I liked this point made: Equality, Merit, Colorblindness (EMC) instead of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. (DEI)
Now its time for the tough questions:
Should justice be colorblind or based on equity?
Should job pre-requisities be merit based or diversity based?
Should there be an Equality of opportunities per level of colorblind merit or an Inclusion of all opportunites just because?
Now its time for the tough questions:
Should justice be colorblind or based on equity?
Should job pre-requisities be merit based or diversity based?
Should there be an Equality of opportunities per level of colorblind merit or an Inclusion of all opportunites just because?
@Approximation said in #2:
> Colorblindness
If you're "colorblind", you'll miss obvious patterns. Because I can tell you right now, American cops are definitely not colorblind. The American legal system is definitely not colorblind. My former boss was absolutely not colorblind. Colorblindness is a pleasant thing to aspire to, but in a society so brutally defined by both past and present racism, it essentially means that nothing can or will be done about racism. It's not moving past race, it's telling those affected by racism to stop talking about it.
> Should job pre-requisities be merit based or diversity based?
Why not both?
The logic behind diversity quotas is pretty simple. There is a portion of the population who, for unjust and stupid reasons, have not been considered in hiring. One way to ensure that this stops is to just mandate that your workforce look vaguely like the general population. It also gives us an easy sanity check - if your business doesn't look loosely like the general population, it's time to start asking why.
There's a hidden assumption when we talk about "diversity hires". The hidden assumption is pretty simple: the idea that the business or department ended up made up entirely of white men because those were already the best choices. That the lack of diversity is a natural result of white men rising to the top of the pile. I think that assumption is usually wrong, and that it's usually less a result of hiring on "merit" and more a result of the person doing the hiring being... well, very much not colorblind.
Ensuring diversity in hiring is a way to ensure that you're not overlooking "merit" (a term that is difficult to define and even more difficult to measure) due to racism or sexism. I had a boss once who, when looking over job applications for his department, made snarky jokes about throwing out the applications of anyone whose name sounded Turkish. Were any of these candidates good picks for the job? We'll never know - their applications were thrown out at the first line.
This is not a dichotomy. They complement each other. The true enemy of merit is not diversity - it's bigotry and bias. I'd argue that a classroom or a workplace with no diversity is a much better sign of bias than it is of diversity.
> Colorblindness
If you're "colorblind", you'll miss obvious patterns. Because I can tell you right now, American cops are definitely not colorblind. The American legal system is definitely not colorblind. My former boss was absolutely not colorblind. Colorblindness is a pleasant thing to aspire to, but in a society so brutally defined by both past and present racism, it essentially means that nothing can or will be done about racism. It's not moving past race, it's telling those affected by racism to stop talking about it.
> Should job pre-requisities be merit based or diversity based?
Why not both?
The logic behind diversity quotas is pretty simple. There is a portion of the population who, for unjust and stupid reasons, have not been considered in hiring. One way to ensure that this stops is to just mandate that your workforce look vaguely like the general population. It also gives us an easy sanity check - if your business doesn't look loosely like the general population, it's time to start asking why.
There's a hidden assumption when we talk about "diversity hires". The hidden assumption is pretty simple: the idea that the business or department ended up made up entirely of white men because those were already the best choices. That the lack of diversity is a natural result of white men rising to the top of the pile. I think that assumption is usually wrong, and that it's usually less a result of hiring on "merit" and more a result of the person doing the hiring being... well, very much not colorblind.
Ensuring diversity in hiring is a way to ensure that you're not overlooking "merit" (a term that is difficult to define and even more difficult to measure) due to racism or sexism. I had a boss once who, when looking over job applications for his department, made snarky jokes about throwing out the applications of anyone whose name sounded Turkish. Were any of these candidates good picks for the job? We'll never know - their applications were thrown out at the first line.
This is not a dichotomy. They complement each other. The true enemy of merit is not diversity - it's bigotry and bias. I'd argue that a classroom or a workplace with no diversity is a much better sign of bias than it is of diversity.
I think we should all just get along. Ofc that aint ever finna happen. Because people just love hate.
@CadyRocks said in #3:
> Why not both?
>
> The logic behind diversity quotas is pretty simple. There is a portion of the population who, for unjust and stupid reasons, have not been considered in hiring. One way to ensure that this stops is to just mandate that your workforce look vaguely like the general population. It also gives us an easy sanity check - if your business doesn't look loosely like the general population, it's time to start asking why.
>
> There's a hidden assumption when we talk about "diversity hires". The hidden assumption is pretty simple: the idea that the business or department ended up made up entirely of white men because those were already the best choices. That the lack of diversity is a natural result of white men rising to the top of the pile. I think that assumption is usually wrong, and that it's usually less a result of hiring on "merit" and more a result of the person doing the hiring being... well, very much not colorblind.
>
> Ensuring diversity in hiring is a way to ensure that you're not overlooking "merit" (a term that is difficult to define and even more difficult to measure) due to racism or sexism. I had a boss once who, when looking over job applications for his department, made snarky jokes about throwing out the applications of anyone whose name sounded Turkish. Were any of these candidates good picks for the job? We'll never know - their applications were thrown out at the first line.
>
> This is not a dichotomy. They complement each other. The true enemy of merit is not diversity - it's bigotry and bias. I'd argue that a classroom or a workplace with no diversity is a much better sign of bias than it is of diversity.
Filling different diversity buckets based on merit sounds like White people only compete against White people for the job, sounds like minority people only compete against minority people for the job, sounds like men only compete against other men for the job, sounds like women only compete against other women for the job.
So, you are making the argument that if 75% of the USA population is White, 25% of the USA population is minority, and 50% of the USA population is men, whereas 50% of the USA population is women, arbitrarily, then if a company wants to hire 1000 people for its hiring people, then 3/8 are white male, 3/8 are white female, 1/8 are minority male, and 1/8 are minority female. Simplicity of 4 buckets, although more buckets are probably needed.
So, let's say in the hiring process that the company has filled the white male bucket, based on merit qualifications, and the timeline, which is 375 people, but the other buckets aren't filled with equilivant merit, but the company needs more employees. What should the company do? Should the company do a hiring freeze on White men until the other buckets are full for this hiring cycle? There are some businesses, like Technology workers, where this model can cause them to not meet their goals as quickily as they'd like. The same is true with other businesses, like Medical workers, where if the Women buckets are full, should they do a hiring freeze on women, focusing on hiring men? The same is true with other businessess, like Construction workers, where if they fill the minority men bucket too quickily, should they wait for the other buckets to be filled before hiring more Construction workers? What about professional athletes? Minorities dominate sports, but since they are a business too, should they do a hiring freeze on minorities on the NFL, until there's enough White men to fill the ranks?
The bucket approach of merit, I think, is ridiculous! Just because people of different color and gender dominate different businesses, doesn't mean that is wrong!
> Why not both?
>
> The logic behind diversity quotas is pretty simple. There is a portion of the population who, for unjust and stupid reasons, have not been considered in hiring. One way to ensure that this stops is to just mandate that your workforce look vaguely like the general population. It also gives us an easy sanity check - if your business doesn't look loosely like the general population, it's time to start asking why.
>
> There's a hidden assumption when we talk about "diversity hires". The hidden assumption is pretty simple: the idea that the business or department ended up made up entirely of white men because those were already the best choices. That the lack of diversity is a natural result of white men rising to the top of the pile. I think that assumption is usually wrong, and that it's usually less a result of hiring on "merit" and more a result of the person doing the hiring being... well, very much not colorblind.
>
> Ensuring diversity in hiring is a way to ensure that you're not overlooking "merit" (a term that is difficult to define and even more difficult to measure) due to racism or sexism. I had a boss once who, when looking over job applications for his department, made snarky jokes about throwing out the applications of anyone whose name sounded Turkish. Were any of these candidates good picks for the job? We'll never know - their applications were thrown out at the first line.
>
> This is not a dichotomy. They complement each other. The true enemy of merit is not diversity - it's bigotry and bias. I'd argue that a classroom or a workplace with no diversity is a much better sign of bias than it is of diversity.
Filling different diversity buckets based on merit sounds like White people only compete against White people for the job, sounds like minority people only compete against minority people for the job, sounds like men only compete against other men for the job, sounds like women only compete against other women for the job.
So, you are making the argument that if 75% of the USA population is White, 25% of the USA population is minority, and 50% of the USA population is men, whereas 50% of the USA population is women, arbitrarily, then if a company wants to hire 1000 people for its hiring people, then 3/8 are white male, 3/8 are white female, 1/8 are minority male, and 1/8 are minority female. Simplicity of 4 buckets, although more buckets are probably needed.
So, let's say in the hiring process that the company has filled the white male bucket, based on merit qualifications, and the timeline, which is 375 people, but the other buckets aren't filled with equilivant merit, but the company needs more employees. What should the company do? Should the company do a hiring freeze on White men until the other buckets are full for this hiring cycle? There are some businesses, like Technology workers, where this model can cause them to not meet their goals as quickily as they'd like. The same is true with other businesses, like Medical workers, where if the Women buckets are full, should they do a hiring freeze on women, focusing on hiring men? The same is true with other businessess, like Construction workers, where if they fill the minority men bucket too quickily, should they wait for the other buckets to be filled before hiring more Construction workers? What about professional athletes? Minorities dominate sports, but since they are a business too, should they do a hiring freeze on minorities on the NFL, until there's enough White men to fill the ranks?
The bucket approach of merit, I think, is ridiculous! Just because people of different color and gender dominate different businesses, doesn't mean that is wrong!
the whole equality thing is based on people getting equal treatment. This isn't equal treatment.
this means that if a person is part of race a, and applies for a job in company a, which is 75 percent a race, he will not be accepted, while b will, even if their skills are equal
this means that if a person is part of race a, and applies for a job in company a, which is 75 percent a race, he will not be accepted, while b will, even if their skills are equal
this is precisely why i don't like equity, which isn't equality.
@Approximation said in #5:
> So, let's say in the hiring process that the company has filled the white male bucket, based on merit qualifications, and the timeline, which is 375 people, but the other buckets aren't filled with equilivant merit
Why do you think this would happen? Why would the company fill the white male bucket first, while also struggling to fill the other buckets?
This is that assumption I mentioned above, the one that sneaks into discussions like this, where the appearance of more white people with merit is not a sign of bias in hiring, but rather just how things are. It's not artificial, it's not because being white gives you an advantage in the job market, it's just that it's easier to find white people who fit the job well than non-white people.
(It's also a vastly oversimplified view of how diversity quotas generally work, and acts like there's any kind of parity in job discrimination between white people and minorities, but whatever.)
And yeah, it's worth looking into why various job types see significant differences in who gets hired or not based on social constructs like race, or why gender might play a disproportionate role. Sometimes there are good reasons (for example, ob-gyns tend to be overwhelmingly women for hopefully obvious reasons); often, there are really bad reasons (for example, pervasive sexism within orchestras which were helped by blind auditions and helped again when the women involved in those blind auditions took off their shoes before entering - no, really, that's a thing). The answer is very rarely going to be as straightforward as "group X (which is entirely socially constructed) is inherently better at this".
> So, let's say in the hiring process that the company has filled the white male bucket, based on merit qualifications, and the timeline, which is 375 people, but the other buckets aren't filled with equilivant merit
Why do you think this would happen? Why would the company fill the white male bucket first, while also struggling to fill the other buckets?
This is that assumption I mentioned above, the one that sneaks into discussions like this, where the appearance of more white people with merit is not a sign of bias in hiring, but rather just how things are. It's not artificial, it's not because being white gives you an advantage in the job market, it's just that it's easier to find white people who fit the job well than non-white people.
(It's also a vastly oversimplified view of how diversity quotas generally work, and acts like there's any kind of parity in job discrimination between white people and minorities, but whatever.)
And yeah, it's worth looking into why various job types see significant differences in who gets hired or not based on social constructs like race, or why gender might play a disproportionate role. Sometimes there are good reasons (for example, ob-gyns tend to be overwhelmingly women for hopefully obvious reasons); often, there are really bad reasons (for example, pervasive sexism within orchestras which were helped by blind auditions and helped again when the women involved in those blind auditions took off their shoes before entering - no, really, that's a thing). The answer is very rarely going to be as straightforward as "group X (which is entirely socially constructed) is inherently better at this".
@CadyRocks said in #8:
> Why do you think this would happen? Why would the company fill the white male bucket first, while also struggling to fill the other buckets?
>
Companies, when they are looking to hire qualified people for the job, are looking to fill that job. It's not that the company would look to fill the white male bucket first; but rather that is the bucket that realistically gets filled first in some instances as they hire qualified people that can do the job, because the company is looking to make profit off of the employees doing that job in an expanding buisness.
> Why do you think this would happen? Why would the company fill the white male bucket first, while also struggling to fill the other buckets?
>
Companies, when they are looking to hire qualified people for the job, are looking to fill that job. It's not that the company would look to fill the white male bucket first; but rather that is the bucket that realistically gets filled first in some instances as they hire qualified people that can do the job, because the company is looking to make profit off of the employees doing that job in an expanding buisness.
I used to work as a hiring manager for a technical team. Policy aside, it's great to have a diverse team for a lot of reasons, including combined team merit, which is more important than individual merit. So I was always looking to improve diversity, even without being asked by anyone.
But for some roles, more than 95% of the applications we received were from men. One time it was 100% men, which I thought sucked. So I put a lot of pressure on recruiters to find me women, but they told me I wasn't the only one, and that the market for those few women in the sector was stressed. I've understood the same kind of thing happens in hospitals when they are looking for nurses, and to a lesser extent in schools when they are looking for teachers.
So it's not just the ratio of the new hires, it's also the ratio of applicants that matters. This is why, instead of hard ratios, I would propose to instead weigh the ratio of applicants for new open positions, and then make sure (measure, report) that on average you do better than that ratio in the hiring. That way we could slowly achieve a more consolidated diversity than by forcing a 50/50 ratio immediately.
But for some roles, more than 95% of the applications we received were from men. One time it was 100% men, which I thought sucked. So I put a lot of pressure on recruiters to find me women, but they told me I wasn't the only one, and that the market for those few women in the sector was stressed. I've understood the same kind of thing happens in hospitals when they are looking for nurses, and to a lesser extent in schools when they are looking for teachers.
So it's not just the ratio of the new hires, it's also the ratio of applicants that matters. This is why, instead of hard ratios, I would propose to instead weigh the ratio of applicants for new open positions, and then make sure (measure, report) that on average you do better than that ratio in the hiring. That way we could slowly achieve a more consolidated diversity than by forcing a 50/50 ratio immediately.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.