Is it OK for Employers to seek out employee they want? Yes, their business, their decision.
Is that the same as discriminating based on age?
Is 'digital native' HR-code for discriminating based on age?
Is it inherently or obviously used that way? No, not likely.
As to the first question, yeah, in many cases it's okay to discriminate based on factors out of the control of applicants. Many disabilities, for instance, will preclude you from many jobs.
'Digital native', interpreted literally is nonsense - almost by definition it requires context to have meaning. We can't talk about meaning being 'inherent' or 'obvious' without figuring out the context.
I think it's charmingly naive to think that a company advertising a job for a 'digital native' would always or even usually mean "we're looking for someone immersed in digital technology and culture". I can tell you given my experience and also given the amazing ubiquity of H-1B fraud, there are plenty of companies who are actually trying to say, "we're trying to use a phrase that attracts the young and the naive - kids who won't ask for their legally-entitled mat leave, won't claim their negotiated time-off to look after kids, are willing to work lots of unpaid hours on weekends, and don't know enough about the way the job market works to negotiate for equity in exchange for all the unpaid hard work they'll do".
As to the first question, yeah, in many cases it's okay to discriminate based on factors out of the control of applicants. Many disabilities, for instance, will preclude you from many jobs.
What about being black? Or female? The parent poster boldly declared, "Yes, their business, their decision", which just isn't true - acting accordingly could actually be illegal.
The parent made their comment in that context.
What does "digital native" mean in the context of hiring? Does it mean age discrimination? I'm guessing that there are a lot of companies that are using it as a sort of 'job marketing', and that the intention is to specifically appeal to younger candidates. If so, then, in intention at least, it would be a violation of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The parent made no such distinction, and what he said is literally wrong - that it's "their business" does not imply that it's "their decision". Or at the very least, there are constraints on how they make that decision. You can't systematically discriminate against capable candidates.
My mind doesn't necessarily equate to everyone else's mind.
You're taking the parent at his worst, when HN makes a concerted effort to take the best possible meaning.
You actually can systematically discriminate against capable candidates and virtually every hiring process is designed to do that in some form.
Really, I think you're just trolling here.
Perhaps, but in the meantime the parent has elaborated on his position and has confirmed that he really does seem to believe that private business is exempt from employment discrimination law. Or perhaps he doesn't understand that there actually is such a thing as employment discrimination law. Or I don't know. I don't know what's going on in his mind, actually. All I have is what he's written here - I'm forced to give him the benefit of judging his words without prejudice - I don't know him and I've never heard of him.
You actually can systematically discriminate against capable candidates and virtually every hiring process is designed to do that in some form
Well this is ethics vs morality, isn't it? Yes, Daisy, you really can break the law and get away with it most of the time. But that doesn't make it right, and I don't like seeing or hearing anyone patting each other on the back about it or crowing about how PRIVATE business is privileged enough to be able to hire without considering employment discrimination laws.
Really, I think you're just trolling here
I don't think that I'm trolling - I'm merely trying to provoke thought in the Socratic tradition. How am I trolling?
> Is it inherently or obviously used that way? No, not likely.
It inherently, from its coinage, refers to a particular subset of persons born in the media saturated age (it appears later to have evolved to more firmly post-1980, but the general features around its coinage would have nailed it near that time if not specifically at that point), which means that, if nothing else, it is inherently age-discriminatory.
Its not covering up -- discriminate and decide actually mean the same thing.
> It is his business. If he wants to hire only blond woman in their 20s - cool.
Age and gender discrimination are both (with some caveats) illegal in many jurisdictions, so, while you may find it "cool", it isn't necessarily legal.
> You cant change that, thats freedom of PRIVATE business.
Actually, you can change that, e.g., by adopting laws against age, race, and gender discrimination that apply to employers. Which lots of jurisdictions have.
Such as the U.S., which has laws protecting workers over the age of 40 from age discrimination:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employme...
Other U.S. laws protect against gender, race, religious, etc. discrimination.
That's not the way commerce and business law work. Private business needs to follow the law, as much as anyone else.
If he wants to hire only blond woman in their 20s - cool
Cool, perhaps - in a frat-boy/brogrammer sort of way. But also quite likely illegal in the United States under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex, and I doubt that being a 'fuckable blonde' would qualify as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception under the statute.
But if he decides to hire based on skills rather than racial/age quotas or some ridiculous decisions - also cool.
That's all anyone could ask of him.
You cant change that, thats freedom of PRIVATE business
PRIVATE business is specifically bound by title VII. Please hire a qualified HR representative when you start your business and save yourself a whole lot of grief.
Its nice to follow principle, but reality is different. I am surprised you guys are so detached from it.
The world is not just A and B. I am not defending anyone, just saying how it is. Nothing will change that, there will be always a way or loophole to go around the law.
Of course, one might claim by asking for "digital natives" one is not discriminating on the basis of age. But this feels like a rather disingenuous claim. Asking for computer skills is not discriminating on the basis of age, but asking that someone be "native" to an environment that did not exist when they were younger is. The older person might be very skilled with computers, but since they were not young when computers were prevalent they are not "native."
And yes, one might make an argument that this was not what they meant by the term "digital native", but it is a questionable enough argument that I would not want to rely on it in court. Not when there are terms that relate more directly to the skills concerned, which do not carry the same connotations of discrimination in this regard.
But I think everyone (including the journalist in the first place) are missing the point again. The problem is, that "digital native" thing is absolutely meaningless. It's basically another ridiculous "ninja-rockstar" thing, in some sense. You can prove I'm not 20 years old, you can prove I am or am not qualified to do the job, you can prove I'm male/female, you can prove I'm white/black/dog/whale, whatever. But you can not prove I am or am not a "digital native". It's absolutely possible, that I never even saw a computer until the last week, and over the last week gained all the knowledge you want me to have, including all the historic background. In fact, without the strict definition what "digital native" is, all this discussion and job announcements containing this word are nonsense, and it seems that if somebody who cares would construct this definition, it would be unverifiable given the current information about the candidate and thus meaningless anyway.