Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

You should have never had them in the first place.

Hire fairly. Avoid [bigoted] bias in your hiring.

That you had to advertise you did that meant you were not doing it in the first place. Meaning you were not treating equally and fairly.

Lots of these corporate efforts, whatever they are, are a money printer for organizations “helping” including those proposing streamlining, time management, equity, X analysis, etc. whether delivered by the big5, individuals or any other entity, they are money pits that make management feel good: they’re doing something.

View on HN

But everyone can have biases even if they don’t think they do. So having some law to make you check your hiring practises is reasonable.

But American businesses really over shot. And the correction will overshoot in the other direction.

>But American businesses really over shot.

Did they though? There was a race to declare DEI-friendliness in the wake of Floyd, but I wonder how much was actually done and how impactful it was at most of these companies?

america is black&white - there is just never gray. affirmative action, dei… all these programs come from “a good place” so-to-speak but america is not capable of making a sensible policy. blame the two-party system who knows nothing more than to kill whatever policies other side puts in place. so each side goes overboard as it knows every policy has a shelf-life. some longer than others but eventually they all die.

and to answer your question, I think these policies were supposed to be impactful for us as society more so than for companies…

What government policies compelled companies to create DEI programs?

Fair. It’s probably companies that went above and beyond with their own programs. But the people in charge are either too ideological or manipulative.

what government policies are causing ALL companies right now to fire everyone who is not a white male? :)

>I think these policies were supposed to be impactful for us as society more so than for companies

Well, I believe the idea was two-fold, but it would depend on who you ask. Certainly the societal benefit was a consideration. But there are also those who do genuinely believe that DEI is good for a company.

A third consideration is the PR angle. That is, I don't think it's overly cynical to say that PR was a primary driver for some of these companies, especially given the moment. And that's really what I'm asking: how much actual work was done? How much real change was there versus the headlines?

This is precisely the point where the facts no longer matter and it morphs into a faith based initiative:

- not enough blacks at your company? We need to keep running the program and try harder (aka new "programs") to get more diversity.

- Have enough black/women at your company? That's wrongthink, you can never have enough diversity, and don't you dare get rid of the program, only a racist would do such a thing.

I think it was a supreme court judge who said "Where does it end? At what point do you declare victory?". The far left has no answer to that because their political existence depends on being social justice warriors. Either people need to continue suffering, or they need to extend the definition of suffering to make it appear they and their irreversible government programs are the last and only line of defense from a world full of racism.

There is always going to be bias in your hiring, because bias inflects the entirety of a person's life, whether that bias is good (wealthy parents, e.g.) or bad (being born with fetal alcohol syndron, e.g.)

There is no unbiased state.

Being anti-diversity is a bias in favor of existing biases, which in this country tends to mean: white, wealthy, male, able bodied, etc.

It is a very simple concept to understand!

Correct, there is no unbiased state. It's also impossible to enforce one. It's impossible to perfectly define the combination of bias wavelengths for an individual or group, so it's impossible to define an inverse wavelength that objectively cancels it out. And in the futile attempt to enforce such a thing, you are going to generate enormous, justified animosity.

Being treated unfairly because of a well-meaning person's unconscious bias (which you can never even know for sure exactly when it's happening to you) is way less hideous than being treated unfairly out in the open by a correcting policy.

Secondarily: It's not a simple concept, and the condescending suggestion is unwelcome.

This is a longform "nuh uh"

I see it differently, to wit: being treated unfairly out in the open by a correcting policy is way is wey less heinous than being born--through no fault or one's own--as a member of a historically and currently disadvantaged group, and then being told "nuh uh, get fucked" when someone tries to give you preferential treatment.

To me what is most galling is the way the anti-DEI crowd exudes pure entitlement; sometimes in life things dont go you way. Oh fuckin well. You get up and try again. I taught my kids that lesson when they were like 7 or 8. It's super embarrassing to see grown ass adults be that small and selfish.

What are countries that hire more fairly than the US? I don't think there are many. Not even semi-homogenous countries hire fairly. They'd be biased against age, sex, looks, height, region, accent, baldness, etc.

Japan, China, India, Germany, UK, South Africa? I don't think any of them are better than us at hiring fairly.

What I mean by avoiding bias, is don't use bigoted biases --of course we hire with a bias to further the team or company mission within the bounds of the law. Does that even have to be said?

Brother, you and I must have veey different definitions of bigotry. The bigotry i see is the anti dei folks refusing to address the legacy of historical injustice that they currently benefit from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com