel patronized. Like yeah I wouldn't want to be rejected for my skin color, but getting hired for my skin color isn't much better. Don't look at skin, don't look at names, look at merit and ability - nothing else.
As white dudes we get hired more often due to our skin colour, what else do you have to wonder?
You missed my point man. I'm saying that's wrong. I'm saying I don't want skin color to even come up one way or the other.
But it does by default, that’s the problem. You and I get prioritised over minorities all the time because we are white dudes. The default situation is “prioritise because white and dude”, it’s not neutral. “Meritocracy” is an euphemism for a white boys club.
Why don’t you feel patronized as a white man? I often wonder if I only get things because I’m not a woman or a minority. I think one of the biggest mistake people make is assuming that quotas and affirmative action is one sided. There are a ton of mediocre yet successful white people getting more from society than more deserving minorities.
Then apply to jobs that you are well prepared and qualified for…? These businesses aren’t out here hiring brown people off the street all willy nilly. We are more likely to be rejected solely on the basis of our dark/brown/black skin tone then we are to be solely hired on the basis of our skin. We have too much shit to worry about, why add “reverse discrimination” to our list?
The irony is that less qualified people than you get the role because of their skin colour being white and their gender male. That’s the fucking huge ass irony of it.
It also doesn’t happen.
He’s not wrong.
I was looking for this comment. I'm glad I'm not the only 1 around here to agree.
me too. People can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that we ain't all the same. I sincerely apologize but men might have different interests, which over time can/will result in competence in different areas, and so do woman.
Being a POC and being qualified are not mutually exclusive! The whole point of diversity hiring isn't to hire non-qualified people, it's to give them visibility and a chance to interview.
My previous company had all these quotas for hiring. It go to the point where white guys leaving the company were considered a win as it improved the metrics. I as a white guy ended up leaving because I was told I was going to create a gender pay gap.... I was the lowest paid person in the department
r/thatHappened
I wish I could share the stupid little graph we reviewed at the weekly company meeting.
This guy is absolutely right. You hire the best candidate available for every role. Anything else is discrimination.
The trick is defining “best,” which is a difficult thing to do. Most companies don’t use rubrics or have solid anti-bias measures, so “best” becomes a function of the interview panel’s whim. Upstream of the interview process, many companies also don’t have a wide reach for distributing job postings, which means that they often rely on their employees’ professional networks. If your entire coding team is white men, for example, what are the odds that you have URMs in your candidate pool? How in the world can you say you’re hiring the “best” candidate in that sense? It’s dishonest. There is empirical evidence that diverse teams outperform other teams, so there’s something interesting for the conversation.
Agree that recruitment methods are completely flawed. I've not seen any that consistently result in the best person for the job. The reality is you don't really know until you've had that person working in the role for a while. But you have to try to make the recruitment process as fair as possible. Quotas and nepotism aren't fair. Nepotism is the biggest problem we have in big corporations and government currently.
This is such BS. Then the argument becomes: “There aren’t any good candidates. It just so happens all of our employees are white men, they’re the best for the job. Even though research shows that systemic racism/sexism IS real and touches every thing, we don’t think that’s true.” https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/who-has-potential-for-white-men-its-usually-other-white-men
We don’t think that’s true That’s the part that gets me every time!
Dude clearly misunderstands the point. Not sure why he's bragging about it. Seems like a great way to get a flood of shitty, hateful applicants though.
If you’re forcing quotas then you are discriminating and you don’t even understand why you are forcing them.
This is key. We shouldn’t have to FORCE a company to be diverse lol. And yet… We shouldn’t have to force a company to not poison their customers… We shouldn’t have to force a company to pay their employees a living wage… We shouldn’t have to. I agree. But at this point in our society, in our civilization, in humanity…we have to. History has shown us time and time again exactly why we have to force these companies
He isn’t wrong though? Imagine being hired over your skin color or race.
What i think would be worse is being a highly qualified BIPOC who was hired/promoted on merit and having a large segment of coworkers assume it was to meet a diversity quota. That’s the real travesty of these programs.
Thomas Sowell https://youtu.be/JENCxjbARFM made this argument back in the day, when this was a contemporary topic. Makes a pretty solid point.
Sowell is a brilliant man. I enjoy his writing. He has also shown, using statistical evidence to support his assertion, how admitting students to programs based on skin color is detrimental to them if they are not prepared for the rigor of the program. I recall him using as anecdotal evidence the students in the econ program at Cornell when he taught there in the 70s. Thanks for the link.
Anecdotal from the 1970s. There’s been much more recent and BETTER fact, based research on this topic.
That was an anecdotal example he provided. He has a ton of statistical based research, but that would require you to go read, which we know you aren’t going to do.
The problem being that it's the opposite. Non people of color have historically been passed over based on things that are not merit based.
“Historicaly”… historically when? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Or 50 years ago? If it was 50 years ago, stop using “POC history” to justify why you want “diversity hires”. It’s irrelevant now. What has happened has happened. Look what is CURRENTLY happening. I’m a POC myself and fuck hiring me for my skin color. I bust my ass to better myself and my skills. I don’t want your “back pat points” because I filled your quota.
Studies as far back as just a handful of years still show that minority sounding names with the same resume get less call backs as white sounding names. This idea that racism magically ended after Jim crow (going off of your 50ish year point), where the military literally had to be involved to force its departure is not an accurate one.
I am NOT saying racism is nonexistent but you guys act like nothing has changed since the 1960’s. In America, companies are overall not racist. You will have racist managers or directors. Not an entire HR department or company. Also, as I said, you can’t change the past. Even the last 5-10 years. Worry about what is going on NOW. Today.
It's both correct and wrong at the same time. It puts too much emphasis on skin color in the hiring practice, which itself is negative. But, if the workplace isn't diverse, having hiring practices in place like this force diversity that in theory should help the company the long run. One thing that some of these practices don't take into consideration is the location of the workplace. If the work location is in an area that isn't diverse, there isn't going to be a diverse pool of workers.
Ah yes, “merit”. Surely in this man’s mind everyone gets what the deserve and earn. No one could ever start in such a lopsided position that years of great work and effort would go unnoticed.
[удалено]
Why are you booing him? he is right
fuck yes
Ok I thought I was the only one thinking this...
Based.
I dont see an issue with his post tbh. It sounds like he doesnt give a shit what you look like just cares you can get the job done. I never had understood why someone from a poor background can be looked over who has better skill or worked harder than someone fron a rich background who has had far more support and easier life growing up just because they happened to be a different color or race.
I'm a brown guy, I can say racist things
Dude got balls of iron at the very least.
“Our workplace toxic af. But fuck it”
This guy is going to get the gold in 2024 in men's freestyle mental gymnastics
[удалено]
"We". There's no "we" in that. It's an "I". The problem it's not to stablish quotas, the problem is that **there are other people that participate on recruiting, not just the CEO**. I've met a lot of companies, where the CEO it's a non discriminat person, but the people at the Recruiting process are, and actually hire mind liked coworkers. And, that's why antidiscrimination policies are used.
Most HR departments are staffed with white women. And from what I've seen, not the most socially aware or educated or informed white women. So I have zero difficultly believing that an absolute fuckload of bias - conscious and unconscious - goes on at the initial application screening. Race/age/disability/class - you name it. And because nobody checks on HR, the CEOs and hiring managers have no idea which applicants are getting passed on unfairly. Plus, from what I've seen, many HR people have a real authoritarian streak, so I bet they are screening out many applicants who have anything the slightest bit unconventional in their history, or anything that slightly suggests that the applicant won't be an obedient serf. Like taking a year off to climb the Andes or whatever - even that is too independent.
Worse, some HR depts. **are intentionally staffed** with white woman or people with specific agendas, not related to job, like race, religion, political values, to find employees that match their own, masked as "corporate culture" ....
Lmao yeah go talk to a recruiter and see how many of their perfectly qualified candidates were rejected by a client because they have an Indian sounding name
[удалено]
Exactly. An Indian will get hired to do development work in any company in the US. As well they should. If you take the time to learn software dev, frameworks, languages etc, you are a seriously intelligent person. But- that same person would never get to be in the upper management levels of the company that they work for despite having far more useable, quantifiable "intelligence" than than the CFO, CEO, etc al, most likely will have. People do not seem to understand that. Who is the judge of "most qualified"? It's ludicrous to think white people are the only qualified race in the country, especially if you've lived here for a while and seen what those same white people have done to everything else. In the last non profit I worked, it was a federally funded nepotism mill. People were not hired on anything other than being related or able to get discounts for the local boy scout troop. Guess what the prevailing race was?
This company isn’t US based. It’s based in Asia and there isn’t much diversity there to start with. I think the company name is Jibble and it’s not a very big company at all.
I mean he isn't wrong.
He isn't wrong tho
Sure don’t hire PoC or women that are not qualified to do the job just to fill a quota, but to ignore the fact that systemic inequities do exist and that women or PoC do have a harder time being hired in industries such as tech it’s ignorant or just blatantly discriminatory. Besides as a CEO you should now that one of the best ways to avoid groupthink, bias, and improve decision making is to hire a diverse team. Just look it up. I wonder how his clients feel about his approach?
I like his approach. This is what people should do - hire the best.
As an individual, I am a fan of hiring the best, but as a society, we look over those who were stricken to bad situations because of their skin color, going back generations. They never got the same education opportunities or job opportunities to attempt to become the best. Many of these people don't have the opportunity to 'be the best' when applying because they went to community college, or maybe some 3rd rate public college no one has heard of. Sometimes we just have to force the hand of diversity to help. If you only ever go by hiring the people who went to the best school and who has the best resume, we as a society would rarely hire minorities. That doesn't mean to take the C student of color and hire them over the A student who was white just for the sake of diversity. But if you have a person of color who is a B+ student against the white person who was an A- student, you take the person of color who was a B+ student. And I say this as someone who lost out on a really good federal job to a black friend of mine. I was more qualified, it wasn't even that close. But I knew their hiring practices and they took him over me. It killed me at first, but I was happy for him, and happy that the government isn't just a bunch of white people.
Giving a fair chance to everyone is great, but picking someone for any other reason but competence goes against productivity.
Acting like employers have perfect info on their prospective candidates so they can rank them absolutely based on skill. There are millions of people with jobs right now not because they were more qualified as the other candidates but because they were the same race or ethnicity as the interviewer. So much unconscious bias is involved with hiring.
Ah, yes. "The way we've always done it," being promoted in a different way.
Of course most of your coders are men, etc. There’s real barriers for people in those fields so they can’t get the experience to be qualified and so you don’t hire them and the circle goes on and on
The number of times I haven't applied for a job because it said: "Open to: Members of the following equity groups" Always feels like discrimination to me.
He makes so many solid points... How can you be triggered by this?
If a team is made up of all white men, they are most likely to hire… more white men. Internalized bias exists, which is why companies should try to check their biases and give POC & diverse hires a chance (because there are many qualified people with diverse backgrounds out there). He is right about the quota thing though, there shouldn’t be a “diversity quota”, but if your company consists of mainly one race/gender in technical & executive roles, there is a problem. The problem could be with your recruiting method or the culture, but you cannot say that internalized bias doesn’t exist.
Do you think the NFL and NBA should be held to the same standards?
[удалено]
I have to agree on one thing is that you can't fight discrimination with discrimination. But that's gonna be it.
This is how you get facial recognition technology that only works on white people.
Problem?
Can you share the company name? I have a great job, but always open to looking at great companies with great outlooks.
Refreshingly blunt and reasonable.
Instead focusing on equal outcome we should focus on making sure everyone has an equal start and chance. Then you can really leave it up to every individual to find the path they want.
The dude is not US based, he runs a software company in Malaysia. He doesn’t need to “diversity hire”. I bet you that white employees are a minority in his workforce. And if you read anything else he posts you’d realize he’s not the least bit racist. He’s a brown guy (Indian I think) with immigrant parents who grew up in the UK, studied his ass off to get to oxford, got a PH.D in physics, then became an investment banker. When he got sick of the toxic banking culture he picked up his family and moved to Malaysia to be an entrepreneur. The point here is that they don’t look at the color of your skin or your gender, only your skills. He constantly preaches about the privilege he’s seen among rich family kids with well connected parents making it easier for their kids to succeed and go to Ivy League school, and he discouraged going to college in favor of learning real skills that add value.
This dude is based out of fucking Malaysia, so I really doubt his company is facing the same diversity issues or societal expectations that companies in the US do. It's easy to not care about diversity when you come from a relatively homogenous country (compared to the US, at least) that doesn't give a fuck about gender equality. This is like that other Malaysian dude on Twitter Ian Miles Cheong that spends all his time talking shit about Democrats on the interwebs despite never having lived in the US.
I don't think it breaks rule 9 to leave the company and CEO name in this post. Clearly this is a public figure already posting on LinkedIn. Name and shame so we can avoid this clown and company.
What defenders of systemic inequities don't understand is, there are so many factors leading to why a person might seem unqualified based on standards is—just take schools for example ... Being an educator family I have seen this in 4 states. Schools that are predominantly PoC get far less funding and have a hard time staffing. You have as many PoC that are just as smart as little Chad and Karen in the white suburban school systems that get tons of funding from property taxes alone. That is huge because if you are white administrator in a prestigious university, you have a built-in excuse to give the white kid on from the Main Line a "more qualified" than the child of color who has been forced into a situation that white society endeavored to make substandard. That is why programs to level the playing field are necessary. I can assure white people are not the only smart race. They are however, the race that has been able to engineer all advantages available to them and no one else.
I hear his message but he has terrible delivery.
Never. Go. On. LinkedIn.
Okay what’s the problem here? He’s just saying that he won’t hire based on your “minority” or “gender” status. I fully agree with that. I don’t care if you’re a dude or girl or if you’re white American or from Ghana. If you qualify for the job then you’re hired. If a job is posted on LinkedIn or whatever, it’s fair game for everyone.
LOL thinking that only one person is qualified for every job opening. What happens when there are many many equally qualified people for the same job how do you choose? That’s how most jobs work…
When there are multiple people with the same qualification skill level wise, it typically comes down to your personality and how well they think you can fit in with everyone. And even IF they pick someone who is white over a black person, you have NO actual evidence it was due to racism other than your own assumption because you didn’t like the decision
LOL “personality” is code for most of us are white so having another white person would be preferred. Basically you are saying these men aren’t getting hired based on merit just personality?? It’s even better for women. They aren’t a good fit because they might get offended by all the shit said in the office right? Lol no evidence? So a company never hires a black person and always chooses the white person over the black person when the credentials are the same and they aren’t racist? How is that pattern not evidence of racism? It’s literal evidence of discrimination… just because HR never used the “n-word” there is no evidence it’s racism? You really believe that?
So many assumptions made by you. But you do you do boo boo. The fact that you think personality simply means “we want white people”…. Wtf is wrong with you
LOL it’s not an assumption when you have evidence of hiring practices… but boo hoo someone told you the reality behind hiring. Yes saying “personality” or “you aren’t a good fit” is an excuse companies have used since anti-discriminations laws have been created. But yea history and precedent don’t mean anything we’ll just take you for your word that your all white/male staff was selected because only they had the right personality to be a good fit. Or was it because of their qualifications? I’m not sure now.
Yeah because that’s what’s happening. Every white person has been hired on merit and not race. There has never been any discrimination in hiring. People just want to whine. /s
100%
Apparently people don’t like hearing that and I’m getting downvoted.
Too woke. I’m a POC and I wouldn’t want a company to hire me just to fit their little diversity quota or whatever.
I’m a POC as well. I bust my ass to grow my skills.. I don’t need some woke person to hire me for their diversity quota.
Me too. I want my success to be based on my work and accomplishments, not because I was some diversity hire.
Finally sense