Hacker News Reader

Comment by DyslexicAtheist | Hacker News Reader

I'd hate to work somewhere knowing I was hired because the color of my skin and not my abilities. maybe less of an issue in non-brainy jobs, but in Tech I would feel more insecure not knowing if I got the job to fill a quota. This sounds rather disgusting to me.

View on HN

At first I felt the same way because I may be a beneficiary of these types of policies. Who likes being a charity case? But then I realized that this is just work, and I don't really care. If it gets me closer to a comfortable retirement more quickly, so be it. Ends, means, etc.

Edit: I'm speaking about opportunities in general. The selection policy described by GP would put me at a disadvantage because I have a completely Anglo name.

I'm Hispanic and have resigned myself to this as well. While I may benefit from getting a job, I'm still subjected to what I would consider racism which I have to publicly turn a blind eye to. I'll give an example:

"Latinx" is not a thing. Yet, I need to listen to a lot of white and other non-hispanic people say it all of the time. It feels like someone just reached into our culture, ripped out its core identity and rebranded it (supposedly in our favor?). I dare not say anything about it though, part of accepting the job with the diversity bonus is that the same people that granted you that power can take it away at the drop of a hat.

I grew up in a majority hispanic community, but I'm not hispanic. I find it very hard to say "latinx" because that's not the label used when I was growing up. However, "hispanic" is apparently exclusive and should be avoided. I've asked my hispanic friends what they think about "latinx". They all hate it and never use it themselves. One said of the recent PC wave: "This is all perpetrated by clueless people, almost all white, who tell us what problems we suffer from and how we should solve them." I fall into the LGBT bucket and that's a different minefield, but I can sympathize.

I got off topic. Nonetheless I agree that if I were to constructively criticize these often misimplemented diversity initiatives, it wouldn't be well received. Meanwhile I'll let the compound interest do its thing.

It's always awkward when the Anglo-sphere tries to see parts of the world with their racial lens. To be frank it's pretty ridiculous that we consider everyone from Asia to be the same race (literally 60% of the world population that encompasses people like this [1], this [2], and this [3] under one label, all three groups would probably see themselves as distinct races).

My understanding is that "Latinx" refers to people that are ethnically Mexico, Central America, and South American (and some parts of the Caribbean like Dominican Republic). Whereas "Hispanic" broadly refers to people who are from Spain's former colonies in the New World. So "Latinx" refers to race, but "Hispanic" refers to culture and encompasses people of a variety of races.

The US government is at least making progress. The US census disconnected "Hispanic" from the race category starting in 2010 [4]. So now people like me can appropriately say that I am racially white but also Hispanic.

1. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+people&t=canonical&iar=ima...

2. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tajik+people&t=canonical&iax=image...

3. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dravidian+people&t=canonical&iar=i...

4. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/hispanic-origin/abo...

My issue is with the made up term "Latinx" vs the correct Latino.

I find "Latinx" cringeworthy as well. Spanish defaults to the masculine adjective when referring to an unspecified group. If gendered adjectives bother someone, just use the English word: "Latin".

if you think hiring is a fair meritocracy you are naive.

Good looking people tend get hired more often. Get higher salaries.

And getting hired is often about good your network is. And the richer you are or your parents are, the likelier you are to get an internship or a coveted job because you are around the "right" people.

And there is also Cronyism, which I have realized is more prevalent that I thought as my career has advanced.

And now we can add yet another mechanism that destroys meritocracy by being openly prejudiced against people based on their skin color and gender. Only the old forms of advantage still exist. The rich white men are still getting jobs based on their networks, but now poor and middle class white men are rejected purely based on who they are, not what they've done.

Well, on the brighter side, when a poor/middle-class white guy gets hired, they no longer have to suffer the soul-crushing agony of "Did I get hired because of my skin color? What will my coworkers think of me?"

What is good for the goose...

how do you suggest we even out the playing field after 100s of years of institutionalized racism?

institutionalized racism affects generation after generation. but somehow you want to tell those affected, "everything is fair now, move along"

As one of those affected (see my other comments on this thread), I want to be judged on the output of my work and not on my skin color.

that is OK for you. but may not be OK for everyone affected.

There are multiple people here saying the same thing. Paternalistic silencing of minority people’s actual opinions is definitely a form of racism. You should probably take that into consideration before speaking for others.

As a woman with a physical disability, idgaf, I just want a job. I'm quite confident in my own abilities and require no external validation.

As a more feminine woman with a greater disability, I feel the opposite way.

In the case that parent commenter described, you would be invited to the interview based on your qualifications and your color, but would be hired based on your demonstrated abilities during the interviews.

I respect both sides to of this debate. If a candidate had a 2nd attempt at passing the phone interview (which we provide at higher rates to diverse candidates) then it is somewhat fair to say the candidate would not have been hired if they weren't diverse.

But phone screens are very low signal. It filters out people that are not competent coders, but beyond that it's basically a count toss.

We also provide 2nd phone interviews to people that have referrals. So you could basically frame this as saying we treat diverse candidates as though someone referred them to the company.

Again, I can empathize with why people think this is unfair and maybe paternalistic. I also respect those who see it as a prudent measure to be inclusive.

I'm Cuban myself, but I come from a very wealthy family and attended a premiere computer science university. I'm also pretty much visibly White (btw many Cubans do consider themselves White) I do sometimes feel awkward checking the "Hispanic or Latino". If a company gave me additional opportunity on the basis of my heritage the I don't think it's leveling any playing field. If anything, it's giving someone who's already coming from a position of advantage with an even bigger advantage.

Because of the way subconscious prejudice works, unless you put a finger on the scale in the other direction then all the white guys are hired (in part) because of their appearance.

What I’m gathering from this strategy is the only way to fight racism is to practice it? If you don’t mind sharing, what are the quotas your company has in place for guaranteeing outcome?

Well, Asians are getting hired at ~3x the rate of Whites in Bay area tech firms. So it can't just be benefitting Whites. In fact, at many Bay area companies Whites are a minority. Not that I'm trying to grind an axe here, but it is pretty much counterfactual to say that explicitly meritocratic hiring benefits Whites above all others.

For what it's worth I think this question about hiring practices is welded to the the question of whether equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. It's really the question of "is it okay to create unequal opportunities to engineer more equal outcomes?"

Questions like these have no static answer. Rather, society develops and continuously evolves a consensus about what the right answer is.

Every Asian I know in IT works ridiculous hours compared to their white counterparts. Ditto Indians. Americans in general (IT can be different) want to work their 8 and bail. I also fall into this category. I have a union mentality towards work. It's also why I demand an hourly rate over a salary. If I have to work, you are paying me. Texas employers seem happy to accommodate me. My wife, who is medical, also demanded and got an hourly rate, and she's expensive.

This sort of reasoning by a hiring manager would be a great example of bias against white people.

Subconscious bias means your concern is applicable regardless of your skin color or gender. If you’re a white male, you could easily have been hired simply because of your skin color and gender and not your abilities. Effectively, your point is moot. Maybe worry less about the thoughts and feelings of who hired you and focus on doing your best work.

As an under represented minority in tech, I couldn't agree more with the parent post. I never want to bring up my race because I want to be judged on the output of my skills and not be propped up because someone thinks I add diversity points to the team.

Sadly I've had to bring up my genetic background recently as a pure survival mechanism because people keep telling me to my face that they don't want to hire white men so I need to let them know I'm not white so I don't get instantly filtered out.

The whole situation is ridiculous as I never had any problems with my race before "diversity" became talking point #1 (as a developer, raising money is another story).

I could be misunderstanding what you are stating, but it sounds like you are saying that when you were mistaken for white, and diversity practices did not exist, everything was good. But now that diversity practices exist, you need to preemptively point out that you are not white. Now that the conscious or subconscious race pre-determinant is shifting from "this person is white, ergo good" to "this is a person of color, ergo good", you are finding you benefit from clarifying that you fit the latter category, even if it appears as though you fit the former. This may be a "best of both worlds" situation for you.

In any case, diversity hiring may mean that you will be excluded because you are mistaken for white - but that doesn't mean whomever you were excluded for wasn't more qualified than you.

I don't like it because I find the judging people based on their skin color extremely racist, yet I'm forced to support it due to the need to put food on the table.

> diversity hiring may mean that you will be excluded because you are mistaken for white

I consider this racism and it pains me to to have to play the game of the people committing it.

>If you’re a white male, you could easily have been hired simply because of your skin color and gender and not your abilities.

This may have been the case decade(s) ago, but I think the climate is very different now. With the prevalence of social "justice" hiring policies, I'd be much more confident I was hired because of ability, rather than to fill a quota, as a white male than any other race/sex combination.

Sadly, affirmative action creates "mismatch" that often worsens the problem it is trying to solve. Minorities are highly recruited to fill quotas, even if less capable. This (1) puts them in over their head setting them up to fail and (2) creates a perception that the minorities are inherently less qualified (rather than the truth, that they are being over-selected for).

One of many articles on this topic: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-...

> This may have been the case decade(s) ago, but I think the climate is very different now.

I don't. I've met many incompetent white males in over their heads.

I’ve met many incompetent people who don’t belong at their job. Race and gender isn’t related.

That's the Peter Principle, and it applies to everyone.

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

There are tons of people over their heads, everywhere, of all races and sexes.

But as the other person who replied to you noted, people now are openly stating that they want to avoid hiring white males.

>Sadly I've had to bring up my genetic background recently as a pure survival mechanism because people keep telling me to my face that they don't want to hire white men so I need to let them know I'm not white so I don't get instantly filtered out.

In recent times, I have not heard that more frequently about any other race/sex combination. To me it's undeniable that the hiring climate has changed drastically.

You were stating that "things have changed" in response to my statement that white males are often hired because of subconscious bias. That there are recent diversity hiring programs does not mean that white males are no longer hired because of subconscious bias.

Clearly, diversity hiring programs are new things that did not exist decades ago.

Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree. In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases.

I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result? I don't. I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction, creating more unfairness.

You replied to another poster:

>Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality.

I disagree strongly, and I somewhat agree with that poster's response to you. To me, equality means equality of process. To reclaim a phrase: equal opportunity -- not equal results. All bias is bad and should be fought against. Anti-bias training, examining disproportionate results to see if bias was an underlying cause, and race/sex-blind hiring, all are possible steps in the right direction.

To correct for subconscious bias for white males with conscious bias against them hardly seems the path towards equality.

> Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree.

Subconscious bias still exists to a huge degree. Studies have been done, and it is fairly obvious, that show increased diversity has a positive effect towards decreasing subconscious bias. I would propose that we give these hiring diversity goals, say, 100 years. Then we can circle back to see about making some adjustments towards a determination as to whether subconscious bias has effectively been eliminated.

> In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases. I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result?

I do agree that in recent years diversity hiring goals have increased significantly. And I do think it is a good course of action.

> I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction, creating more unfairness.

When your vehicles steering is misaligned, do you counter steer in the other direction or do you drive around in circles all day?

> To me, equality means equality of process.

That's a lovely ideal. It doesn't exist. You've already stated that you admit subconscious bias exists "to some degree". So the process is already unequal.

With diversity hiring, more people of color will be hired, both competent and incompetent. Without diversity hiring, more white people will be hired, both competent and incompetent. There is no evidence that shows conscious bias favoring people of color results in more incompetent hires vs. subconscious bias favoring white people. That is the process: incompetent people get hired, race has nothing to do with it. In order to hire more competent people of color, diversity hiring is required (diversity is also required to, over time, progressively decrease the prevalence of subconscious bias). More people of color hired (competent or incompetent) naturally means fewer white people hired (competent and incompetent). I fail to see why that is an issue, unless you are consciously or subconsciously biased to favor white people and/or oblivious of how change is a result of action.

> To correct for subconscious bias for white males with conscious bias against them hardly seems the path towards equality.

It may hardly seem like a path towards equality, but in fact it is (see steering analogy). That it may feel "unfair", well, in regards to that all I can say is "Sorry. But think of it this way, now you know how it feels for people of color. Lack of privilege kinda sucks." If there were another method of addressing pernicious subconscious bias favoring white people I'd be all for it. Doing nothing is obviously not a solution.

Subconscious bias may or may not take place in a specific case. Interviewer's bias can be with regards to race, sex, hair color, nationality, accent, physical fitness and so on. We may keep arguing about which if them plays higher role in me being hired.

HR policies, on the other hand, is an objective reality with a measurable outcome.

In a specific case, certainly. In the general case, subconscious bias plays a role.

It doesn’t seem like a real argument that, generally speaking it is unknown whether race or gender bias is more of a determinant in hiring decisions than hair color bias. Is that an argument you consider rational?

HR policies do have measurable outcomes. It's a question of what you think those measurements describe. A diversity hiring HR policy is a counter-action to the existing subconscious bias favoring white men, and a long term effort to squelch subconscious bias favoring white men by increasing exposure to diverse races/genders. Let's collect some long term data and analyze the result measurements, instead of pretending subconscious bias favoring white men doesn't exist.

Again, I really hope it's clear that we don't deliberately hire unqualified candidate because they're considered diverse. It only affects resume reviews and phone interviews which are basically coin tosses.

If those stages are "basically coin tosses", why do you bother with them? It'd be quicker and cheaper to toss a coin.

To be more specific they do work to filter out candidates that unambiguously lack the required skills. But for candidates that do have the required skills it's more of a coim toss.

Working through a coding question online filters out candidates that can't code or are not competent at coding. But for candidates who can code sufficiently well, it's kind of a coin toss. Maybe they just don't think of the solution in time and what not.

For any competitive position, you will have candidates with little to nothing separating them. Interviews are not standardized tests where there are easily measurable quantitative differences.

Would you "hate to work" at a place if you found out you were hired because they thought "you were a good culture fit", rather than your actual abilities?

"For what it's worth I don't think our diversity hiring practices result in any lowered caliber of hires. Most of the affirmative hiring policies only affect resume review and technical phone interviews." As the post being responded to.

I'd have to agree. I mean, lets imagine how this sounds by just swapping some words and tell me if it's still okay:

>I suspect many companies wouldn't use this as it would make affirmative hiring policies more difficult. For example, recruiters at my company curate lists of names that are majority male, white, or Western (pulled from the census bureau) in order to try and determine which candidates are... can't think of a good word for here.

Although the population swapping test does enforce the Golden rule ("treat others as you'd like to be treated") it does fail to capture the fact that there are population-level disparities in education and other opportunities.

I respect that many disagree with affirmative hiring policies, but just saying that it's be unacceptable to do the same thing to different races is a rather naive approach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com