Bay Area: Join us next week, 8/17, to talk about diversity (or lack thereof) in tech

Slack engineering director Leslie Miley will talk about problems with diversity in Silicon Valley.

Read the whole story

 

[Einstein76]

itdraugr[/url]":3dd0fe0s]Yeah, this comment thread is going to be a garbage fire. For some reason a certain subset of people really get their wookie in a tangle when others have the temerity to suggest that diversity is a good thing.

May I suggest shaving the wookie and avoiding the tangle?

 

[Einstein76]

TurboPower[/url]":lfln0znk]

SteveJobz[/url]":lfln0znk]

bigstrat2003[/url]":lfln0znk]On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

I can't see how a claim that "minorities are discriminated against in hiring" can hold up when Asians make up a disproportionate number of tech workers. How could this happen when the evil white man is purposely not hiring minorities? Therefore, logic would dictate that the most qualified candidates ARE actually being hired.

RAAAAAACIIIIISSSTTTTTTTT!

He's certainly a troll, he may or may not be a racist.

Edit: Wow! Did Stevejobz register 5 extra accounts or am I really getting that many downvotes for calling out someone who is obviously a troll?

 

[Einstein76]

SteveJobz[/url]":3vmaof9p]

Einstein76[/url]":3vmaof9p]

TurboPower[/url]":3vmaof9p]

SteveJobz[/url]":3vmaof9p]

bigstrat2003[/url]":3vmaof9p]On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

I can't see how a claim that "minorities are discriminated against in hiring" can hold up when Asians make up a disproportionate number of tech workers. How could this happen when the evil white man is purposely not hiring minorities? Therefore, logic would dictate that the most qualified candidates ARE actually being hired.

RAAAAAACIIIIISSSTTTTTTTT!

He's certainly a troll, he may or may not be a racist.

Well at least we know without a shadow of a doubt that you're a SJW stalker. Now, please stop following me.

Me a SJW that's funny. As for following you I was a registered user here long before you crawled out from under your bridge.

 

[Einstein76]

Ser Dood[/url]":2ihawqpf]

Einstein76[/url]":2ihawqpf]

TurboPower[/url]":2ihawqpf]

SteveJobz[/url]":2ihawqpf]

bigstrat2003[/url]":2ihawqpf]On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

I can't see how a claim that "minorities are discriminated against in hiring" can hold up when Asians make up a disproportionate number of tech workers. How could this happen when the evil white man is purposely not hiring minorities? Therefore, logic would dictate that the most qualified candidates ARE actually being hired.

RAAAAAACIIIIISSSTTTTTTTT!

He's certainly a troll, he may or may not be a racist.

Edit: Wow! Did Stevejobz register 5 extra accounts or am I really getting that many downvotes for calling out someone who is obviously a troll?

I am going to go with more people agree with him than you. Stop sniffing your own farts, they don't smell good.

He has a history of trolling the comments. That said his posts in this thread seem well thought out and I apologize for calling him a troll when he doesn't appear to be trolling this article.

You on the other hand are welcome to fuck right off.

 

[Einstein76]

SteveJobz[/url]":10ml7vug]

Ser Dood[/url]":10ml7vug]

Einstein76[/url]":10ml7vug]

TurboPower[/url]":10ml7vug]

SteveJobz[/url]":10ml7vug]

bigstrat2003[/url]":10ml7vug]On further reflection, I wonder if perhaps the whole controversy on this topic stems from unspoken, but not shared, assumptions on both sides. If you believe that companies (at least most of the time) hire the most qualified applicant, then you are going to look at the resulting employee demographics and conclude a) that the qualified applicant demographics probably look pretty similar, and b) that you can't change the employee demographics without either changing the qualified applicant demographics or relaxing hiring standards. In that case, you're going to see any attempt to increase diversity that targets companies (rather than trying to increase diversity in the candidate pool) as amounting to "companies need to hire on the basis of race, even if they're less qualified".

On the other hand, if you believe that companies are not hiring the most qualified applicant most of the time (due to some form of unconscious prejudice or just outright bigotry), then you have good reason to suspect that the pool of qualified applicants has minorities who aren't being hired. Or if you believe that the pool of qualified applicants is of roughly similar makeup as the population as a whole, seeing the employee demographics not match up gives you good reason to suspect that employers are biased in their hiring (whether consciously or unconsciously). In both of these cases, since you suspect employers aren't currently hiring the most qualified person, diversity initiatives are going to all pretty much amount to attempts to get companies to start hiring the most qualified person (e.g. trying to get rid of unconscious biases that might influence hiring decisions).

But it seems like on either side, there is an unspoken assumption about whether or not companies are currently hiring the best candidates. And because it's unspoken, it means that people will interpret "more diversity in hiring" as "ignore qualifications to hire more minorities", when really it is probably meant as "start hiring purely on qualifications and eliminate current biases".

I can't see how a claim that "minorities are discriminated against in hiring" can hold up when Asians make up a disproportionate number of tech workers. How could this happen when the evil white man is purposely not hiring minorities? Therefore, logic would dictate that the most qualified candidates ARE actually being hired.

RAAAAAACIIIIISSSTTTTTTTT!

He's certainly a troll, he may or may not be a racist.

Edit: Wow! Did Stevejobz register 5 extra accounts or am I really getting that many downvotes for calling out someone who is obviously a troll?

I am going to go with more people agree with him than you. Stop sniffing your own farts, they don't smell good.

This one's for you Einstein:

Wow guess maybe I should rescind my previous apology.

This is a perfect example of why I label you a troll.