Some of them play this game very aggressively. Once they are there, immediately organize into diversity projects and groups to push for quotas in promotions, project leads, etc. Despite these fast-track opportunities, they fully believe they are continuously being held back, at every level, and everything will be interpreted that way.
I think it will eventually break the org but I don't plan on staying.
You’re obviously able to organise in the workplace for basically whatever goals you want if you like (though in the US this organisation is only protected if more than one person is involved.)
That's not what's happening. They just demand explicit quotas for themselves.
The whole 'diversity and inclusion/feminism makes things better for everyone' is largely a myth, it's just identity groups out for themselves in corporate America.
That said, FAANG companies have provided countless textbook examples of what HR departments should not do in almost every imaginable situation.
I’d love to see the aclu sue FANG over their Diversity programs. I highly suspect they are illegal in one way shape or form.
A uniform decision regarding all interns across an entire company targeting specific racial charactaristics is very different from a policy that bases decisions on objective measurements done in good faith with intent to correct for some form of bias.
Edit: btw the thing that annoys me about this is that I already won some tough and prestigious merit scholarships so I actually would have a good shot at these and probably get one if I applied to several. So it's more direct here for me.
And I don't think this can be achieved by accident. There must be intentionality to achieve this.
Just look at this NYT hit piece on Coinbase yesterday and all the data available from big tech like Google and Facebook: https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper/status/13440449092006952...
I'm not endorsing it. I'm just noting that it's happening.
Here's an article that discusses one recent study:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-...
The problem with the original study was that it used names that denoted socio-economic status as much as race (ie, "Dahntay Smith" or "Shaniqua Thomas"). That's a problem, too, but I suspect a similar effect for professional job applicants can be shown using "lower" socio-economic status white names (ie, "Bobby Lee Jones" or "Tommy Ray Brown").
Regardless, I would be strongly in favor of anonymized job applications, since that would eliminate any suggestion of such bias in whichever direction.
Evey beyond names people tend to assign class, gender, and race to surprisingly mundane things that are found on resumes.
I assumed this was fairly typical.
Either way I was responding to "if we took sex and race off... job apps... it would really help."