Seattle emphasizing diversity in hires

[daver]

First of all, if the said applicant is more qualified, he would not be passed over. And even if that was true, you are going to straight up assume the minority candidate is unqualified and undeserving and didn't put the work in?

The OP clearly states they want to reach %'s that reflect the %'s in Seattle. How doesn't that lead to that exact scenario?

 

[Frank Drebin]

If we agree that people of color and women can be just as competent as white men...whats wrong with workplace reflecting the demographic of Seattle?

They are not gonna hire any women or people of color just because. Why are you assuming this?

There is nothing wrong with the workplace reflecting the demographic of the applicants. If you post an ad for 10 garbage truck drivers and out of 100 applicants, 5 are female, you do not hire all 5 women so that you represent the general population with your hires....

If the ratio of the applicants represent the population of the city - no issue with the practice. But then its not really putting an emphasis on diversity, but on fairness. Which I support.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Or give qualified minorities an opportunity. But nah, that can't be it. Clearly giving these people a job which, if they suck at it, can be fired from, is charity.

Everyone should be given equal opportunity. If there is one job for 100 applicants, each applicant should have a 1% chance for that job, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, or gender.

 

[MXD]

Because a white and/or male applicant may have been passed over because of the % the company has set.

If you run a Marketing/Ad/Comm Department of an Entertainment Venture whose customer is litterally the whole population in a given area, and your 12 best candidates are from a single demographic subset that's not representative at all of the area you're operating in (if we disregard, say, "Graduates", because those jobs usually require a degree, there is two possibilities) :

- Your assessment grid has an inherent bias.
or
- You're better off hiring that 13th candidate of a different background, because the difference is almost certainly extremely minimal, AND you're in the outreach business.

 

[Vijo Morganstein]

So efforts to combat implicit bias are counterproductive because of... implicit bias? It's true that efforts to promote a diverse workforce have given many white men a mechanism to justify their racial prejudice, but that doesn't make those efforts futile. It just further proves there's a systematic problem we need to address.

When someone whines about "virtue signaling," it's because they can't fathom how someone can be more empathetic than them. It's a convenient fantasy dreamt up by stubborn conservatives. And if you "honestly believe" the only people that support equity & diversity recruitment practices are guilty white people, then you should actually talk to some people who aren't white. Diversity would help with that.


P.S. These aren't even quotas. They're aspirational goals a company sets when adopting more inclusive recruitment practices.

Most people aren't on the opposite end of this issue. Most want equal opportunities for minorities and women. It's how you go about it where people disagree. I don't think swinging the pendulum the other way or creating a workforce with the dynamic of presumed qualified and presumed unqualified is the right way to go about it.

 

[Frank Drebin]

When someone whines about "virtue signaling," it's because they can't fathom how someone can be more empathetic than them.

Who are you more empathetic to than I am, and for what reason exactly?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Everyone should be given equal opportunity. If there is one job for 100 applicants, each applicant should have a 1% chance for that job, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, or gender.

If minorities and women didn’t suffer from centuries of sexism and racism, I would agree. Did you know Jim Crow only ended 60 years ago, and even then US government did nothing to close the economic gap between white and blacks?

 

[Frank Drebin]

If minorities and women didn’t suffer from centuries of sexism and racism, I would agree. Did you know Jim Crow only ended 60 years ago, and even then US government did nothing to close the economic gap between white and blacks?

So you feel the need to compensate today, for wrongs done in the past?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

So you feel the need to compensate today, for wrongs done in the past?

Wrongs in the past that still affects them today? Yes. Because because of past discriminations, they have far less opportunities than white men today.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Wrongs in the past that still affects them today? Yes. Because because of past discriminations, they have far less opportunities than white men today.

Thank you for being honest.

 

[daver]

Wrongs in the past that still affects them today? Yes. Because because of past discriminations, they have far less opportunities than white men today.

So what did anyone today do to contribute to these past discriminations, and the bigger point is, if discrimination is bad, why are you supporting it?

 

[PB37]

Hire the best available people, don't judge them by the color of their skin or their nationality or gender for christ sakes. I can't stand " Diversity Hires ".

 

[daver]

If you run a Marketing/Ad/Comm Department of an Entertainment Venture whose customer is litterally the whole population in a given area, and your 12 best candidates are from a single demographic subset that's not representative at all of the area you're operating in (if we disregard, say, "Graduates", because those jobs usually require a degree, there is two possibilities) :

- Your assessment grid has an inherent bias.
or
- You're better off hiring that 13th candidate of a different background, because the difference is almost certainly extremely minimal, AND you're in the outreach business.

How much of this is relevant? The article isn't focusing on the "outreach business" it seems to be exclusively focused on the low % of women and minorities in the hockey world. Not all the employees hired are going to be the public face of the team.

 

[daver]

If you run a Marketing/Ad/Comm Department of an Entertainment Venture whose customer is litterally the whole population in a given area, and your 12 best candidates are from a single demographic subset that's not representative at all of the area you're operating in (if we disregard, say, "Graduates", because those jobs usually require a degree, there is two possibilities) :

- Your assessment grid has an inherent bias.
or
- You're better off hiring that 13th candidate of a different background, because the difference is almost certainly extremely minimal, AND you're in the outreach business.

Not if you don't classify your candidates or the people in your area as being a particular gender or race.

 

[MXD]

Not if you don't classify your candidates or the people in your area as being a particular gender or race.

If you're looking for a group of 12 graduate persons in the Marketing/Ad/Comm fields in a mostly Urban area (or, well, in Seattle) AND your 12 best Applicants end up being White Men (or White Women or South Asian Men, whatever), work on your assessment grid, because it has some inherent bias, or on your preliminary criteria, because you've probably been excluding groups without knowing it. This is VERY obvious, especially in such fields that typically attracts more Women (unless the numbers are completely different in Seattle).

One? Sure.
Two ? Yeah.
Three ? Possible
Twelve ? NO.

 

[daver]

If you're looking for a group of 12 graduate persons in the Marketing/Ad/Comm fields in a mostly Urban area AND your 12 best candidates end up being White Men (or White Women or South Asian Men, whatever), work on your assessment grid, because it has some inherent bias. This is VERY obvious.

What does this have to do with a potentially more qualified applicant being excluded because of their skin colour or gender in order to keep %'s at levels deemed to be "diverse"?

 

[daver]

If you're looking for a group of 12 graduate persons in the Marketing/Ad/Comm fields in a mostly Urban area (or, well, in Seattle) AND your 12 best Applicants end up being White Men (or White Women or South Asian Men, whatever), work on your assessment grid, because it has some inherent bias, or on your preliminary criteria, because you've probably been excluding groups without knowing it. This is VERY obvious, especially in such fields that typically attracts more Women (unless the numbers are completely different in Seattle).

One? Sure.
Two ? Yeah.
Three ? Possible
Twelve ? NO.

So what? If this ultimately is not a good practice then the business will suffer.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Wrongs in the past that still affects them today? Yes. Because because of past discriminations, they have far less opportunities than white men today.

I think the reason the whole "discrimination in the past" narrative to minorities having less opportunities than white people = why there is less representation in certain careers is extremely, extremely overstated. The experiences of immigrants like myself, my parents, and the Chinese-Canadian community in the Toronto area kind of destroy this argument. My parents and I immigrated to Canada from China in 1997. I was around 4, my parents in their 30s. China then was very poor so my parents and I had no money at all (these international students from China now are rich as hell though), and we lived in a small, run-down apartment. The English education in China at the time was very poor, so neither of my parents could speak much English when they came, and they had to work in Chinese restaurants. Slowly, both of them attended College/University and restarted their careers, and now do very well for themselves. We moved from a small apartment to a modest townhouse and now my parents live in a very nice house. This isn't an isolated case by any means. Toronto has a very large Chinese/Asian population, and I saw many Chinese immigrant families like mine. Pretty much all of them are doing fairly well for themselves now. This was pre-diversity BS, so they was no preferential treatment for being a minority at that time. Now in Canada (actually, I can't be sure, because the study I saw was in the US, but I think Canada should be much the same) as a racial minority, Asians on average attain the highest levels of education (so many Asians are entering medical school that I am now on the bad end of affirmative action lol), achieve higher average levels of wealth etc. Despite the majority being recent immigrants/2nd generation. A lot of them could not speak English, had to restart their careers in their 30s/40s etc and had no money coming in. You mention Jim Crow laws, but we had "head tax" laws for Chinese people in the 20th century. How does white privilege explain this?

 

[MXD]

What does this have to do with a potentially more qualified applicant being excluded because of their skin colour or gender in order to keep %'s at levels deemed to be "diverse"?

It has to do with the fact that the allegedly more qualified applicant isn't actually more qualified.

 

[Turin]

Embarrassing, but expected given the market.

 

[MXD]

So what? If this ultimately is not a good practice then the business will suffer.

... It's also a CEO's job to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.

 

[Devonator]

Here is a novel idea...how about using some common sense and hiring the best person for the job! What a unique idea eh!

 

[Derg12]

.

 

[daver]

... It's also a CEO's job to make sure such a thing doesn't happen.

So how does setting artificial hiring quotas counter inherent bias in a practical manner other than like looking like a good PR move?

What wrong with ensuring that a certain portion of a broader applicant base includes diversity but not to be held to that as you get closer to picking a the right person?

 

[Fantomas]

I'm in favor of diversity hiring. Unfortunately this is often done poorly (e.g., via quotas), rather than intersectionally.

Diversity hiring rarely goes beyond gender and race categories, which will hopefully change in time. What winds up happening is that hiring organizations stock up on upper-middle class blacks and women, which has negligible impact on inequality.

Hiring people with disabilities is extremely important. Likewise newcomers (immigrants), people of low-income backgrounds, lgbtq people, Indigenous people.

No matter what your organization is, having people with different experiences is extremely important. Some orgs think that having a 1 to 1 ratio of men to women makes them diverse, which is nonsense. That's just pure tokenism.