Hacker News Reader

Comment by fdschoeneman | Hacker News Reader

Why not? Do you seriously believe racism is never a thing that happens in hiring? Because it is, just as it is in academia. At least some of the time. Instead of shaming people for pointing out the real possibility that racism may be at play, consider acknowledging that it may be at play but that there's nothing the op can do about it and he or she should just keep plugging away. It's a numbers game, with or without racism, and you are not helping anyone by dismissing what is entirely fair speculation.

View on HN

Because you have no proof for any “end of year” DEI target rate limiting. It is entirely what you labeled it as, speculation.

I said nothing about racism in hiring practices. I was addressing the statement that was made.

Okay so let's be clear: you think it is wrong or unhelpful to speculate that race or sex may be a factor in what the op claims to be observing? Because "baiting?"

What do you mean by baiting? I read that as you trying to shame people for even discussing the possibility that racism or sexism is a factor. As if it is somehow wrong to discuss these things. If you had a different intent, please share it.

I could speculate because the op is a Taurus. It holds just as much weight in the conversation because there’s no evidence that the op’s zodiac or DEI status are used to eliminate them in the hiring process.

I used the word bait because unsubstantiated “DEI hate” is used on hackernews as lightning rods.

I haven’t shamed anyone. If you actually read what I said above, you would see that I’m not denying racism in hiring exist… but again there’s no evidence of that here.

"You can't speculate that a specific tree was felled with an axe rather than a chainsaw when you weren't in the woods to see it happen."

-- on the contrary, I'm pretty sure a rational person could speculate that a specific tree was felled by an axe vs a chainsaw depending on what she knows about loggers in a given area from a given culture and during a given time period. It's a question of probability. It's normal and rational and fair to discuss probabilities when speculating. It's unclear that you understand the terms you are using though so I'm gonna peace out and wish you luck.

> I'm pretty sure a rational person could speculate that a specific tree was felled by an axe vs a chainsaw depending on what she knows about loggers in a given area from a given culture and during a given time period. It's a question of probability. It's normal and rational and fair to discuss probabilities when speculating.

Given that you know nothing about the hiring practices of the OP's company, it's safe to say that you know nothing about the woods in this analogy either ha.

> It's unclear that you understand the terms you are using though so I'm gonna peace out and wish you luck.

I understand very well. You made an analogy, and I made a more apt one. But when in doubt, resort to ad hominem.

Ad hominem? I don't know if you know this, though you probably don't, but 'ad hominem' is a category of logical fallacy, committed when one argues that one's opponent's argument is wrong because he is, por ejemplo, an asshole or a pedophile or a loser or a dildo. At no point have I argued that your position is logically incorrect because you are an asshole. I've only ever argued that you are incorrect because your logic is dumb.

Move along.

Implying that I’m disqualified from the conversation because I “don’t understand the terms” that I’m using is ad-hominem. It’s being dismissive of the argument because of something you believe to be inherent in me, rather than the subject of the argument.

I think you should learn the usage of terms rather run than me, lol.

No evidence? I was not in on any of those specific conversations and neither was the op but I've overheard a lot of conversations from hiring managers and they did explicitly discuss candidates race and sex, and I think if you ask around you'll see you are the outlier in having never seen evidence that racism and sexism have played a role before.

Just because you may not have been around when a tree fell in the woods doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.

> I was not in on any of those specific conversations and neither was the op

To my point that you're speculating about something you have no evidence of and know nothing about.

> I've overheard a lot of conversations from hiring managers and they did explicitly discuss candidates race and sex,

Anectdata.

> I think if you ask around you'll see you are the outlier in having never seen evidence that racism and sexism have played a role before.

I never said this.

> Just because you may not have been around when a tree fell in the woods doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.

You can't speculate that a specific tree was felled with an axe rather than a chainsaw when you weren't in the woods to see it happen.

When hiring, people discriminate on all kinds of factors, and there are labor economics papers out there that prove it definitively.

Age-ism, ethnic sounding names, etc. What makes you think companies engage in all kinds of biased hiring EXCEPT diversity quotas?

If anything, the burden of proof is on you that they don't.

> the real possibility that racism may be at play

I mean... isn't that the actual justification for DEI policies in the first place?

DEI policies are not necessarily also anti-racism policies. The devil is in the details as they say.

This is taken from CNBC interview with Lybra Clemons(Chief Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging Officer at Twilio Inc.)

"This success, as well as Clemons’ acclaim for the company, is owed to Twilio’s commitment to becoming “anti-racist.” According to Clemons, part of the difference between DE&I and anti-racism is self-awareness.

“Right before I joined, Twilio said, we’re on this journey to become anti-racist. And I think we were all like, what does that even mean,” she tells CNBC Make It.

“I think a lot of people thought it was just a more elevated term for diversity, equity inclusion. But as we’ve started to go through the process, we’re learning that anti-racism is different. DE&I are still very foundational and fundamental to work, but anti-racism is an active term where you are personally responsible. This is about self-awareness and taking full accountability of who you are. We are actively promoting equity and racial justice through consistent, deliberate decisions that we make.”"

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/11/the-difference-between-dei-a...

Same page archived

https://archive.ph/u92e4#selection-737.0-745.506

That is literally the stated justification for dei policies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com