Feels a bit off counting people based on the colour of their skin. How are mixed race people counted? Transgenders? What if I'm 1/4 white but look like I'm 100% white? And so on. Very odd.
I assume it's based on how the person identifies themselves. Like when forms ask for your nationality.
Yeah... I agree. That's how this game goes though. My Dad is White/New York/Austrian and my Mom is Black/Sierra Leone/African but I'm sure people would just mark me as black. These forms definitely need a re-design because they are obviously from a time where color of skin, ethnicity, and race were interchangeable.
This is hilarious. Not your comment. But the idea of diversity. First people want diverse spaces (which is usually counted by race) then they don't want that cause its "off putting" lol.
Again - not digging at you, just a general funny observation.
What are you talking about? Can you point out someone first asking for "diverse spaces" (they are actually asking for fair hiring practices) and then complaining about them?
Is it really so crazy that some people want to be able to work in a diverse workplace while still having access to communities or activities and groups which cater to their identity and culture?
Do people who criticize this stuff think at all beyond your gut reactions?
my kids have been chatting about this lately...(daughter 13, son 10)... there was some ad by old navy a few days ago that showed a mixed race family, and apparently it set of some kind of shit-storm with people complaining about it....
I'm white, my wife's family is from India....
my kids basically identify with both...more to the point, they don't particularly care.
I find it fascinating to see how these things change over the years...
I'm half "white" and Korean. I also don't care.
Who gives a fuck
It's not surprising that you don't "give a fuck", white male.
And proud of it.
I just never understood hiring people based on their race or gender. It feels like its solely for PR. Why not just hire the best people regardless of race or gender? I understand that is a loaded question and not that simple, but this just feels weird to me. It's like colleges accepting someone with much lower test scores and aptitude over another person with very high scores just because they are the wrong race/gender to fill their quota. Makes no sense.
Why not just hire the best people regardless of race or gender?
The reason is, quite simply, because what makes a candidate the "best" is highly subjective. Hidden biases can easily influence one's decision of who is "best".
A great example of this can be found in a 2012 study, in which the researchers had a large number of academic faculty rate a CV. One group was given the CV with a male-gendered name, while the other group was given an identical CV, but with a female-gendered name. To quote their result:
Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student.
It would seem to me the one guaranteed way of ensuring a diverse workplace in line with the local population would be strict hiring guidelines that match up (e.g. 13% black state/country, ensure that 13% of your employees are black).
As far as the initial hiring process goes, you could have CV's edited to remove names and genders before they're reviewed.
The argument is not that people should be hiring based on race or gender, it is that the hiring process needs to account for more diversity. These are 2 different things. Accounting for more diversity means implementing ways of finding and hiring qualified people of minority backgrounds, which many companies struggle with because hiring practices like referrals are very popular (and will keep your company very homogenous). It also can mean implementing training programs that grow the candidate pools within women and minority communities. The notion of "lowering the bar" to hire women and minorities is a red herring that no one is actually arguing for.
Many times someone becomes the "best" by being hired, and others are the "best people" because they were hired enough in the past.
By only hiring what is currently considered the "best" (a subjective thing itself) you can reenforce unintentional biases that do limit the people who can end up being considered "best".
There is a lot of research and writing on this that does a great job of explaining it in more detail, and its not just politically-correct mumbo-jumbo. Not only do workplaces tend to improve with diversity, but they also open up more opportunities for minorities to be considered the "best people" at the next place they want to go.
It's worth reading up more on this because you will be surprised at how many unconscious biases you may hold yourself (not even race based ones necessarily) that influence your hiring or interaction with others. For example I realized I had a positive bias towards people who would describe a problem very technically, while I had a negative reaction towards people who described things in more "flowery" language. Without realizing this it biased me towards liking more of the male designers I was interviewing than the female ones because culturally that is how each gender is encouraged to speak.
The male designers weren't actually better than the female ones, they were just catering to a mode of interaction that I was familiar with since I came from similar backgrounds, which gave me the feeling they were better. This can easily apply to race, or numerous other socio-cultural factors.
I hope that helps you understand why this is a significant issue being discussed these days.
This is the first time I've seen a legitimate response to "hire the best candidate" that didn't just resort to saying misogyny and racism 4 times in different ways. As much as I want to look into this, there's so much nonsense in the way of the real discussion.
Responding here to this comment and some of it's responses. The problem with "hiring the best" is that when "the best" becomes skewed toward one group (whether race or sex) then our industry doesn't want a meritocracy, they want equality. I say this in quotes because well, its a double standard.
A good example of a "pure"** meritocracy: sports. As I write this, the Toronto Raptors are playing the Miami Heat in the playoffs. 10 people on the court. 8 would be identified as "black/african america" and 2 would be identified as "white/Caucasian" by general standards.
At no point in sports do we complain about the "inequality" of racial representation within a game, the team, or the league. This is because it's solely based on the based players available for that team.
I realize our work (and that of most of the world) do not relate to sports at all, but when we talk about "best" what most people really mean is the "best" until it becomes problematic, otherwise they'd 'just hire the "best" all the time and really not care about race or gender.
It also doesn't help that we cannot hold our industry (practitioners) to a standard of performance across the board.
**I say pure cause I know there are a lot of politics that can go into sports that most common viewers are not privy to.
To clear up the misinformation, no one is suggesting hiring someone because of their race/gender/disability or hiring unqualified people. Also, quotas aren't used and for good reason. Diversity is about equal opportunity. For example: if I am trying to find the tastiest foods, I am not going to only go to the best apple farms and say send me the resumes of macintosh, golden delicious, and honeycrisp. Then once those three are hired, tell them to refer their friends Gala, Winesap, and Empire. I will end up with only apples and my "best"is what I know; apples alone.
P.S. I am on a University search committee and it's easy to just send out messages to peer institutions and only hire people we are familiar with and see at conferences, but we'd miss out on tons of excellent talent if we didn't have certain policies and actively recruit underrepresented groups and demographics.
Nice that they're making the effort, but it's strange and kinda sad that we have to try so hard to be diverse and make bar graphs about ethnicity. Would be nice if things were just naturally diverse so we didn't even have to think about it.