Hacker News Reader

Comment by CWuestefeld | Hacker News Reader

Of course having the qualifications on paper isn't all that matters. But limiting yourself to a palette of people fitting the "protected groups" isn't what you need to flesh out a good team, either.

Wouldn't it be strange if, despite all the claims that race and gender, etc., don't matter, it really does matter as EEO regs keep telling us?

But people differ in ways other than skin color, gender, religion, age, physical ability and sexual preference. Members of our team from the city versus the country; short versus tall; early-risers versus nightowls; family size; headbangers versus country music fans; vegans or steak-eaters; and so on.

Why should we think that it's critical to have a pastiche of races, genders, etc.; while simply assuming that all the other interesting ways that people experience life differently is irrelevant?

View on HN

> while simply assuming that all the other interesting ways that people experience life differently is irrelevant?

I don't know of anyone who values diversity in gender/religion/sexuality/etc but draws the line there, and I know a lot of very unusual people from all walks of life. That would be a weird line to draw. A gay genderfluid punk rocker probably has lots of experiences a biromantic genderfluid cellist would be fascinated by.

Diversity is good. The more intersections, the better. Why do you think anyone would draw this line?

Because some things are a choice, and some things are not. Some things can be turned off and some things cannot.

Gender (and gender identity), along with race, are things that cannot be unshed.

The language you choose to speak, what music you listen to, and whether you choose to share your sexuality, while they are differences, they cannot be instantly detected.

The natural heuristic we use drawing upon our experiences in an American society have a unique relationship with gender and race. It is especially because those things are non-choices and instantaneously recognizable, that they are the most important to address first.

This is a better answer to the question in the post I replied to. I was responding to CWuestefeld's faulty belief that people who want diversity in involuntary attributes don't care about diversity in others.

Because some things are a choice, and some things are not. Some things can be turned off and some things cannot.

This heuristic doesn't accurately predict which attributes are protected (legislatively or otherwise) and which are not. There's a pretty much open-ended set of predetermined attributes that can be discriminated on. Start with height and physical attractiveness: these factors are more-or-less immutable, but are well known as drivers of discrimination.

Why do you think anyone would draw this line?

Because the line has been drawn. The government has told me that there's a short list of protected attributes. And my employer (and thus by extension my hiring and compensation decisions) is held accountable based on those and only those.

And in the discourse on the topic, we always hear "why aren't there enough blacks in tech" or "why do women get paid less", but not a peep about the achievement gap for punk rockers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13563855

Reply on news.ycombinator.com