Opinion Diversity in hiring - Should we hire based on skin color, sexual preference, disability status - or the content of someone's character?

[abject]

you suck at english. A job is something either accomplish getting through earning it or you can be handed a job you didn't earn as a privilege of your status. You can still reap the benefits of privileges even if you never actually work and earn them.

yes in that made up scenario in your head it would be a privilege not an accomplishment. you learned something tonight.

You've been outed as someone who's diverse and struggling to cope with a society built by others through accomplishments. You play the blame game and express your failures as a victim, blaming others. Your totem, so called white privilege doesn't exist. While most certainly, black privilege exits in basketball. You need to expand your horizons. Up your school level and stop focusing on bitterness and instead aim to improve yourself.

 

[shockaholic12]

You've been outed as someone who's diverse and struggling to cope with a society built by others through accomplishments. You play the blame game and express your failures as a victim, blaming others. Your totem, so called white privilege doesn't exist. While most certainly, black privilege exits in basketball. You need to expand your horizons. Up your school level and stop focusing on bitterness and instead aim to improve yourself.

What are my diverse traits? this should be good.

 

[shockaholic12]

I guess skill and experience means nothing anymore? Companies are promoting and recruiting people with less skill and experience over whites to have that window dressing diversity and purposely not recruiting whites or Asians. Sure, some of those hired or promoted are doing so based on merit and skill/exp, but not many. And fields like police and fire are seeing their requirements drop a lot just to get those diverse hires.

Love abroad? Just to get hired against those with less experience because they are diverse and meet a quota? Yeah, ok

And who plays victim the most? Yeah, we know who that is

no company wants to bring on anyone who lacks skills. If your assertion those meant "nothing anymore" was correct these companies would be full of unskilled people and all these more skilled people are out there, so why don't these companies staffed with unskilled people fail and why aren't all these skilled people forming business that beat them?

Because there is no great lack of skill when including diversity in your hiring.

The fire department in the US is 80+% white which is more than their share of the population, so if the requirments are dropping that means less qualified white folks are getting regularly hired too. Your assumptions don't match reality.

Yes, go develop skills that make you competitive. More diverse people are fluently bi-lingual than white people. That's a qualification lacking in white folks they could focus on to add diversity but they are too lazy. Cry me a river. They got outworked.

 

[RoastBeast]

"If you pretend job sites are don't have many of these positions then it's only 5x wrong..." this isn't a point.

If "Diverse means differing from one another" explain how this is english "differing from one another from what?". It's nonsense.

Creating a more diverse workplace describes moving from a state of homogeny to a state of increased diversity and what traits are common or lacking in any given space can encompass all traits a staff member could possess. Race, type of education, where they've spent their lives, gender, age, area of experience, personality type, whether or not they possess disabilities.

Diversifying a workplace describes adding traits from any of these categories and countless more. It does not demand you discriminate against any one thing or "diverse from this one thing". If I have a team that is mostly straight american white men and I hire a gay white man, or a white man from europe...I've diversified my workplace.

I know you want so so badly for white men to be seen as some perpetual victim here but they aren't.

It's pretty funny that you still don't understand simple English and you're still using that as your cop out to avoid answering the question. I'm sorry if "diverse from what?" or "different from what?" breaks your brain. It would break my brain too if the answer involved admitting I was racist.

For every immutable characteristic you purposely hire for, you must in turn discriminate against someone else's immutable characteristics. If you're looking for a white guy for a certain role, then you must discriminate against a black guy for that same role.

We have laws that prevent this from happening. It's called the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and it was enacted to prevent employers from discriminating against African Americans.

All your side has done has presented information on why we should be discriminating against people. You've yet to prove how you can purposely diversify a workforce without discrimination.

You are racist against white people and everyone here other than that one mouth breather knows it. When I asked about why you guys don't want to implement DEI for hotel housekeepers for farm workers, you all went silent. You hide under this "opening new markets" bullshit when the overwhelming vast majority of job positions have nothing to do with finding new markets through diversity.

 

[Sweater of AV]

You are racist against white people and everyone here other than that one mouth breather knows it.

The fact you already agreed with me but are too stupid to even realize it is hilarious:

I actually agree that most people probably want their doctor to be their own race or at least as similar culturally as possible.

You are "racist." And very, very stupid. Close your mouth when you breathe. And when you try to talk.



RoastCan bless.

 

[Belaya Smert]

DEI is an intermediary step on the way to color blindness. Currently, colorblindness is fake and people who claim it are perpetuating systems of inequality we inherited. At some point in the distant future, laws and policies related to DEI might become antique and embarrassing as they are no longer needed. The active resistance to them is itself evidence that they are needed.

Exactly, like MLK and his I have a dream speech. Judging folks by the content of their character?!??


Could you imagine?

 

[Sweater of AV]

@RoastBeast asked me to share this in this thread. He thought it was worthwhile for everyone to see.

Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care | The National Academies Press

Read online, download a free PDF.

nap.nationalacademies.org

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care are known to reflect access to care and other issues that arise from differing socioeconomic conditions. There is, however, increasing evidence that even after such differences are accounted for, race and ethnicity remain significant predictors of the quality of health care received.

In Unequal Treatment, a panel of experts documents this evidence and explores how persons of color experience the health care environment. The book examines how disparities in treatment may arise in health care systems and looks at aspects of the clinical encounter that may contribute to such disparities. Patients' and providers' attitudes, expectations, and behavior are analyzed.

How to intervene? Unequal Treatment offers recommendations for improvements in medical care financing, allocation of care, availability of language translation, community-based care, and other arenas. The committee highlights the potential of cross-cultural education to improve provider-patient communication and offers a detailed look at how to integrate cross-cultural learning within the health professions. The book concludes with recommendations for data collection and research initiatives. Unequal Treatment will be vitally important to health care policymakers, administrators, providers, educators, and students as well as advocates for people of color.

Thank you, @RoastBeast. Looks interesting.

 

[shockaholic12]

It's pretty funny that you still don't understand simple English and you're still using that as your cop out to avoid answering the question. I'm sorry if "diverse from what?" or "different from what?" breaks your brain. It would break my brain too if the answer involved admitting I was racist.

For every immutable characteristic you purposely hire for, you must in turn discriminate against someone else's immutable characteristics. If you're looking for a white guy for a certain role, then you must discriminate against a black guy for that same role.

We have laws that prevent this from happening. It's called the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and it was enacted to prevent employers from discriminating against African Americans.

All your side has done has presented information on why we should be discriminating against people. You've yet to prove how you can purposely diversify a workforce without discrimination.

You are racist against white people and everyone here other than that one mouth breather knows it. When I asked about why you guys don't want to implement DEI for hotel housekeepers for farm workers, you all went silent. You hide under this "opening new markets" bullshit when the overwhelming vast majority of job positions have nothing to do with finding new markets through diversity.

It doesn't break my brain it just breaks english rules. You are not diverse from a specific race or trait because that's a describing a lack of diversity. You become diverse by moving from a state of homogeny to a state of variation. You are not diverse from muslim, or white, or men, because you need them in your community to achieve diversity. So if you exclude them you aren't achieving it. This is simple stuff. Sorry this is so hard for you to wrap your head around.

If discrimination is a practice in a company's hiring strategy it will by definition be striving for a lack of diversity not diversity. You don't achieve a diverse work places by discriminating against any specific trait. You have to seek out all traits to become diverse. Again, this is obvious. No one is saying "don't hire this one race or gender that's all that matters". My wife is a white person who is fluent in 3 languages and has worked extensively abroad and they constantly get hired for adding diversity to teams. Stop crying that you're some perpetual victim here, grab those bootstraps, and diversify your background if you want to compete with people like this who were busy learning while you were whining.

Sure bud, I hate white people so so much. Myself and all these S&P 500 company board members like to meet up on Saturdays, cover the white skin we have and hate so much with black face, and drive around screaming "cracker" at white people because we are so racist. You have lost the plot and are just being a drama queen screeching "you hate white people" at white people at this point. Pathetic.

I don't care if a farm or hotel wants to diversify it's staff. That's not a point. It's just another stupid question you asked.

Most companies aren't looking to gain new markets? Another huge derp lol.

Please post out of the countless companies using DEI, how many have lost court cases for discrimination?

 

[shockaholic12]

Exactly, like MLK and his I have a dream speech. Judging folks by the content of their character?!??


Could you imagine?

A candidate's ability to help more customers relate to and trust my brand and help me gain understanding of and sales in new markets is part of their character I'm judging when I'm running a company.

Imagine that.

 

[Belaya Smert]

A candidate's ability to help more customers relate to and trust my brand and help me gain understanding of and sales in new markets is part of their character I'm judging when I'm running a company.

Imagine that.

You could hire a 350 pound hooters waitress and use that as the control group here.

 

[shockaholic12]

You could hire a 350 pound hooters waitress and use that as the control group here.

If I owned a fashion line and was attempting to expand my products to include plus sized folks, that would be a person I might hire to model my product if the rest of my models were not plus size.

Good example.

 

[Belaya Smert]

If I owned a fashion line and was attempting to expand my products to include plus sized folks, that would be a person I might hire to model my product if the rest of my models were not plus size.

Good example.

It’s your hypothetical business. You shouldn’t let anyone tell you who you should hire. If it succeeds or fails it’s your bankruptcy not inclusions to declare.

 

[shockaholic12]

It’s your hypothetical business. You shouldn’t let anyone tell you who you should hire. If it succeeds or fails it’s your bankruptcy not inclusions to declare.

ok. and if DEI was placing all these unqualified folks all these companies would fail and the ones who didn't use DEI would be dominating and hiring all the qualified folks. So what's the point of all the bitching about DEI in here then?

 

[Belaya Smert]

ok. and if DEI was placing all these unqualified folks all these companies would fail and the ones who didn't use DEI would be dominating and hiring all the qualified folks. So what's the point of all the bitching about DEI in here then?

The most qualified candidate might not necessarily fit into the specified DEI group though. I mean let’s face it though Affirmative action got overturned because Asians the most qualified of all the ethnic groups in America were themselves being discriminated against based on ethnic and diversity quotas. I don’t buy the troupe it’s altogether failing or succeeding in the private sector. Any attempt at equality comes at the expense of our tier groups. Hence the Harvard Lawsuit that SCOTUS took up last year I was referencing earlier in this post.

 

[nhbbear]

no company wants to bring on anyone who lacks skills. If your assertion those meant "nothing anymore" was correct these companies would be full of unskilled people and all these more skilled people are out there, so why don't these companies staffed with unskilled people fail and why aren't all these skilled people forming business that beat them?

Because there is no great lack of skill when including diversity in your hiring.

The fire department in the US is 80+% white which is more than their share of the population, so if the requirments are dropping that means less qualified white folks are getting regularly hired too. Your assumptions don't match reality.

Yes, go develop skills that make you competitive. More diverse people are fluently bi-lingual than white people. That's a qualification lacking in white folks they could focus on to add diversity but they are too lazy. Cry me a river. They got outworked.

Sure, buddy. Black and trans are bi-lingual. What about Asians? Mostly by-lingual but not getting hired in many fields because of over representation. If you are a large company and you have upper management, you are looking to hire a minority if one is available for show-not because of their skills. You wouldn’t have hired them if they totally lacked skills and experience in the first place, but if you have two identical candidates, in todays age, you’re hiring or promoting the minority over the white giy, whereas fifty years ago, it was 100% the opposite. AND THAT WASNT RIGHT EITHER. Just like it’s wrong to do the opposite.

 

[shockaholic12]

The most qualified candidate might not necessarily fit into the specified DEI group though. I mean let’s face it though Affirmative action got overturned because Asians the most qualified of all the ethnic groups in America were themselves being discriminated against based on ethnic and diversity quotas. I don’t buy the troupe it’s altogether failing or succeeding in the private sector. Any attempt at equality comes at the expense of our tier groups. Hence the Harvard Lawsuit that SCOTUS took up last year I was referencing earlier in this post.

DEI departments don't send you any minority that fits a category, they look for qualified ones that also add diversity and send you those. No one wants to hire people who can't do the job you hired them to do.

Not all colleges are not concerned with filling their campuses with the best SAT test takers. Many colleges have arts and creative programs and believe diversity makes those stronger. Some consider a having a variety of backgrounds on their campus as something that will attract more students in the future and promote a better learning environment. I don't know what exactly Harvard did to Asians.

 

[shockaholic12]

Sure, buddy. Black and trans are bi-lingual. What about Asians? Mostly by-lingual but not getting hired in many fields because of over representation. If you are a large company and you have upper management, you are looking to hire a minority if one is available for show-not because of their skills. You wouldn’t have hired them if they totally lacked skills and experience in the first place, but if you have two identical candidates, in todays age, you’re hiring or promoting the minority over the white giy, whereas fifty years ago, it was 100% the opposite. AND THAT WASNT RIGHT EITHER. Just like it’s wrong to do the opposite.

In the case of black or transgender folks, they have insight into those communities, a qualification non-black and non-trans folks often don't possess, and countless studies show having them on your team makes those communities view your company more positively and increases your business with them.

If i have a large company I want to gain more consumers in new markets than my competitors while not sacrificing hiring qualified employees. Diversifying helps me do that. This is called capitalism not "for show".

If I have two candidates of different races then by definition they aren't identical. They will likely have to some extent different backgrounds and life experiences some of which could be more profitable to the company demanding on what it lacks.

 

[djacobox372]

DEI departments don't send you any minority that fits a category, they look for qualified ones that also add diversity and send you those. No one wants to hire people who can't do the job you hired them to do.

True, and in the past nobody was hiring "unqualified" white men over-qualified minorities or women. They just preferred to have an office that was predominately white and male, so they would consider those applicants first.

 

[Belaya Smert]

DEI departments don't send you any minority that fits a category, they look for qualified ones that also add diversity and send you those. No one wants to hire people who can't do the job you hired them to do.

Not all colleges are not concerned with filling their campuses with the best SAT test takers. Many colleges have arts and creative programs and believe diversity makes those stronger. Some consider a having a variety of backgrounds on their campus as something that will attract more students in the future and promote a better learning environment. I don't know what exactly Harvard did to Asians.

In its 2014 complaint, SFFA accused the College of “intentionally and improperly discriminating” against Asian American applicants in its admissions process, including by employing character ratings influenced by racial stereotypes and requiring Asian American applicants to meet a higher threshold in academic and extracurricular accomplishments.

Statistical evidence reveals that Harvard uses ‘holistic’ admissions to disguise the fact that it holds Asian Americans to a far higher standard than other students and essentially forces them to compete against each other for admission,” the complaint read.

Intentional discrimination occurs when the accused party engages in differential treatment motivated by race. In such legal proceedings, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, SFFA, to provide evidence of intentionality on the part of the defendant, Harvard.

SFFA pointed to the numbers, which indicated that Asian American applicants on average reported more impressive academic and extracurricular resumes — but were admitted at lower percentages.

During the screening process, Harvard admissions officers assigned ratings to each applicant across approximately 14 categories, including academic achievement, extracurricular involvement, athletic prowess, strength of character, and “personal” and “overall” ratings. Ratings ranged from 1 — the highest score an applicant can receive — to 6 — the lowest.

According to the district court’s findings of fact, 60 percent of Asian American applicants were given academic ratings higher than 3+ compared to 46 percent of white applicants. In the extracurriculars category, 28 percent of Asian American applicants received a 2 or higher, compared to 25 percent of white applicants.

A 2013 internal Harvard report also found that Asian American applicants received significantly higher test scores, higher grades, and better overall scores from alumni interviews. When the report surfaced during the 2018 trial, SFFA honed in on its conclusions while Harvard maintained that the report was inconclusive and incomplete.

The report indicated that there was only one of 10 characteristics in which white students on average performed significantly better than their Asian American counterparts: their personal qualities.

According to the district court, while 22.6 percent of white applicants received a personal rating of greater than 3+, 18 percent of Asian American applicants received the same — a disparity of about 4.6 percentage points.

SFFA alleged these statistical discrepancies were evidence of a penalty imposed on Asian American applicants that did not exist for their white counterparts.

 

[SummerStriker]

Exactly, like MLK and his I have a dream speech. Judging folks by the content of their character?!??


Could you imagine?

You can't. That is why DEI is needed. After, we will get to the dream.