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

 

[Baeocystin]

.劉煒[/url]":1v6tta7w]Are Asians overrepresented in Tech?

In terms of Asian-Americans, I'd say significantly underrepresented. It was very clear to me, even back in the early 90's, that my Asian friends had a more difficult time getting in to the UC system than, well, anybody else. We all had similar GPAs, extra-curricular activities, and the like, and yet I got in to every university I applied to. They did not.

Regarding the current 'over-representation' of Asians in the job market: That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with cheap H-1B labor. The fact that the visas are tied to the sponsoring company is obscene, and removes any leverage an H-1B worker has in negotiating for better pay, working conditions, etc. which leads to an industry-wide salary depression. Now *that* is something that needs to be addressed. It affects literally everyone.

 

[bigstrat2003]

SteveJobz[/url]":11gwvjug]

bigstrat2003[/url]":11gwvjug]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.

Well, I very deliberately did not say that either position is correct cause I didn't want to open that can of worms. I was just saying that this seems to be what is underlying people's thought processes here, and might explain why there is so much controversy.

 

[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?

 

[SteveJobz]

Einstein76[/url]":qlgoppxc]

TurboPower[/url]":qlgoppxc]

SteveJobz[/url]":qlgoppxc]

bigstrat2003[/url]":qlgoppxc]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.

 

[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.

 

[.劉煒]

Baeocystin[/url]":2knsf1mu]

.劉煒[/url]":2knsf1mu]Are Asians overrepresented in Tech?

In terms of Asian-Americans, I'd say significantly underrepresented. It was very clear to me, even back in the early 90's, that my Asian friends had a more difficult time getting in to the UC system than, well, anybody else. We all had similar GPAs, extra-curricular activities, and the like, and yet I got in to every university I applied to. They did not.

Regarding the current 'over-representation' of Asians in the job market: That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with cheap H-1B labor. The fact that the visas are tied to the sponsoring company is obscene, and removes any leverage an H-1B worker has in negotiating for better pay, working conditions, etc. which leads to an industry-wide salary depression. Now *that* is something that needs to be addressed. It effects literally everyone.

That may have had something to do with how we were 'over represented' at the time (and now), and so last to be picked based on all other factors being equivalent.

And even with that, we're still 40% or so of the UC system...

 

[mike_syn]

.劉煒[/url]":2kl363pw]
That may have had something to do with how we were 'over represented' at the time (and now), and so last to be picked based on all other factors being equivalent.

And even with that, we're still 40% or so of the UC system...

"Asians", yes, "Asian-Americans", not so much.

There are a lot of international students from Asian countries who think that an American University degree is very desirable, and they tend to pay full price at out-of-state rates.

 

[theramenman]

SteveJobz[/url]":b5njct0c]

logic_88[/url]":b5njct0c]

theramenman[/url]":b5njct0c]

tayhimself[/url]":b5njct0c]Great, please stop discriminating against Asians since there is actual data to back this up. Once we have data to back up discrimination against $ethnicity then we can take action.

Affirmative action in schools is discriminating against Asian students.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... ining-ever

LOL you thing they give a shit about Asian's? We're the one minority that its okay to make fun of, okay to exclude, okay to pretend like we don't count as a minority because we typically do better than others given the same resources. Good luck trying to convince anyone that putting Asians down to artificially give other minorities a slight boost is unfair. By the down-vote's on your comment despite linking an objective, data rich article, you can already tell how much these so called egalitarian people care about Asians.

That's a big problem with the diversity push. It's a zero-sum game. If you increase representation for one ethnic group, who are you going to take it away from? The assumption is that it's going to be Asians since they don't have the power base to defend.

Yeah, Asians get absolutely screwed with the whole diversity nonsense. I actually can't believe that they're not making a shit storm of epic proportions about that. It's a classic case of a group being collectively punished for GOOD behavior. Oh, you sacrificed and studied hard? Too bad, we already have too may of your kind and better luck next time! Now, THAT is racist as fuck.

Its a two prong problem:
1. Its highly looked down upon in almost every Asian culture to bring attention to yourself, whether that's east Asia or south Asia and everything in between.
2. Asian American's in the US are taught from a very young age that the struggles of Hispanic and African Americans are ours to share and that speaking out against being put down in their favor is racist.

If you're an Asian, you will receive no sympathy from any group. We have learned to be self sufficient because no one else will help us. The federal government doesn't care and neither do sate government or private school entities. I remember in University how my high income friends from Hispanic and Afro-american families were getting thousands of dollars in race based scholarships from companies and the government, getting free paid retreats to resorts in Upstate NY paid for by CSTEP (a government funded program) and getting hundreds of dollars in cash from random programs at every CSTEP meeting while poor Asians had to work 3 jobs to afford food. This was years ago and now that my cousins are old enough to be attending university, I hear nothing different from them. But you wont find anyone in the media or the government being mad about it.

 

[icwhatudidthere]

mike_syn[/url]":1rjnx1t6]

.劉煒[/url]":1rjnx1t6]
That may have had something to do with how we were 'over represented' at the time (and now), and so last to be picked based on all other factors being equivalent.

And even with that, we're still 40% or so of the UC system...

"Asians", yes, "Asian-Americans", not so much.

There are a lot of international students from Asian countries who think that an American University degree is very desirable, and they tend to pay full price at out-of-state rates.

Enough to account for 40%? Not to mention a UC system school allowing 40% foreigners?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/u ... ns-policy/

40% Asian-Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School

Stuyvesant High School, NYC. 73% Asian.

 

[theramenman]

icwhatudidthere[/url]":31nz5mqy]

mike_syn[/url]":31nz5mqy]

.劉煒[/url]":31nz5mqy]
That may have had something to do with how we were 'over represented' at the time (and now), and so last to be picked based on all other factors being equivalent.

And even with that, we're still 40% or so of the UC system...

"Asians", yes, "Asian-Americans", not so much.

There are a lot of international students from Asian countries who think that an American University degree is very desirable, and they tend to pay full price at out-of-state rates.

Enough to account for 40%? Not to mention a UC system school allowing 40% foreigners?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/u ... ns-policy/

40% Asian-Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School

Stuyvesant High School, NYC. 73% Asian.

Ah, my old high school. And look what our moronic current mayor tried to do:
Get rid of a balanced and fair entrance exam because too many poor, first and 2nd generation Asian immigrants were getting in and replace it with some touchy feely handwavy standards in and attempt to get more Hispanic and African American students in. Apparently Asians from families that fall far below the poverty line don't count as minority OR disadvantaged.

 

[icwhatudidthere]

theramenman[/url]":mqtpex2i]

Its a two prong problem:
1. Its highly looked down upon in almost every Asian culture to bring attention to yourself, whether that's east Asia or south Asia and everything in between.
2. Asian American's in the US are taught from a very young age that the struggles of Hispanic and African Americans are ours to share and that speaking out against being put down in their favor is racist.

If you're an Asian, you will receive no sympathy from any group. We have learned to be self sufficient because no one else will help us. The federal government doesn't care and neither do sate government or private school entities. I remember in University how my high income friends from Hispanic and Afro-american families were getting thousands of dollars in race based scholarships from companies and the government, getting free paid retreats to resorts in Upstate NY paid for by CSTEP (a government funded program) and getting hundreds of dollars in cash from random programs at every CSTEP meeting while poor Asians had to work 3 jobs to afford food. This was years ago and now that my cousins are old enough to be attending university, I hear nothing different from them. But you wont find anyone in the media or the government being mad about it.

This was largely my experience as well (except for #2 above). I was born in the US but I've experienced racism from both sides. And I hear it now from older Asian coworkers who have kids entering college. It's definitely a huge concern when you have kids who excel compared to their peers but still don't bother applying to top schools like Ivy's because they think it's a waste of time.

I mentioned Stuyvesant because I had some cousins who went to school there. They came to the US in the 80s, lived, not in poverty, but meagerly with some family in Queens, did well and tested in. That kind of is the American dream right there.

 

[UpNorth2]

- To the best of my knowledge I have not seen any recent work on the effect of diversity on firm profitability or performance. There are recent non-technical studies but the empirics are far from convincing. Earlier work suggest that correlation is weak at best in either direction, but those were conducted before the likes of Google and Facebook existed.

Research is still ongoing and seems to suggest there is a correlation between diversity in an organization and it's preformance: see http://www.uu.nl/staff/WSJansen/0#tabPublicaties for a starting point.

 

[JustQuestions]

This is such a misguided topic.

You can't fix this issue by changing hiring practices. This problem is so far removed from the discussion at hand.

The problem starts with many minority groups receiving a much lower quality of education beginning as young as age 5. Then throw in a less healthy diet, a much worse home life on average, a much poorer neighborhood and community in general, and too many other things to list really.

Even with the matter of women, culturally our society trains young girls to be interested in "girl" things" and trains boys to be interested in "boy things." Right now, fiddling with gadgets and programming computers is on the "boy things" side of the fence.

There's no "top down" fix to these issues. There just isn't enough women and minorities in software/tech to go around. They just don't exist at this moment in time.

If you want more of them they have to be cultivated into existence starting at a young age.

This is a 50+ year battle that needs to be waged. You can't just modify a few hiring practices and make a few speeches and expect to make any measurable impact.

Making a difference can be done even on an individual level. There are mentor programs everywhere. If you want to help, join one. There are smart kids everywhere of every race, gender, and background, at nearly every age. The parents almost always just don't have the resources to propel their children in the tech direction.

If you want to act like you're making a difference don't just talk. Go help a 9 year old kid write their first computer program, and be there to support them when they come to you in tears after a hard day of being bullied for being a "nerd."

 

[JustQuestions]

theramenman[/url]":3ms6abdq]

icwhatudidthere[/url]":3ms6abdq]

mike_syn[/url]":3ms6abdq]

.劉煒[/url]":3ms6abdq]
That may have had something to do with how we were 'over represented' at the time (and now), and so last to be picked based on all other factors being equivalent.

And even with that, we're still 40% or so of the UC system...

"Asians", yes, "Asian-Americans", not so much.

There are a lot of international students from Asian countries who think that an American University degree is very desirable, and they tend to pay full price at out-of-state rates.

Enough to account for 40%? Not to mention a UC system school allowing 40% foreigners?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30393117/ns/u ... ns-policy/

40% Asian-Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School

Stuyvesant High School, NYC. 73% Asian.

Ah, my old high school. And look what our moronic current mayor tried to do:
Get rid of a balanced and fair entrance exam because too many poor, first and 2nd generation Asian immigrants were getting in and replace it with some touchy feely handwavy standards in and attempt to get more Hispanic and African American students in. Apparently Asians from families that fall far below the poverty line don't count as minority OR disadvantaged.

Happens to poor white families as well. Every heard the expression "white trash?"

It's an incredibly racist term and yet our society tolerates it. Louis CK has a pretty hilarious skit where he talks about how tolerant we are as a society of this kind of racism.

One of the most disgusting aspects of this topic of diversity is the sickening debates about which gender or race has it "the worst," as we completely remove the individual element and the nuance of the situation, and try to summarize societal complexity with a few statistical factoids.

A positive approach is to just focus on making whatever positive difference you can to people who are in disadvantaged situations, regardless of their race or gender. There's plenty of disadvantaged people out there who could use a hand, of every race and gender.

I personally take a much broader view of "diversity" than your racial background and gender.

 

[boondox]

think_inside_the_box[/url]":1bpzg575]If one agrees race should not matter, does that also imply racial diversity should also not matter?

In theory, yes. In that world, one's race wouldn't matter and one would be judged by other criteria such as talent, skill and merit.

However, that's not what happens in reality, especially when one considers the societal impact that Jim Crow and apartheid had on people of colour, for example.

 

[JohnBrooks]

Those pushing for "diversity" (which should *never* be a qualifier for a position) are themselves racist and bigoted against groups they think have an unfair advantage (they hate Whites and Asians for example).

 

[boondox]

I'm hijacking Dilbert's post to add some <spoilers>. Gimme a sec...

Dilbert[/url]":3lgp7xrj]
Sorry to hijack this. Or maybe it is not a hijack. It is tangentially relevant.

Don't really care who my coworkers in tech are or where they came from or if they are green or purple. As long as they are bright, can reason themselves out of problems, have analytical minds, problem solving skills, know how to find the information they need, remember that information when a similar problem occurs again.

You need to be smart to work in tech. That's often all it takes.

We can train you to do the job as long as you are smart.

Spoiler

No one wants to talk about this. Intelligence is largely determined by genes and not which fancy school one went to.

Some people were born to flip burgers.

Spoiler

Some people were born to develop software.

Spoiler

Not everyone can work in tech.

...a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[boondox]

JustQuestions[/url]":gdbt7ci6]This is such a misguided topic.

You can't fix this issue by changing hiring practices. This problem is so far removed from the discussion at hand.

The problem starts with many minority groups receiving a much lower quality of education beginning as young as age 5. Then throw in a less healthy diet, a much worse home life on average, a much poorer neighborhood and community in general, and too many other things to list really.

Even with the matter of women, culturally our society trains young girls to be interested in "girl" things" and trains boys to be interested in "boy things." Right now, fiddling with gadgets and programming computers is on the "boy things" side of the fence.

There's no "top down" fix to these issues. There just isn't enough women and minorities in software/tech to go around. They just don't exist at this moment in time.

If you want more of them they have to be cultivated into existence starting at a young age.

This is a 50+ year battle that needs to be waged. You can't just modify a few hiring practices and make a few speeches and expect to make any measurable impact.

Making a difference can be done even on an individual level. There are mentor programs everywhere. If you want to help, join one. There are smart kids everywhere of every race, gender, and background, at nearly every age. The parents almost always just don't have the resources to propel their children in the tech direction.

If you want to act like you're making a difference don't just talk. Go help a 9 year old kid write their first computer program, and be there to support them when they come to you in tears after a hard day of being bullied for being a "nerd."

 

[SteveJobz]

JustQuestions[/url]":3sdf2ciz]This is such a misguided topic.

You can't fix this issue by changing hiring practices. This problem is so far removed from the discussion at hand.

The problem starts with many minority groups receiving a much lower quality of education beginning as young as age 5. Then throw in a less healthy diet, a much worse home life on average, a much poorer neighborhood and community in general, and too many other things to list really.

Even with the matter of women, culturally our society trains young girls to be interested in "girl" things" and trains boys to be interested in "boy things." Right now, fiddling with gadgets and programming computers is on the "boy things" side of the fence.

There's no "top down" fix to these issues. There just isn't enough women and minorities in software/tech to go around. They just don't exist at this moment in time.

If you want more of them they have to be cultivated into existence starting at a young age.

This is a 50+ year battle that needs to be waged. You can't just modify a few hiring practices and make a few speeches and expect to make any measurable impact.

Making a difference can be done even on an individual level. There are mentor programs everywhere. If you want to help, join one. There are smart kids everywhere of every race, gender, and background, at nearly every age. The parents almost always just don't have the resources to propel their children in the tech direction.

If you want to act like you're making a difference don't just talk. Go help a 9 year old kid write their first computer program, and be there to support them when they come to you in tears after a hard day of being bullied for being a "nerd."

Great post! Getting more blacks and hispanics into the tech workforce is a long term project and screaming "RACIST!" and demanding that more black and brown people are hired by next quarter is stupid, counter-productive and ultimately a waste of time.

While there are socioeconomic and cultural factors at play the argument that tech companies hate minorities simply doesn't hold up. Perhaps, instead of constantly playing the victim card, we should look at "successful" minorities like Asians, Indians and African(!!!) immigrants, who make 30% more on average than US born blacks, to figure out why they are able to overcome the "institutional racism" imposed by the evil white man? Could it possibly be that these cultures place high importance on education and demand results instead of an endless stream of excuses for failure?

 

[mad_magician]

JustQuestions[/url]":34um66ii]This is such a misguided topic.

You can't fix this issue by changing hiring practices. This problem is so far removed from the discussion at hand.

The problem starts with many minority groups receiving a much lower quality of education beginning as young as age 5. Then throw in a less healthy diet, a much worse home life on average, a much poorer neighborhood and community in general, and too many other things to list really.

Even with the matter of women, culturally our society trains young girls to be interested in "girl" things" and trains boys to be interested in "boy things." Right now, fiddling with gadgets and programming computers is on the "boy things" side of the fence.

There's no "top down" fix to these issues. There just isn't enough women and minorities in software/tech to go around. They just don't exist at this moment in time.

If you want more of them they have to be cultivated into existence starting at a young age.

This is a 50+ year battle that needs to be waged. You can't just modify a few hiring practices and make a few speeches and expect to make any measurable impact.

Making a difference can be done even on an individual level. There are mentor programs everywhere. If you want to help, join one. There are smart kids everywhere of every race, gender, and background, at nearly every age. The parents almost always just don't have the resources to propel their children in the tech direction.

If you want to act like you're making a difference don't just talk. Go help a 9 year old kid write their first computer program, and be there to support them when they come to you in tears after a hard day of being bullied for being a "nerd."

This hit the nail on the head in a way I rarely see people talk about. I went to GA tech in the early 90s, but have had an interest in computers since my family got our first TI-99. I was a geek, a nerd, a anime geek, wuss, etc etc etc. My tech aptitudes were diminished and despised, I was ridiculed in elementary school when teachers would pull me out of class to help fix the Apple IIs, etc etc etc. Being into computers, science, technology, etc was simply not "cool".

When I went to GA tech, the jokes (from the party school attendees both male and female) were all about "the stadium replaced its grass with astroturf, where will the GA tech cheerleaders graze" and so on and so forth. STEM was not "cool".

This is why there is so little diversity in tech today, even 25 years later. Society can piss and moan about it all they want; but for decades, you have told kids that these topics weren't cool, that sports > academics, that only ugly girls go into Engineering Schools.

This problem is going to take a few more generations to iron out, and you simply cannot hire your way out of it.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

mad_magician[/url]":14yud6mg]

JustQuestions[/url]":14yud6mg]This is such a misguided topic.

You can't fix this issue by changing hiring practices. This problem is so far removed from the discussion at hand.

The problem starts with many minority groups receiving a much lower quality of education beginning as young as age 5. Then throw in a less healthy diet, a much worse home life on average, a much poorer neighborhood and community in general, and too many other things to list really.

Even with the matter of women, culturally our society trains young girls to be interested in "girl" things" and trains boys to be interested in "boy things." Right now, fiddling with gadgets and programming computers is on the "boy things" side of the fence.

There's no "top down" fix to these issues. There just isn't enough women and minorities in software/tech to go around. They just don't exist at this moment in time.

If you want more of them they have to be cultivated into existence starting at a young age.

This is a 50+ year battle that needs to be waged. You can't just modify a few hiring practices and make a few speeches and expect to make any measurable impact.

Making a difference can be done even on an individual level. There are mentor programs everywhere. If you want to help, join one. There are smart kids everywhere of every race, gender, and background, at nearly every age. The parents almost always just don't have the resources to propel their children in the tech direction.

If you want to act like you're making a difference don't just talk. Go help a 9 year old kid write their first computer program, and be there to support them when they come to you in tears after a hard day of being bullied for being a "nerd."

This hit the nail on the head in a way I rarely see people talk about. I went to GA tech in the early 90s, but have had an interest in computers since my family got our first TI-99. I was a geek, a nerd, a anime geek, wuss, etc etc etc. My tech aptitudes were diminished and despised, I was ridiculed in elementary school when teachers would pull me out of class to help fix the Apple IIs, etc etc etc. Being into computers, science, technology, etc was simply not "cool".

When I went to GA tech, the jokes (from the party school attendees both male and female) were all about "the stadium replaced its grass with astroturf, where will the GA tech cheerleaders graze" and so on and so forth. STEM was not "cool".

This is why there is so little diversity in tech today, even 25 years later. Society can piss and moan about it all they want; but for decades, you have told kids that these topics weren't cool, that sports > academics, that only ugly girls go into Engineering Schools.

This problem is going to take a few more generations to iron out, and you simply cannot hire your way out of it.

Boat them in from countries that didn't treat their children that way.

 

[ApplePaladin]

ZhanMing057[/url]":15600jh2]

itdraugr[/url]":15600jh2]

ZhanMing057[/url]":15600jh2]

itdraugr[/url]":15600jh2]

Dilbert[/url]":15600jh2]Sorry to hijack this. Or maybe it is not a hijack. It is tangentially relevant.

Don't really care who my coworkers in tech are or where they came from or if they are green or purple. As long as they are bright, can reason themselves out of problems, have analytical minds, problem solving skills, know how to find the information they need, remember that information when a similar problem occurs again.

You need to be smart to work in tech. That's often all it takes. We can train you to do the job as long as you are smart. No one wants to talk about this. Intelligence is largely determined by genes and not which fancy school one went to.

Some people were born to flip burgers. Some people were born to develop software. Not everyone can work in tech.

A university press release is not a peer-reviewed journal. Try to find some peer-reviewed literature to support your claim that intelligence is largely determined by genetics. A university press release that was celebrated in a post on stormfront seven years ago isn't a quality source.

There are actually quite a few studies that show that intelligence has a large hereditary component. The citations in this Wikipedia page summarizes things up nicely.

There are also numerous publications on racial differences in intelligence. Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist and don't know much about psych journals. But these are impressively cited and I do know that American Psychologist is the official APA journal and very well-regarded.

There's a difference between saying that there is some hereditary component to intelligence and claiming, as Dilbert did, that intelligence is "largely" determined by genes. Economics, nutrition, family history, experiences, and a bevy of other non-genetic factors also affect intelligence.

There's also the fact that when people talk about intelligence being heritable they often use that as a subtle way of comparing intelligence between genders or ethnic groups and saying-without-saying that this excuses social structures that favor men and whites. This is problematic because the ongoing flow of research consistently shows that genetic variability is greater within what we think of as racial groups as opposed to between what we think of as racial groups.

Are you suggesting that something shouldn't even be open to discussion simply because there is potential for the discussion to be abused? I'm sorry but I think that's a terrible way to approach social issues.

The fiscal gap makes people uncomfortable. The fact that Social Security will almost certainly break in the not-distant future makes people uncomfortable. There is potential for abuse in these discussions and having the discussion might not help, but we certainly won't fix these issues by not talking about them.

And my one biggest criticism of modern liberalism is that it wants to reject these discussions in favor of feel-good talk about morality, justice and diversity. Even if you strong-arm companies into hiring more of the "right" minorities, you're only pushing the problem further down the road. That's not helping.

That's not what I suggested at all. That's a really dishonest attempt at derailing the conversation by presenting a completely unrelated idea and going off on a diatribe about something no one here has said or done.

You're concentrating on the imaginary spectre of liberals who balk at making people uncomfortable, and you're completely ignoring the real issues I brought up. Bravo. So what are your thoughts on making sure hiring processes really are focused on the most qualified candidates and aren't being circumvented by giving out jobs to unqualified candidates according to established in-group relationships, like giving jobs to old friends, former classmates, or members of fraternities or other shared-interest organizations, or just good old-fashioned nepotism? These are serious problems that prevent hiring truly qualified candidates as it is, and many of them favor the socioeconomically dominant, homogeneous group - straight, white, male.

Complaints about diversity hires going against hiring the most qualified candidates are unsupported by data, specifically because of those factors. Existing social networking favors many younger white people who are new(er) to the workforce because they can use family, academic, or other social connections to seek and get hired for jobs without being subjected to a rigorous application process that vets their qualifications. Most out-groups don't have that social network to draw upon because diversity is lacking at the higher levels of so many professional organizations.

The idea that diverse hiring practices take away jobs from qualified candidates is a myth that we tell ourselves to protect our delicate, fragile sense of accomplishment that is built up from being straight, white, and able-bodied in a society that favors people who are straight, white, and able-bodied. The truth is, many of us, as white people, have been handed jobs that we have been unqualified for, or have worked with other white people who were handed jobs that they were unqualified for. Unless you're all willing to claim that every single white person you've ever worked with was perfectly competent and you've never worked with a single incompetent white person who made your job harder because they had an uncanny ability to fuck up everything they touch?

Think of all the straight, white, male morons you've all worked with in your careers. How much easier and less stressful would your jobs have been had those useless shitbirds never been hired and instead a competent woman, or person of color, or person with a disability been hired instead? That right there should be one of your goals when you look at adding diversity to your hiring practices. Stop hiring white morons just because their dads go to your CEO's country club. Stop hiring dudes whose heads may as well be literally filled with cabbage just because they graduated with a 2.0 from the same party school that your HR director did. Fix those unqualified hiring decision problems and you'll find that those evil liberals and SJWs that you tell your children scary stories about will stop pestering you about diversity hires because by hiring only truly qualified candidates you'll already be targeting a more diverse pool of applicants.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":vfc3ucxw]

ZhanMing057[/url]":vfc3ucxw]

itdraugr[/url]":vfc3ucxw]

ZhanMing057[/url]":vfc3ucxw]

itdraugr[/url]":vfc3ucxw]

Dilbert[/url]":vfc3ucxw]Sorry to hijack this. Or maybe it is not a hijack. It is tangentially relevant.

Don't really care who my coworkers in tech are or where they came from or if they are green or purple. As long as they are bright, can reason themselves out of problems, have analytical minds, problem solving skills, know how to find the information they need, remember that information when a similar problem occurs again.

You need to be smart to work in tech. That's often all it takes. We can train you to do the job as long as you are smart. No one wants to talk about this. Intelligence is largely determined by genes and not which fancy school one went to.

Some people were born to flip burgers. Some people were born to develop software. Not everyone can work in tech.

A university press release is not a peer-reviewed journal. Try to find some peer-reviewed literature to support your claim that intelligence is largely determined by genetics. A university press release that was celebrated in a post on stormfront seven years ago isn't a quality source.

There are actually quite a few studies that show that intelligence has a large hereditary component. The citations in this Wikipedia page summarizes things up nicely.

There are also numerous publications on racial differences in intelligence. Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist and don't know much about psych journals. But these are impressively cited and I do know that American Psychologist is the official APA journal and very well-regarded.

There's a difference between saying that there is some hereditary component to intelligence and claiming, as Dilbert did, that intelligence is "largely" determined by genes. Economics, nutrition, family history, experiences, and a bevy of other non-genetic factors also affect intelligence.

There's also the fact that when people talk about intelligence being heritable they often use that as a subtle way of comparing intelligence between genders or ethnic groups and saying-without-saying that this excuses social structures that favor men and whites. This is problematic because the ongoing flow of research consistently shows that genetic variability is greater within what we think of as racial groups as opposed to between what we think of as racial groups.

Are you suggesting that something shouldn't even be open to discussion simply because there is potential for the discussion to be abused? I'm sorry but I think that's a terrible way to approach social issues.

The fiscal gap makes people uncomfortable. The fact that Social Security will almost certainly break in the not-distant future makes people uncomfortable. There is potential for abuse in these discussions and having the discussion might not help, but we certainly won't fix these issues by not talking about them.

And my one biggest criticism of modern liberalism is that it wants to reject these discussions in favor of feel-good talk about morality, justice and diversity. Even if you strong-arm companies into hiring more of the "right" minorities, you're only pushing the problem further down the road. That's not helping.

That's not what I suggested at all. That's a really dishonest attempt at derailing the conversation by presenting a completely unrelated idea and going off on a diatribe about something no one here has said or done.

You're concentrating on the imaginary spectre of liberals who balk at making people uncomfortable, and you're completely ignoring the real issues I brought up. Bravo. So what are your thoughts on making sure hiring processes really are focused on the most qualified candidates and aren't being circumvented by giving out jobs to unqualified candidates according to established in-group relationships, like giving jobs to old friends, former classmates, or members of fraternities or other shared-interest organizations, or just good old-fashioned nepotism? These are serious problems that prevent hiring truly qualified candidates as it is, and many of them favor the socioeconomically dominant, homogeneous group - straight, white, male.

Complaints about diversity hires going against hiring the most qualified candidates are unsupported by data, specifically because of those factors. Existing social networking favors many younger white people who are new(er) to the workforce because they can use family, academic, or other social connections to seek and get hired for jobs without being subjected to a rigorous application process that vets their qualifications. Most out-groups don't have that social network to draw upon because diversity is lacking at the higher levels of so many professional organizations.

The idea that diverse hiring practices take away jobs from qualified candidates is a myth that we tell ourselves to protect our delicate, fragile sense of accomplishment that is built up from being straight, white, and able-bodied in a society that favors people who are straight, white, and able-bodied. The truth is, many of us, as white people, have been handed jobs that we have been unqualified for, or have worked with other white people who were handed jobs that they were unqualified for. Unless you're all willing to claim that every single white person you've ever worked with was perfectly competent and you've never worked with a single incompetent white person who made your job harder because they had an uncanny ability to fuck up everything they touch?

Think of all the straight, white, male morons you've all worked with in your careers. How much easier and less stressful would your jobs have been had those useless shitbirds never been hired and instead a competent woman, or person of color, or person with a disability been hired instead? That right there should be one of your goals when you look at adding diversity to your hiring practices. Stop hiring white morons just because their dads go to your CEO's country club. Stop hiring dudes whose heads may as well be literally filled with cabbage just because they graduated with a 2.0 from the same party school that your HR director did. Fix those unqualified hiring decision problems and you'll find that those evil liberals and SJWs that you tell your children scary stories about will stop pestering you about diversity hires because by hiring only truly qualified candidates you'll already be targeting a more diverse pool of applicants.

Ok, so if the only unqualified people ever hired are straight, white males (not racist at all or anything, of course) and nobody in the history of the universe has ever hired an unqualified minority then how do you explain the fact that Asians and Indians are very much over represented in tech employment? Are we hiring so many unqualified straight, white males whose head is filled with cabbage that they're unable to tell the difference between an Asian or Indian applicant and Bob from Arkansas? Or, is it possible that maybe, just maybe these demographic groups just happen to have the biggest pool of qualified candidates to draw from? I know that such ideas are viewed with utter contempt in SJW-land, but just throwing it out there.

 

[ApplePaladin]

SteveJobz[/url]":3dn55n2h]
Ok, so if the only unqualified people ever hired are straight, white males (not racist at all or anything, of course) and nobody in the history of the universe has ever hired an unqualified minority then how do you explain the fact that Asians and Indians are very much over represented in tech employment? Are we hiring so many unqualified straight, white males whose head is filled with cabbage that they're unable to tell the difference between an Asian or Indian applicant and Bob from Arkansas? Or, is it possible that maybe, just maybe these demographic groups just happen to have the biggest pool of qualified candidates to draw from? I know that such ideas are viewed with utter contempt in SJW-land, but just throwing it out there.

Literally no one said that the only unqualified hires ever are straight, white males. You could just try honesty discussing things people have actually said. You know this, right? It makes having direct, engaging discussions a lot more enjoyable and productive.

Ordinarily I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood, but since you went out of your way to dishonestly misrepresent my claim I'm not feeling that compulsion. You're on the side of the argument that claims that diversity hires take jobs away from qualified applicants. Not only has there been zero proof provided to give that claim legitimacy, but the claim itself assumes that the non-diverse hires - that is, people who are straight, or white, or male, or some combination thereof - are inherently qualified, and that diverse hires are inherently not qualified. If that were true, then none of us would have professional experiences with people who are straight, white, male, or some combination thereof who were clearly incompetent and not qualified for their jobs. But if, as I suspect, we can each muster up at least one story about an incompetent coworker who is either straight, white, male, or the hat trick of being all three, then that means that current, non-diverse hiring practices are not actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

The idea that making diverse hiring decisions automatically means making unqualified hiring decisions is untenable. It's a myth.

 

[Ser Dood]

itdraugr[/url]":3q4l4906]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.

Diversity is a good thing, hiring for the sake of diversity is not. A certain subset of people are convinced that it shouldn't matter how qualified you are, but more what skin pigmentation you have.

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":3to3ll2q]

SteveJobz[/url]":3to3ll2q]
Ok, so if the only unqualified people ever hired are straight, white males (not racist at all or anything, of course) and nobody in the history of the universe has ever hired an unqualified minority then how do you explain the fact that Asians and Indians are very much over represented in tech employment? Are we hiring so many unqualified straight, white males whose head is filled with cabbage that they're unable to tell the difference between an Asian or Indian applicant and Bob from Arkansas? Or, is it possible that maybe, just maybe these demographic groups just happen to have the biggest pool of qualified candidates to draw from? I know that such ideas are viewed with utter contempt in SJW-land, but just throwing it out there.

Literally no one said that the only unqualified hires ever are straight, white males. You could just try honesty discussing things people have actually said. You know this, right? It makes having direct, engaging discussions a lot more enjoyable and productive.

Ordinarily I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood, but since you went out of your way to dishonestly misrepresent my claim I'm not feeling that compulsion. You're on the side of the argument that claims that diversity hires take jobs away from qualified applicants. Not only has there been zero proof provided to give that claim legitimacy, but the claim itself assumes that the non-diverse hires - that is, people who are straight, or white, or male, or some combination thereof - are inherently qualified, and that diverse hires are inherently not qualified. If that were true, then none of us would have professional experiences with people who are straight, white, male, or some combination thereof who were clearly incompetent and not qualified for their jobs. But if, as I suspect, we can each muster up at least one story about an incompetent coworker who is either straight, white, male, or the hat trick of being all three, then that means that current, non-diverse hiring practices are not actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

The idea that making diverse hiring decisions automatically means making unqualified hiring decisions is untenable. It's a myth.

No, the claim I'm making it that race and ethnicity do not play a significant role in hiring decisions as illustrated by the fact that Asians and Indians (who also happen to be brown, image that!) make up a significantly higher percentage of tech workers compared to the overall population. Therefore, your argument that tech jobs are heavily biased towards straight (another myth btw as gays are also over represented in the tech field), white males holds no water. What you are REALLY advocating for is for racial quotas in hiring, which would discriminate against other minorities in favor of African Americans and Hispanics. Meritocracy and affirmative action are mutually exclusive concepts that can't co-exist as evidenced by the discrimination faced by Asians in the college admission process.

 

[SPNEGO]

So everybody here believes they were hired purely on merit. What a group of self-deluded, self-centered, self-important head-in-the-sand ostrich people you all are. Pathetic.

I know you won't change your minds about this, so people shouldn't even bother. Empathy cannot be taught, you are born with it, or not.

All that's left really is constantly publicly shaming your attitudes. Guess what? You are losing.

I'm dealing with this issue directly on a day-to-day basis. It's mean, and ugly, and depressing, but you are definitely losing this battle.

Diversity is good. Meritocracy is a delusion.

This was said to me just yesterday, you can believe it or not.

"Diversity programs are carried out specifically to take jobs from white men". I'm not joking. Somebody said that, out loud, in a business environment, with women and other minorities listening.

Annalee seems to be smarter than all you bumpkins btw. Deal with it.

 

[SteveJobz]

SPNEGO[/url]":kuh7f1hw]So everybody here believes they were hired purely on merit. What a group of self-deluded, self-centered, self-important head-in-the-sand ostrich people you all are. Pathetic.

I know you won't change your minds about this, so people shouldn't even bother. Empathy cannot be taught, you are born with it, or not.

All that's left really is constantly publicly shaming your attitudes. Guess what? You are losing.

I'm dealing with this issue directly on a day-to-day basis. It's mean, and ugly, and depressing, but you are definitely losing this battle.

Diversity is good. Meritocracy is a delusion.

This was said to me just yesterday, you can believe it or not.

"Diversity programs are carried out specifically to take jobs from white men". I'm not joking. Somebody said that, out loud, in a business environment, with women and other minorities listening.

Annalee seems to be smarter than all you bumpkins btw. Deal with it.

So, you're saying that Asians and Indians are not "real diversity", that is reserved exclusively for AAs and Hispanics. Hmm, that sounds...what's that word I'm looking for...ah...RACIST. But of course since this is the PC kind of racism it's not really racism, got it!

It appears that logic is the true enemy of the SJW movement.

 

[JustQuestions]

SteveJobz[/url]":3c7g0at0]

SPNEGO[/url]":3c7g0at0]So everybody here believes they were hired purely on merit. What a group of self-deluded, self-centered, self-important head-in-the-sand ostrich people you all are. Pathetic.

I know you won't change your minds about this, so people shouldn't even bother. Empathy cannot be taught, you are born with it, or not.

All that's left really is constantly publicly shaming your attitudes. Guess what? You are losing.

I'm dealing with this issue directly on a day-to-day basis. It's mean, and ugly, and depressing, but you are definitely losing this battle.

Diversity is good. Meritocracy is a delusion.

This was said to me just yesterday, you can believe it or not.

"Diversity programs are carried out specifically to take jobs from white men". I'm not joking. Somebody said that, out loud, in a business environment, with women and other minorities listening.

Annalee seems to be smarter than all you bumpkins btw. Deal with it.

So, you're saying that Asians and Indians are not "real diversity", that is reserved exclusively for AAs and Hispanics. Hmm, that sounds...what's that word I'm looking for...ah...RACIST. But of course since this is the PC kind of racism it's not really racism, got it!

He sounds like a typical human resources department nitwit shit-for-brains.

The kind of person who glances over the resume and looks for the keywords and the claims of skill. If all the skills are there and they are of the correct ethnic background, then clearly they must be hired! If the interviewers detect inconsistencies or a noticeable lack in demonstrable skill or talent, then clearly that means the interviewers are just racists, looking to hire more white people. Right?

HR types are literally the worst, and it starts with education. They know nothing about any of the jobs or disciplines they work in. They're operating in an entirely different realm, collectively referred to as "la-la-land."

They think that by changing hiring practices you can find highly educated, talented minorities with highly developed and technical skill sets, unemployed, growing on trees.

News flash, they already have jobs, and they're in high demand. Hell, Hispanics in tech (as an example) have an outstanding reputation for creativity. There's just not enough of them to go around.

It's not that people don't want to hire minorities in tech, there just aren't many of them available to hire to begin with.

 

[Ser Dood]

SPNEGO[/url]":vcm6ga1e]So everybody here believes they were hired purely on merit. What a group of self-deluded, self-centered, self-important head-in-the-sand ostrich people you all are. Pathetic.

I know you won't change your minds about this, so people shouldn't even bother. Empathy cannot be taught, you are born with it, or not.

All that's left really is constantly publicly shaming your attitudes. Guess what? You are losing.

I'm dealing with this issue directly on a day-to-day basis. It's mean, and ugly, and depressing, but you are definitely losing this battle.

Diversity is good. Meritocracy is a delusion.

This was said to me just yesterday, you can believe it or not.

"Diversity programs are carried out specifically to take jobs from white men". I'm not joking. Somebody said that, out loud, in a business environment, with women and other minorities listening.

Annalee seems to be smarter than all you bumpkins btw. Deal with it.

No, I don't believe some one said that to you at work. I mean the story fits in nicely with the message you are trying to get across, but I think you are most likely fibbing. No matter. Where I work at as a DBA, 50% of my co workers are not white. I do not think any one really cares about what pigmentation you have, as long as you are a problem solver, think positively, and a team worker no one pays attention to it. The same goes for religion. 99% of people, just do not care.

 

[shieldw0lf]

IT is the sort of profession that doesn't require an education, and doesn't require expensive tools, and therefore doesn't require an employer.

Of all the professions, it is the least susceptable to gatekeepers, the least susceptable to nepotism. You can do good work and make a fortune, literally without anyone knowing what you look like.

If you can't find work in this sector, you don't deserve to work in this sector.

 

[JustQuestions]

shieldw0lf[/url]":1xn68w3f]IT is the sort of profession that doesn't require an education, and doesn't require expensive tools, and therefore doesn't require an employer.

Of all the professions, it is the least susceptable to gatekeepers, the least susceptable to nepotism. You can do good work and make a fortune, literally without anyone knowing what you look like.

If you can't find work in this sector, you don't deserve to work in this sector.

This doesn't line up with reality.

There are people who don't care about your educational background, but it's less and less. It is very common these days for employers to want to see a degree in computer science.

It's possible to make a lot of money working for yourself in something like web development, but you're staking a lot in your ability to market yourself and find continuous work. It's easy for talent to get lost in the shuffle.

I think it's quite possible to make a lot of money and get jobs in IT without much of a formal education, but it's not necessarily any easier to do this in IT than in many other jobs. Shit, there's a guy near me who started with a push lawnmower a few years ago and grew it into a successful landscaping business in a few short years. He's making more money than many software developers make.

Even claiming that you "don't need tools in IT" is absurd. Of course you need tools.

IT is a great line of work, but it's not some holy grail of meritocracy and job entry. There are human resource gatekeeper pricks everywhere, in every line of work.

 

[Ser Dood]

SteveJobz[/url]":lhhpp46m]

SPNEGO[/url]":lhhpp46m]So everybody here believes they were hired purely on merit. What a group of self-deluded, self-centered, self-important head-in-the-sand ostrich people you all are. Pathetic.

I know you won't change your minds about this, so people shouldn't even bother. Empathy cannot be taught, you are born with it, or not.

All that's left really is constantly publicly shaming your attitudes. Guess what? You are losing.

I'm dealing with this issue directly on a day-to-day basis. It's mean, and ugly, and depressing, but you are definitely losing this battle.

Diversity is good. Meritocracy is a delusion.

This was said to me just yesterday, you can believe it or not.

"Diversity programs are carried out specifically to take jobs from white men". I'm not joking. Somebody said that, out loud, in a business environment, with women and other minorities listening.

Annalee seems to be smarter than all you bumpkins btw. Deal with it.

So, you're saying that Asians and Indians are not "real diversity", that is reserved exclusively for AAs and Hispanics. Hmm, that sounds...what's that word I'm looking for...ah...RACIST. But of course since this is the PC kind of racism it's not really racism, got it!

It appears that logic is the true enemy of the SJW movement.

Please do not encourage him by saying his argument has any logic, what so ever, good or bad.

 

[SteveJobz]

JustQuestions[/url]":34i4njyl]

SteveJobz[/url]":34i4njyl]

SPNEGO[/url]":34i4njyl]So everybody here believes they were hired purely on merit. What a group of self-deluded, self-centered, self-important head-in-the-sand ostrich people you all are. Pathetic.

I know you won't change your minds about this, so people shouldn't even bother. Empathy cannot be taught, you are born with it, or not.

All that's left really is constantly publicly shaming your attitudes. Guess what? You are losing.

I'm dealing with this issue directly on a day-to-day basis. It's mean, and ugly, and depressing, but you are definitely losing this battle.

Diversity is good. Meritocracy is a delusion.

This was said to me just yesterday, you can believe it or not.

"Diversity programs are carried out specifically to take jobs from white men". I'm not joking. Somebody said that, out loud, in a business environment, with women and other minorities listening.

Annalee seems to be smarter than all you bumpkins btw. Deal with it.

So, you're saying that Asians and Indians are not "real diversity", that is reserved exclusively for AAs and Hispanics. Hmm, that sounds...what's that word I'm looking for...ah...RACIST. But of course since this is the PC kind of racism it's not really racism, got it!

He sounds like a typical human resources department nitwit shit-for-brains.

The kind of person who glances over the resume and looks for the keywords and the claims of skill. If all the skills are there and they are of the correct ethnic background, then clearly they must be hired! If the interviewers detect inconsistencies or a noticeable lack in demonstrable skill or talent, then clearly that means the interviewers are just racists, looking to hire more white people. Right?

HR types are literally the worst, and it starts with education. They know nothing about any of the jobs or disciplines they work in. They're operating in an entirely different realm, collectively referred to as "la-la-land."

They think that by changing hiring practices you can find highly educated, talented minorities with highly developed and technical skill sets, unemployed, growing on trees.

News flash, they already have jobs, and they're in high demand. Hell, Hispanics in tech (as an example) have an outstanding reputation for creativity. There's just not enough of them to go around.

It's not that people don't want to hire minorities in tech, there just aren't many of them available to hire to begin with.

Oh man, don't get me started on recruiters and HR drones, those people are something else. I don't understand why companies ask recruiters who have NO CLUE about anything technical related to the job conduct interviews. I've had recruiters, who obviously had zero expertise in the field, ask me to explain the difference between databases and programming languages. I could have made up pretty much any technical-sounding BS on the fly and they would be none the wiser. I also had them routinely encourage me to lie on my resume to make it sound as if I'm an expert in things that I'm actually only vaguely familiar with etc.

 

[beads]

ziegler[/url]":23yvhn8s]

enilc[/url]":23yvhn8s]

beads[/url]":23yvhn8s]

Ojref[/url]":23yvhn8s]Hiring diversity for the sake of diversity is a ridiculous premise. People should stand on their own merits and accomplishments, and they bring what they bring to the organization. As a business owner I will hire employees on qualifications, experience and how their personality and behavior fits with the established organization, never simply because they are a member of a race or gender, or based on pressure from liberal-leftist politics.

You do that and you'll ruin EVERYTHING! I work as a senior IT security analyst and have worked in IT for 30 years. Anyone having worked in IT over the years will tell you we are probably the most tolerant fields with regard to sex, race, religion, creed or physical disability - we just don't give a rat's rear unless you can't do the job. Then your gone. Quicker the better but gone.

Sorry, not everyone should work in tech. Its a field that demands you constantly update your skills for tomorrow's problem set and in case you've never realized it, is not always family friendly. I spend way too many hours working at night and weekends in order to get the job done and the organization working. That's what I get paid to do.

Diversity is best thought of in terms of working hours not race or sex.

Well, that's sort of the same argument made by Scandinavian countries when they talk about how tolerant they are and show statistics about the lack of violent crime and race-based crime.

Of course, they forget to mention the homogeneity of their population that kind of makes it easy to coast along without anyone making any waves. Add in a few displaced refugees from the M.E. that don't look the same and suddenly everyone starts freaking-out.

The homogeneity of you and your IT mates is what makes you feel 'tolerant' of one another.

Did I just read an argument in favor of segregation?

Someone is suffering from illusions of opinion here. No, IT has generally been seen as rather tolerant except for the lack of skills. Not sure what you want from this industry. Perfect diversity for the sake of diversity regardless of skill level? Deep breathes, don't panic. There is a great deal of diversity within IT. As I have said before its a demanding field requiring overtime, after hours work and constant skill upgrade. Thus, its not for everyone. Nothing there about the color of one's skin, creed, sexual orientation or any other demographic. Next time stay in your safe space and don't come outside. Play it safe, society is dangerous.

 

[Ser Dood]

beads[/url]":1p3zptie]

ziegler[/url]":1p3zptie]

enilc[/url]":1p3zptie]

beads[/url]":1p3zptie]

Ojref[/url]":1p3zptie]Hiring diversity for the sake of diversity is a ridiculous premise. People should stand on their own merits and accomplishments, and they bring what they bring to the organization. As a business owner I will hire employees on qualifications, experience and how their personality and behavior fits with the established organization, never simply because they are a member of a race or gender, or based on pressure from liberal-leftist politics.

You do that and you'll ruin EVERYTHING! I work as a senior IT security analyst and have worked in IT for 30 years. Anyone having worked in IT over the years will tell you we are probably the most tolerant fields with regard to sex, race, religion, creed or physical disability - we just don't give a rat's rear unless you can't do the job. Then your gone. Quicker the better but gone.

Sorry, not everyone should work in tech. Its a field that demands you constantly update your skills for tomorrow's problem set and in case you've never realized it, is not always family friendly. I spend way too many hours working at night and weekends in order to get the job done and the organization working. That's what I get paid to do.

Diversity is best thought of in terms of working hours not race or sex.

Well, that's sort of the same argument made by Scandinavian countries when they talk about how tolerant they are and show statistics about the lack of violent crime and race-based crime.

Of course, they forget to mention the homogeneity of their population that kind of makes it easy to coast along without anyone making any waves. Add in a few displaced refugees from the M.E. that don't look the same and suddenly everyone starts freaking-out.

The homogeneity of you and your IT mates is what makes you feel 'tolerant' of one another.

Did I just read an argument in favor of segregation?

Someone is suffering from illusions of opinion here. No, IT has generally been seen as rather tolerant except for the lack of skills. Not sure what you want from this industry. Perfect diversity for the sake of diversity regardless of skill level? Deep breathes, don't panic. There is a great deal of diversity within IT. As I have said before its a demanding field requiring overtime, after hours work and constant skill upgrade. Thus, its not for everyone. Nothing there about the color of one's skin, creed, sexual orientation or any other demographic. Next time stay in your safe space and don't come outside. Play it safe, society is dangerous.

You are an ignorant, racist. I am telling mommy.

 

[SteveJobz]

Ser Dood[/url]":3n6p37uz]

beads[/url]":3n6p37uz]

ziegler[/url]":3n6p37uz]

enilc[/url]":3n6p37uz]

beads[/url]":3n6p37uz]

Ojref[/url]":3n6p37uz]Hiring diversity for the sake of diversity is a ridiculous premise. People should stand on their own merits and accomplishments, and they bring what they bring to the organization. As a business owner I will hire employees on qualifications, experience and how their personality and behavior fits with the established organization, never simply because they are a member of a race or gender, or based on pressure from liberal-leftist politics.

You do that and you'll ruin EVERYTHING! I work as a senior IT security analyst and have worked in IT for 30 years. Anyone having worked in IT over the years will tell you we are probably the most tolerant fields with regard to sex, race, religion, creed or physical disability - we just don't give a rat's rear unless you can't do the job. Then your gone. Quicker the better but gone.

Sorry, not everyone should work in tech. Its a field that demands you constantly update your skills for tomorrow's problem set and in case you've never realized it, is not always family friendly. I spend way too many hours working at night and weekends in order to get the job done and the organization working. That's what I get paid to do.

Diversity is best thought of in terms of working hours not race or sex.

Well, that's sort of the same argument made by Scandinavian countries when they talk about how tolerant they are and show statistics about the lack of violent crime and race-based crime.

Of course, they forget to mention the homogeneity of their population that kind of makes it easy to coast along without anyone making any waves. Add in a few displaced refugees from the M.E. that don't look the same and suddenly everyone starts freaking-out.

The homogeneity of you and your IT mates is what makes you feel 'tolerant' of one another.

Did I just read an argument in favor of segregation?

Someone is suffering from illusions of opinion here. No, IT has generally been seen as rather tolerant except for the lack of skills. Not sure what you want from this industry. Perfect diversity for the sake of diversity regardless of skill level? Deep breathes, don't panic. There is a great deal of diversity within IT. As I have said before its a demanding field requiring overtime, after hours work and constant skill upgrade. Thus, its not for everyone. Nothing there about the color of one's skin, creed, sexual orientation or any other demographic. Next time stay in your safe space and don't come outside. Play it safe, society is dangerous.

You are an ignorant, racist. I am telling mommy.

We must build a wall around the safe space, and make straight, white males pay for it!

 

[ApplePaladin]

SteveJobz[/url]":1snrw2dc]

itdraugr[/url]":1snrw2dc]

SteveJobz[/url]":1snrw2dc]
Ok, so if the only unqualified people ever hired are straight, white males (not racist at all or anything, of course) and nobody in the history of the universe has ever hired an unqualified minority then how do you explain the fact that Asians and Indians are very much over represented in tech employment? Are we hiring so many unqualified straight, white males whose head is filled with cabbage that they're unable to tell the difference between an Asian or Indian applicant and Bob from Arkansas? Or, is it possible that maybe, just maybe these demographic groups just happen to have the biggest pool of qualified candidates to draw from? I know that such ideas are viewed with utter contempt in SJW-land, but just throwing it out there.

Literally no one said that the only unqualified hires ever are straight, white males. You could just try honesty discussing things people have actually said. You know this, right? It makes having direct, engaging discussions a lot more enjoyable and productive.

Ordinarily I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood, but since you went out of your way to dishonestly misrepresent my claim I'm not feeling that compulsion. You're on the side of the argument that claims that diversity hires take jobs away from qualified applicants. Not only has there been zero proof provided to give that claim legitimacy, but the claim itself assumes that the non-diverse hires - that is, people who are straight, or white, or male, or some combination thereof - are inherently qualified, and that diverse hires are inherently not qualified. If that were true, then none of us would have professional experiences with people who are straight, white, male, or some combination thereof who were clearly incompetent and not qualified for their jobs. But if, as I suspect, we can each muster up at least one story about an incompetent coworker who is either straight, white, male, or the hat trick of being all three, then that means that current, non-diverse hiring practices are not actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

The idea that making diverse hiring decisions automatically means making unqualified hiring decisions is untenable. It's a myth.

No, the claim I'm making it that race and ethnicity do not play a significant role in hiring decisions as illustrated by the fact that Asians and Indians (who also happen to be brown, image that!) make up a significantly higher percentage of tech workers compared to the overall population. Therefore, your argument that tech jobs are heavily biased towards straight (another myth btw as gays are also over represented in the tech field), white males holds no water. What you are REALLY advocating for is for racial quotas in hiring, which would discriminate against other minorities in favor of African Americans and Hispanics. Meritocracy and affirmative action are mutually exclusive concepts that can't co-exist as evidenced by the discrimination faced by Asians in the college admission process.

Wow. You are super, super good at misrepresenting other people's arguments so you don't have to respond to the things they've actually said. I'm not sure if you're a professional liar, but you're really good at it in this informal setting. Kudos.

Meritocracy is an illusion. What you think of as meritocracy is almost always cronyism and nepotism. You just don't see it that way because you benefit from it, so you don't have to think about it.

I notice you're still completely ignoring the problem of incompetent straight/white/male workers. If your meritocracy really existed, they wouldn't be there. If your meritocracy really existed, the only hires would be competent hires. What I am saying - not what you're dishonestly attempting to portray me as saying, mind you - is that there are plenty enough incompetent straight/white/male workers in the workforce to disprove the idea that current hiring practices reliably find qualified candidates and are not susceptible to unconscious racial biases.

If you're saying you've never once worked with a single straight/white/male person who was an incompetent waste of space you're either lying or you haven't been in the workforce for very long. There are plenty of them out there. I've worked with quite a few. Tell me why hiring a non-straight/non-white/non-male person takes away a job from a qualified person any more than hiring one of the many straight/white/male morons we've all worked with.

See, the problem with the complaint that diversity hires take jobs away from qualified straight/white/male workers will always be that it assumes the system that favors straight/white/male people magically always results in rational, qualified hiring decisions. We all have enough experience to know that isn't true. Yet the myth that diverse hiring practices takes jobs away from qualified straight/white/male workers persists, even without any data to support it.

The tl;dr version is that there shouldn't need to be quotas or enforcement for diversity hiring, because if we would all just stop hiring straight/white/male morons, there would be plenty of jobs for all kinds of qualified, competent, and yes, diverse, people. But the idea that they're taking jobs they don't deserve and aren't qualified for? That's a giant, steaming load of horse shit.

 

[boondox]

 

[SteveJobz]

itdraugr[/url]":29e0dxtl]

SteveJobz[/url]":29e0dxtl]

itdraugr[/url]":29e0dxtl]

SteveJobz[/url]":29e0dxtl]
Ok, so if the only unqualified people ever hired are straight, white males (not racist at all or anything, of course) and nobody in the history of the universe has ever hired an unqualified minority then how do you explain the fact that Asians and Indians are very much over represented in tech employment? Are we hiring so many unqualified straight, white males whose head is filled with cabbage that they're unable to tell the difference between an Asian or Indian applicant and Bob from Arkansas? Or, is it possible that maybe, just maybe these demographic groups just happen to have the biggest pool of qualified candidates to draw from? I know that such ideas are viewed with utter contempt in SJW-land, but just throwing it out there.

Literally no one said that the only unqualified hires ever are straight, white males. You could just try honesty discussing things people have actually said. You know this, right? It makes having direct, engaging discussions a lot more enjoyable and productive.

Ordinarily I would be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood, but since you went out of your way to dishonestly misrepresent my claim I'm not feeling that compulsion. You're on the side of the argument that claims that diversity hires take jobs away from qualified applicants. Not only has there been zero proof provided to give that claim legitimacy, but the claim itself assumes that the non-diverse hires - that is, people who are straight, or white, or male, or some combination thereof - are inherently qualified, and that diverse hires are inherently not qualified. If that were true, then none of us would have professional experiences with people who are straight, white, male, or some combination thereof who were clearly incompetent and not qualified for their jobs. But if, as I suspect, we can each muster up at least one story about an incompetent coworker who is either straight, white, male, or the hat trick of being all three, then that means that current, non-diverse hiring practices are not actually hiring the most qualified candidates.

The idea that making diverse hiring decisions automatically means making unqualified hiring decisions is untenable. It's a myth.

No, the claim I'm making it that race and ethnicity do not play a significant role in hiring decisions as illustrated by the fact that Asians and Indians (who also happen to be brown, image that!) make up a significantly higher percentage of tech workers compared to the overall population. Therefore, your argument that tech jobs are heavily biased towards straight (another myth btw as gays are also over represented in the tech field), white males holds no water. What you are REALLY advocating for is for racial quotas in hiring, which would discriminate against other minorities in favor of African Americans and Hispanics. Meritocracy and affirmative action are mutually exclusive concepts that can't co-exist as evidenced by the discrimination faced by Asians in the college admission process.

Wow. You are super, super good at misrepresenting other people's arguments so you don't have to respond to the things they've actually said. I'm not sure if you're a professional liar, but you're really good at it in this informal setting. Kudos.

Meritocracy is an illusion. What you think of as meritocracy is almost always cronyism and nepotism. You just don't see it that way because you benefit from it, so you don't have to think about it.

I notice you're still completely ignoring the problem of incompetent straight/white/male workers. If your meritocracy really existed, they wouldn't be there. If your meritocracy really existed, the only hires would be competent hires. What I am saying - not what you're dishonestly attempting to portray me as saying, mind you - is that there are plenty enough incompetent straight/white/male workers in the workforce to disprove the idea that current hiring practices reliably find qualified candidates and are not susceptible to unconscious racial biases.

If you're saying you've never once worked with a single straight/white/male person who was an incompetent waste of space you're either lying or you haven't been in the workforce for very long. There are plenty of them out there. I've worked with quite a few. Tell me why hiring a non-straight/non-white/non-male person takes away a job from a qualified person any more than hiring one of the many straight/white/male morons we've all worked with.

See, the problem with the complaint that diversity hires take jobs away from qualified straight/white/male workers will always be that it assumes the system that favors straight/white/male people magically always results in rational, qualified hiring decisions. We all have enough experience to know that isn't true. Yet the myth that diverse hiring practices takes jobs away from qualified straight/white/male workers persists, even without any data to support it.

The tl;dr version is that there shouldn't need to be quotas or enforcement for diversity hiring, because if we would all just stop hiring straight/white/male morons, there would be plenty of jobs for all kinds of qualified, competent, and yes, diverse, people. But the idea that they're taking jobs they don't deserve and aren't qualified for? That's a giant, steaming load of horse shit.

Wow, this quite honestly some of the dumbest drivel I have ever had the privilege of reading. Yes, I've worked with dumb white people (not sure if they were straight or not didn't bother to ask), dumb black people, dumb Asian people and dumb Hispanics. Ironically enough, your assertion that every incompetent white male hire would automatically be replaced by a highly qualified, and the right kind (not Asian or Indian) minority, is just conjecture with zero merit. And yes, cronyism and nepotism is a problem, but that has nothing to do with race. For example, African Americans are heavily over represented in government jobs, but I don't see anyone screaming racism about that.