Ask HN: Am I being instructed to do something illegal? (DEI hiring practices)
218 comments
A quick web search finds some answers. eg
https://www.spigglelaw.com/employment-blog/employers-affirma...
""" Title VII prohibits employers from making employment decisions because of an individual’s skin color, national origin, sex, religion, or race. Therefore, it is illegal to give an applicant an advantage solely because of the applicant’s race. However, this is not always the case.
Under United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, an employer may voluntarily implement its own affirmative action plan. However, this is permissible only if the purpose is to remediate past failures to hire minority employees in areas that contain few minorities.
Under Executive Order 11246, certain government contractors must have affirmative action policies to identify instances where they are not hiring qualified minorities. Contractors can take steps to fix any such hiring discrepancies.
Despite these two major exceptions, employers may not use affirmative action to hire more minority employees solely to increase the diversity of their workforce. As a result, the Fisher case only applies to schools, not employers.
"""
So, uh, it depends.
https://www.spigglelaw.com/employment-blog/employers-affirma...
""" Title VII prohibits employers from making employment decisions because of an individual’s skin color, national origin, sex, religion, or race. Therefore, it is illegal to give an applicant an advantage solely because of the applicant’s race. However, this is not always the case.
Under United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, an employer may voluntarily implement its own affirmative action plan. However, this is permissible only if the purpose is to remediate past failures to hire minority employees in areas that contain few minorities.
Under Executive Order 11246, certain government contractors must have affirmative action policies to identify instances where they are not hiring qualified minorities. Contractors can take steps to fix any such hiring discrepancies.
Despite these two major exceptions, employers may not use affirmative action to hire more minority employees solely to increase the diversity of their workforce. As a result, the Fisher case only applies to schools, not employers.
"""
So, uh, it depends.
It seems pretty clear cut to me that if your company hasn't been found guilty of discrimination in the past, then it's illegal for the company to institute "affirmative action."
That being said, it's usually the company that receives penalties in these situations, and not individual employees. If a lawsuit is made, and the lawsuit is successful (a big "if" in itself), it's not a guarantee that you will be held personally liable.
Ultimately, the whole thing stinks. I have worked in companies before where hiring based on discrimination was applauded. This was because individuals were being judged on the most superficial merits, cogs in a startup machine to be slowly ground into a fine dust. Ask yourself if you think this is a moral thing for a company to do, and if it's moral for you to go along with it. It's easy for talented people to get new jobs in our industry.
That being said, it's usually the company that receives penalties in these situations, and not individual employees. If a lawsuit is made, and the lawsuit is successful (a big "if" in itself), it's not a guarantee that you will be held personally liable.
Ultimately, the whole thing stinks. I have worked in companies before where hiring based on discrimination was applauded. This was because individuals were being judged on the most superficial merits, cogs in a startup machine to be slowly ground into a fine dust. Ask yourself if you think this is a moral thing for a company to do, and if it's moral for you to go along with it. It's easy for talented people to get new jobs in our industry.
> It seems pretty clear cut to me that if your company hasn't been found guilty of discrimination in the past, then it's illegal for the company to institute "affirmative action."
That's not what United Steelworkers v. Weber established though. The supreme court said:
> An affirmative action plan has to be (1) necessary (2) aiming to correct a statistical imbalance (3) not result in an absolute bar to hiring non-minorities (4) temporary, with an end date or goal (5) allow flexibility for hiring non-minorities.
There's no bar for "has been found guilty in the past".
That's not what United Steelworkers v. Weber established though. The supreme court said:
> An affirmative action plan has to be (1) necessary (2) aiming to correct a statistical imbalance (3) not result in an absolute bar to hiring non-minorities (4) temporary, with an end date or goal (5) allow flexibility for hiring non-minorities.
There's no bar for "has been found guilty in the past".
You're right, but point 3 means that even under United Steelworkers v. Weber the policy in the original question may be illegal. "Must be female" is an instruction to bar the non-minority completely from this position, so as another comment says it depends on if that bar on complete bars applies to individual positions or whole departments.
Consider you are going to hire 10 mid-career SWEs this year (as a generic pool) and you set aside 2 slots for females, because the current org of 50 is all male.
Yeah, this is why I think it would be irresponsible to comment on the legality of OP's org's policy. We simply don't have enough info about the wider picture.
It is a very stupid judgement as it is. What does statistical imbalance even mean? If you look at the pipeline of computer science the trend is pretty obvious. Same with construction workers really. Meanwhile there are no such rules for teaching which slowly becomes more and more female dominated. A purely statistical analysis might work for jobs that require no qualification at all with severe caveats at least as a lot of them have a skewed gender ratio.
A state should focus on real discrimination. By creating whole bureaucracies around this topic you have created a class of unproductive people that will mainly be driven by self-preservation of their job. You need a bureaucracy to ensure that rules are followed to ensure accessibility for example. But racial and sex quotas should surpass their mandate.
Additionally people in public service rarely have an understanding about competition in the labour market. The mechanisms that pit people against each other by skin color seem to completely elude them. For them it is a matter of representation as if they are dealing with 8 year olds. And even those have a more differentiated view.
A state should focus on real discrimination. By creating whole bureaucracies around this topic you have created a class of unproductive people that will mainly be driven by self-preservation of their job. You need a bureaucracy to ensure that rules are followed to ensure accessibility for example. But racial and sex quotas should surpass their mandate.
Additionally people in public service rarely have an understanding about competition in the labour market. The mechanisms that pit people against each other by skin color seem to completely elude them. For them it is a matter of representation as if they are dealing with 8 year olds. And even those have a more differentiated view.
Obviously IANAL, but I don't read "remediate past failures" as requiring a guilty verdict in court to institute affirmative action.
I think the company in question would need to have a document titled something like "Affirmative Action Plan", where they outline the failures and talk about what they're going to do, as well as set an end date. I'd bet a lot of money the company in question does not have this.
You’d need to get a running start to make that leap of logic.
Not clear to me whether you can mandate that a particular position go to a minority. United Steelworkers says racial preferences are sometimes permissible but cannot be an absolute bar against hiring non-minorities. So the question is whether that requirement applies at the level of individual jobs or only at a higher level (some positions can be reserved for minorities so long as the department or institution isn't exclusively hiring minorities in all positions).
The law here seems quite vague and I wonder if the interpretation would depend on the ideological composition of the court and perhaps what they had for breakfast that morning.
If I had to guess though, I think the court that decided United Steelworkers would also rule favorably on the legality of the OP's situation, and would apply basically the same principles to do so.
The law here seems quite vague and I wonder if the interpretation would depend on the ideological composition of the court and perhaps what they had for breakfast that morning.
If I had to guess though, I think the court that decided United Steelworkers would also rule favorably on the legality of the OP's situation, and would apply basically the same principles to do so.
>However, this is permissible only if the purpose is to remediate past failures to hire minority employees in areas that contain few minorities.
Women are obviously not a minority in the US, but does this apply if they're a minority in a particular field (such as engineering)?
Women are obviously not a minority in the US, but does this apply if they're a minority in a particular field (such as engineering)?
Minority is often not used in terms of numbers, but in terms of "privilege scale". In that view, women are less privileged than men, and thus get classified as a minority.
> So, uh, it depends.
Yep. I highly doubt we have enough info in the original question to give legal advice even if any of us were lawyers. We simply don't know enough about the company to know how the courts would see it.
My advice to OP: consult a lawyer. The law is fuzzy, and we don't have enough information to give a good answer.
Yep. I highly doubt we have enough info in the original question to give legal advice even if any of us were lawyers. We simply don't know enough about the company to know how the courts would see it.
My advice to OP: consult a lawyer. The law is fuzzy, and we don't have enough information to give a good answer.
Are you a lawyer or paralegal? How did you land on the specific cases? Are they cherry picked or how do we know if there is other cases that are newer and set different precedents? I’m honestly curious, I know paralegals will go into some database and search for case law to cite like you did and then build the case arguments with a lawyer.
Well that clears things up!
To me that sounds like sexist hiring is indeed perfectly legal (towards men).
I'd be VERY careful here!
Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk.
Your supervisor has asked you discriminate.
Politically, under current administration, almost EVERY enforcement body will not actually take action here even if its clear cut discrimination. Ie, they won't care.
Out in the job market, if you are anti-diversity / take any steps to undermine a diversity initiative - that can follow you now for a very long time.
Wilberg, who recruited candidates for engineering and technology positions for YouTube and parent company Google, also alleges in the suit that for several quarters Google would not make employment offers for technical positions to applicants “who were not ‘diverse,’" which the lawsuit alleges Google defined as women, black and Latino.
The lawsuit said Wilberg complained about this to his managers and HR. He was fired in November for, among other things, “not meeting goals” and “talking too much in meetings,” reasons that the lawsuit called “pretextual.”
“Plaintiff was an exemplary employee and received positive performance evaluations until he began opposing illegal hiring and recruiting practices at Google,” the complaint asserts.
The reality is that to get diversity anywhere close to what Silicon Valley is being asked to get it too, pretty significant steps like this will need to be taken. The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high.
Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk.
Your supervisor has asked you discriminate.
Politically, under current administration, almost EVERY enforcement body will not actually take action here even if its clear cut discrimination. Ie, they won't care.
Out in the job market, if you are anti-diversity / take any steps to undermine a diversity initiative - that can follow you now for a very long time.
Wilberg, who recruited candidates for engineering and technology positions for YouTube and parent company Google, also alleges in the suit that for several quarters Google would not make employment offers for technical positions to applicants “who were not ‘diverse,’" which the lawsuit alleges Google defined as women, black and Latino.
The lawsuit said Wilberg complained about this to his managers and HR. He was fired in November for, among other things, “not meeting goals” and “talking too much in meetings,” reasons that the lawsuit called “pretextual.”
“Plaintiff was an exemplary employee and received positive performance evaluations until he began opposing illegal hiring and recruiting practices at Google,” the complaint asserts.
The reality is that to get diversity anywhere close to what Silicon Valley is being asked to get it too, pretty significant steps like this will need to be taken. The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high.
> I'd be VERY careful here! Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk.
+1. I work in a senior engineering role at a large tech company. While not a HM, I have been in similar situations to OP - where apparent EEOC violations are casually discussed and documented. I would never comment on or report these issues, though I have saved some "evidence" just in case it’s needed. It’s literally all downside risk to engage in the subject matter. At this point the goal is to get to retirement/FI/downshifting in a few years without being irradiated by these issues.
+1. I work in a senior engineering role at a large tech company. While not a HM, I have been in similar situations to OP - where apparent EEOC violations are casually discussed and documented. I would never comment on or report these issues, though I have saved some "evidence" just in case it’s needed. It’s literally all downside risk to engage in the subject matter. At this point the goal is to get to retirement/FI/downshifting in a few years without being irradiated by these issues.
I agree with all the above until this point:
> The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high.
I don't think that's the exact calculus that gets made. I think it's more of a social process, where one person decides to suggest it, and anyone who has misgivings keeps their mouth shut, while anyone who thinks it's a good idea says so with enthusiasm. There probably was a time when hard-nosed cost-benefit evaluations governed decisions like these, but I think that's not how it tends to work currently (although there's enough variation across companies that who knows).
> The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high.
I don't think that's the exact calculus that gets made. I think it's more of a social process, where one person decides to suggest it, and anyone who has misgivings keeps their mouth shut, while anyone who thinks it's a good idea says so with enthusiasm. There probably was a time when hard-nosed cost-benefit evaluations governed decisions like these, but I think that's not how it tends to work currently (although there's enough variation across companies that who knows).
Many tech companies are actively discriminating against asian/white males. Often it is tech companies run by asian/white males. Affirmative action is the default policy.
The main way I've seen this implemented is by controlling who gets recruited through LinkedIn. Obviously qualified asian/white men simply get skipped over, filtered out, in many cases. They never even know they were discriminated against.
The other way is that managers are highly "encouraged" to say yes on hires that they would on the merits say no to.
As a hiring manager, I was told by an HR recruiter that there would be "problems" if my next hire wasn't a "DIBs candidate" (Diversity Inclusion Belonging) after hiring two non-URM (Under Represented Minority) candidates in a row.
All I would receive in the way of candidates to interview were non-asian/white males. And most were obviously unqualified based on the technical screening criteria we had established.
The big question is whether the current policy of tech companies is legal, ethical, and effective in the long-term or whether it's a short-term fix that causes long-term harm.
The main way I've seen this implemented is by controlling who gets recruited through LinkedIn. Obviously qualified asian/white men simply get skipped over, filtered out, in many cases. They never even know they were discriminated against.
The other way is that managers are highly "encouraged" to say yes on hires that they would on the merits say no to.
As a hiring manager, I was told by an HR recruiter that there would be "problems" if my next hire wasn't a "DIBs candidate" (Diversity Inclusion Belonging) after hiring two non-URM (Under Represented Minority) candidates in a row.
All I would receive in the way of candidates to interview were non-asian/white males. And most were obviously unqualified based on the technical screening criteria we had established.
The big question is whether the current policy of tech companies is legal, ethical, and effective in the long-term or whether it's a short-term fix that causes long-term harm.
> Many tech companies are actively discriminating against asian/white males
Reminds me of a saying I heard once: “always try and get an asian male doctor because they are discriminated against the most in med school admissions programs. The asian men who made it past the discrimination had to be so much better than the others to make it.”
Reminds me of a saying I heard once: “always try and get an asian male doctor because they are discriminated against the most in med school admissions programs. The asian men who made it past the discrimination had to be so much better than the others to make it.”
This is exactly the problem...distorting employment markets makes the stereotypes TRUE!
Say you have a software engineering team, and it's nine men and one woman, and it's that way because the pool you hire out if is 9:1, and you only hire from the top decile.
If someone decrees that Thou Shalt Hire Women, you certainly can...it's just that the candidates you get will be less than in the top decile. If you go as far as to make it to 5:5, then your average man will now be top half decile, and the average woman will be 2.5th decile.
The difference will be obvious, though costly to talk about, and you have just created a situation where the stereotype "women aren't as good as men at software engineering" is true.
Say you have a software engineering team, and it's nine men and one woman, and it's that way because the pool you hire out if is 9:1, and you only hire from the top decile.
If someone decrees that Thou Shalt Hire Women, you certainly can...it's just that the candidates you get will be less than in the top decile. If you go as far as to make it to 5:5, then your average man will now be top half decile, and the average woman will be 2.5th decile.
The difference will be obvious, though costly to talk about, and you have just created a situation where the stereotype "women aren't as good as men at software engineering" is true.
Not true when the problem is outreach, eg companies that rely too much on existing employees' alumni and social networks to recruit. I know of some people from historically underrepresented backgrounds who'd never have been hired where they are now without active outreach on the recruiters' part, and they were definitely in the top decile
You're right that if your search is incomplete the sort of thing you describe can happen. In my industry (academia) search is complete. Everyone looking for a job knows all the job postings.
That said, I think the problem is that overall there aren't enough qualified under-represented minorities to get up to proportional representation. If there were, it would be a very confusing market failure. What's really going on is two things:
1) You can't be both under-privileged and as capable as everyone else on average. Being poor, abused, discriminated against, etc. affects our ability to do things like be really smart and get good at software engineering.
2) For those who are under-represented but not on average under-privileged (e.g. women in mathematics), we are seeing the result of a difference in preferences between men and women. Blue Team elites really don't want to admit that there are systematic differences in who prefers what that correlate with things like gender and race, but it is obviously the case. It's not rampant sexism relative to biology that explains why there are few women in e.g. mathematics, it's because women prefer to do other things on average. And there's nothing wrong with that, and we as a liberal society need to accept it. Of course, this is absolutely not to claim that women can't be just as good at maths.
That said, I think the problem is that overall there aren't enough qualified under-represented minorities to get up to proportional representation. If there were, it would be a very confusing market failure. What's really going on is two things:
1) You can't be both under-privileged and as capable as everyone else on average. Being poor, abused, discriminated against, etc. affects our ability to do things like be really smart and get good at software engineering.
2) For those who are under-represented but not on average under-privileged (e.g. women in mathematics), we are seeing the result of a difference in preferences between men and women. Blue Team elites really don't want to admit that there are systematic differences in who prefers what that correlate with things like gender and race, but it is obviously the case. It's not rampant sexism relative to biology that explains why there are few women in e.g. mathematics, it's because women prefer to do other things on average. And there's nothing wrong with that, and we as a liberal society need to accept it. Of course, this is absolutely not to claim that women can't be just as good at maths.
If these individuals were top decile, why weren’t they gunning it for top companies/salaries to begin with? Why do they need to be reached out to if they have the talent? It has been a STEM job seekers market for a while now.
Lack of knowledge and humility? People look at some of the top companies, lionized as they are for their exclusive hiring process, and don't see themselves as belonging there. All the more so as they don't know anybody there. Meanwhile Jo big-school dude knows, hey my buddy went in and I know based on four years as roommates that I'm smarter than he is, it can't be that hard.
It’s a pretty common sentiment.
“You must be 2x as good as the next [white person] if you want to compete”.
I’m African American and my grandparents, born 100 years ago, would tell me this as a child.
It’s not an uplifting message to hear but just about every non-white person i know has heard a racial or sex-related variation of this statement growing up.
I’ve assume it’s always true because despite all this talk of DEI because to this day - I can count the number of POC and women I have ever worked with on 2 hands.
“You must be 2x as good as the next [white person] if you want to compete”.
I’m African American and my grandparents, born 100 years ago, would tell me this as a child.
It’s not an uplifting message to hear but just about every non-white person i know has heard a racial or sex-related variation of this statement growing up.
I’ve assume it’s always true because despite all this talk of DEI because to this day - I can count the number of POC and women I have ever worked with on 2 hands.
I work as a machine learning engineer on search & recommender systems, mostly focused on relevancy ranking in the recruiting space. It's unbelievable the pressure I have encountered to give "diverse" candidates a boost across the board in our scoring algorithms. Almost every client's talent acquisition team has asked what we can do to help them meet their diversity goals (which they loosely define as hiring more women and non-white / Asian people). I keep up with what some of the major players are doing (LinkedIn, Indeed, etc.), and they come straight out and say they preferentially weight diverse candidates
> For a given search or recommendation task, our algorithms seek to achieve a desired distribution of top ranked results with respect to one or more protected attributes.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01989
> For a given search or recommendation task, our algorithms seek to achieve a desired distribution of top ranked results with respect to one or more protected attributes.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01989
It’s shocking to me how much the courts and executive branch have hollowed out the Civil Rights Act.
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
This is the law of the US. It couldn’t be more clear that your company is breaking the law. And yet it’s been completely neutered by activist judges and well-meaning executives and bureaucrats.
> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
This is the law of the US. It couldn’t be more clear that your company is breaking the law. And yet it’s been completely neutered by activist judges and well-meaning executives and bureaucrats.
Activist judges didn’t make this spreadsheet. The company is responding to social pressure. It’s people trying to atone for the immorality of their social caste.
The courts have been clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal. “Our next engineer must be female” isn’t legal, unless there’s something bizarrely gender specific about this task.
If the Company is a federal contractor, this could be nuclear. Talk to a lawyer, not HN.
The courts have been clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal. “Our next engineer must be female” isn’t legal, unless there’s something bizarrely gender specific about this task.
If the Company is a federal contractor, this could be nuclear. Talk to a lawyer, not HN.
Nobody cares if the target is a while male. Some prominent authors have even argued that it’s not possible to discriminate against white males. Op should be more worried about their careers
You can have laws on the books. Prosecutors have all the discretionary power: discretion NOT file a case to please their political allies, discretion to file a case using flimsy grounds to seek revenge against their political opponents, etc.
As long as federal prosecutors don't care, "the law of the US" has no teeth.
As long as federal prosecutors don't care, "the law of the US" has no teeth.
It's not really about prosecution. The EEOC may or may not take interest in a case, but if they don't then the courts are wide open for plaintiffs. If you feel you have been discriminated against, you may have a case, and an attorney may be interested in pursuing it.
Civil matter won’t resolve in a way that will negatively affect op
It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute, nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws. We're supposed to be a nation ruled by laws. We've become a nation ruled by men due to their power to simply ignore the laws when they feel like it.
> It's mostly that they simply don't want to prosecute,
Correct
> nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws.
I don't think so. They have all the resources they need to enforce the law if they wanted to. If the spreadsheet had said "male" instead of "female" they would fly to Uranus to gather evidence if they needed to.
Correct
> nor have the resources to fully enforce all the laws.
I don't think so. They have all the resources they need to enforce the law if they wanted to. If the spreadsheet had said "male" instead of "female" they would fly to Uranus to gather evidence if they needed to.
"They have all the resources they need to enforce the law..."
Maybe an individual occurrence. Not at scale. If I remember correctly, 80+% of cases go to a plea deal, wait times for a court date are months or years, and the murder solve rate in the US is only 70%. To me, it sounds like the courts are overwhelmed and even the most serious crimes have a relatively low solve rate.
Maybe an individual occurrence. Not at scale. If I remember correctly, 80+% of cases go to a plea deal, wait times for a court date are months or years, and the murder solve rate in the US is only 70%. To me, it sounds like the courts are overwhelmed and even the most serious crimes have a relatively low solve rate.
Typical red tape bureaucracy where some people who propose they know better and believe they are to decide who discriminates against whom.
The last 20 years civil liberties were made into a joke with anti-terror legislation. Some overextended bureaucrats believe they can counter these self-imposed developments by being the savior of womanhood, but nobody would propose discrimination in jobs that aren't prestigious. It is a complete paper tiger an lawfare. I fully believe judges will make decisions against the letter of the law, they are a suboptimal safeguard for civil liberties by now. They just legislate an exception and these clauses suddenly have no values anymore. Some people also thought humanism must be improved by making sex and race an issue again.
Companies might like to comply so that nobody looks closer at their business models.
The last 20 years civil liberties were made into a joke with anti-terror legislation. Some overextended bureaucrats believe they can counter these self-imposed developments by being the savior of womanhood, but nobody would propose discrimination in jobs that aren't prestigious. It is a complete paper tiger an lawfare. I fully believe judges will make decisions against the letter of the law, they are a suboptimal safeguard for civil liberties by now. They just legislate an exception and these clauses suddenly have no values anymore. Some people also thought humanism must be improved by making sex and race an issue again.
Companies might like to comply so that nobody looks closer at their business models.
Extremely likely you would be breaking the law by discriminating against anyone not female.
The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role).
You can find an example of this enshrined in UK law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter... (I know you're in the US, but I find the UK law very easy to find and to read).
The spirit of it is simple: Interview everyone equally, give all the opportunity... but if you have to choose between 2 candidates who fare equally through interviewing then you may factor in any disadvantages that arise from their sex, gender, race, background, etc... and in those cases you may now favour that candidate.
This process does not exclude people or "lower the bar" for the diverse demographic... it favours only when everything else is equal.
The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role).
You can find an example of this enshrined in UK law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter... (I know you're in the US, but I find the UK law very easy to find and to read).
The spirit of it is simple: Interview everyone equally, give all the opportunity... but if you have to choose between 2 candidates who fare equally through interviewing then you may factor in any disadvantages that arise from their sex, gender, race, background, etc... and in those cases you may now favour that candidate.
This process does not exclude people or "lower the bar" for the diverse demographic... it favours only when everything else is equal.
> The way to do this properly is by "Positive Action" (when all else is equal, prefer a candidate that fulfils a diversity criteria)... not to be confused with "Positive Discrimination" (the setting of quotas or in your case excluding a demographic from being considered for the role).
The only difference between these two things is perhaps a matter of degree. The net result is that you preferentially hire a group based on sex/race/etc.
The only difference between these two things is perhaps a matter of degree. The net result is that you preferentially hire a group based on sex/race/etc.
I totally agree with this, and this is what I try to do myself.
However after being part of dozens of hiring panels I noticed a clear trend toward rating females/minorities hire on technical skills than they would give to a white male with the same performance. After having conversations about it I truly don't think the people noticed what they are doing. Even after pointing it out some would still deny it, and of course it's not possible to prove given that it's highly subjective. It's just a really, really hard thing to see in ourselves.
I don't know what the answer is. I'm going to keep striving for the standard you laid out, but it's continually difficult to know how you're doing.
However after being part of dozens of hiring panels I noticed a clear trend toward rating females/minorities hire on technical skills than they would give to a white male with the same performance. After having conversations about it I truly don't think the people noticed what they are doing. Even after pointing it out some would still deny it, and of course it's not possible to prove given that it's highly subjective. It's just a really, really hard thing to see in ourselves.
I don't know what the answer is. I'm going to keep striving for the standard you laid out, but it's continually difficult to know how you're doing.
IMO the right way to improve DEI outcomes is to reach outside traditional recruitment pools. My last job spent months talking about DEI only to have a similar outcome to yours, just telling HR to hire more women and POC to senior roles. But it doesn't do anything for representation to scramble over the handful of "diverse" senior+ candidates that already exist. Ultimately improving diversity in tech is going to require hiring more people with less experience and training them.
> IMO the right way to improve DEI outcomes
They need to take a step back and ask why equal outcomes is the goal to begin with? They can't seem to fathom that men and women naturally have different interests and inclinations. And if somehow the arbitrary identity groups that they decide on and end up hiring do end up reflecting the underlying society, then what? All problems are solved?
They need to take a step back and ask why equal outcomes is the goal to begin with? They can't seem to fathom that men and women naturally have different interests and inclinations. And if somehow the arbitrary identity groups that they decide on and end up hiring do end up reflecting the underlying society, then what? All problems are solved?
In a real world organization it can be hard to get individual managers and teams to do this. Even when they want to, time pressure often means they just do the easy things.
Setting aside even a handful of slots forces the issue, and this can lead to orgs figuring out how to find people.
Setting aside even a handful of slots forces the issue, and this can lead to orgs figuring out how to find people.
That would be discrimination if there are people that have the qualifications and want to apply them.
Where is the goal of DIE reached? Is there are limit when "discrimination" is gone? A certain percentage that needs to be reached? I would be completely surprised if that were the case and I believe this will only end in a bureaucratic hell hole.
Where is the goal of DIE reached? Is there are limit when "discrimination" is gone? A certain percentage that needs to be reached? I would be completely surprised if that were the case and I believe this will only end in a bureaucratic hell hole.
Yeah but managers don’t train and nobody has time or interest to train the lowest preforming candidate just because of their skin color.
"must be female"
Yes? It's illegal. This instruction removes the chance of any other member type of that protected class from being hired.
You can report it to the NLRB, FBI/DOJ, or your state AG. You'll have to document everything while being careful not to break any recording/privacy laws. Not sure anything will really be done. Probably just bring hardship on yourself.
Yes? It's illegal. This instruction removes the chance of any other member type of that protected class from being hired.
You can report it to the NLRB, FBI/DOJ, or your state AG. You'll have to document everything while being careful not to break any recording/privacy laws. Not sure anything will really be done. Probably just bring hardship on yourself.
Don't report to NLRB, FBI/DOJ, or to the state AG. They will leak to your HR, and ruin your career. NLRB, FBI/DOJ, AGs are just run by politics du jour.
Not from the US, but then you need to hold these institutions to account. Difficult with a non-informed public about these issues, but it will hit them if you take legal action against them directly. Nobody wants to have dirt on their vests and you have to make some of it stick.
Revolving door and prosecutorial discretion is one kind of legally authorized corruption. That's why when one files a complaint with FBI/DOJ/etc, it will be leaked immediately to the higher echelons of FAANG companies. Why do they leak, even if they don't want to prosecute using discretion? Because these guys (or their relatives) want to get cushy jobs at FAANG or have FAANG refer legal work to the firms they will recommend.
A small guy has no chance of succeeding this, unless one wants to ruin one's career.
A small guy has no chance of succeeding this, unless one wants to ruin one's career.
Not likely. Law enforcement and prosecutors have discretion. They can decide they don't want to pursue something. You can't sue them for deciding not to pursue the company.
The problem is that even if they remove the "must be female" requirement from documents, it's still going to be enforced because that's their goal. How did the industry allow such sexism and racism to penetrate?
Historically speaking, it's always been there. It seems to be getting a little better over the generations.
[deleted]
This is likely a matter for the EEOC or the state version. I don't see why those other agencies would be involved. Unlike OSHA, I don't think the EEOC has a process for accepting tips, and I don't think they open original investigations. I believe someone has to claim they have been harmed.
OP could encourage someone to apply, see if they get turned away on the basis of sex, and then they could file a charge of discrimination. That would probably be the most direct way.
However, I think this sort of explicit in-the-docs discrimination is unusual, and OP might find that they have already identified themselves to the employer. Of course, there are also rules against retaliation.
OP could encourage someone to apply, see if they get turned away on the basis of sex, and then they could file a charge of discrimination. That would probably be the most direct way.
However, I think this sort of explicit in-the-docs discrimination is unusual, and OP might find that they have already identified themselves to the employer. Of course, there are also rules against retaliation.
I don't think the EEOC has exclusive jurisdiction. Do they do their own investigation, or do they have the FBI do it for them?
If you say anything, it's possible that you would be ending your career. If you do, it is likely that you will be hunting for a new job (and your reputation as a bigot may follow you unless you move to a new industry, and even then depending on how profile your departure is).
This has become a common practice in the tech industry, and unquestioned support is expected at a minimum. If you have non-standard hardware on your body, then you can push back a little, but if not then you best stay quiet. If you continue to push back, depending on how hard you push what you can expect is many awkward conversations, decreasing performance reviews, and career stagnation. Getting to the "next step in the ladder" typically requires you to demonstrate your willingness to implement these policies, let alone simply allowing them.
You also need to be careful what you say, as anything you put in writing could come back (potentially out of context) to bite you. You may be recorded a few times in private IRL meetings, so remember that just because it's in a closed-door meeting doesn't mean it is private. I know this sounds paranoid, but I've watched a friend of mine in SV go through this very thing. This is a man who spends his free time volunteering to help underprivileged students learn to code and build robots with raspberry pis in his spare time. I've known him for years and he is not a chauvinist, he just doesn't think it's right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics.
I wouldn't worry about any legal liability on your part. IANAL but I'm certain many good lawyers have reviewed the policy as it's fairly common now. I also can't imagine anyone being sued/prosecuted for giving females preference in the tech industry.
This has become a common practice in the tech industry, and unquestioned support is expected at a minimum. If you have non-standard hardware on your body, then you can push back a little, but if not then you best stay quiet. If you continue to push back, depending on how hard you push what you can expect is many awkward conversations, decreasing performance reviews, and career stagnation. Getting to the "next step in the ladder" typically requires you to demonstrate your willingness to implement these policies, let alone simply allowing them.
You also need to be careful what you say, as anything you put in writing could come back (potentially out of context) to bite you. You may be recorded a few times in private IRL meetings, so remember that just because it's in a closed-door meeting doesn't mean it is private. I know this sounds paranoid, but I've watched a friend of mine in SV go through this very thing. This is a man who spends his free time volunteering to help underprivileged students learn to code and build robots with raspberry pis in his spare time. I've known him for years and he is not a chauvinist, he just doesn't think it's right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics.
I wouldn't worry about any legal liability on your part. IANAL but I'm certain many good lawyers have reviewed the policy as it's fairly common now. I also can't imagine anyone being sued/prosecuted for giving females preference in the tech industry.
At some point you have to stand up for this. Yes, it might cost you, but it is easy to punish companies for their behavior here. SV is still an exception, but I believe companies with such HR policies have a severe problem with drawing talent.
While it might be nice to work with more women for once, such discrimination isn't worth it. People supporting this are terribly afraid of dirt and the best strategy is to turn the most ideological followers against them. That isn't as hard as you might believe as everybody will make mistakes at some point.
While it might be nice to work with more women for once, such discrimination isn't worth it. People supporting this are terribly afraid of dirt and the best strategy is to turn the most ideological followers against them. That isn't as hard as you might believe as everybody will make mistakes at some point.
It's gone farther than "if you say anything". I recently got an "improvement needed" evaluation on one of my goals to support the Diversity and Inclusion initiatives of my department. I am a hiring manager, and not only did I abide by all of the guidelines and processes, but I also hired and promoted multiple female and minority applicants at a higher rate than the department as a whole. I still insisted that they were qualified, of course.
When I questioned the evaluation, I was told that it wasn't enough to support the initiatives and get the results, but you also "NEED TO BELIEVE IN THEM FULLY". Apparently, my boss believes that I am not in 100% alignment with the philosophies behind them. He's correct in that I do not agree with flagrant discrimination based on sex, race, or any other characteristic, regardless of which direction they are in. I'd fire anyone who discriminated against women, minorities, etc., but if I even SEEM TO QUESTION or be troubled about whether the same shouldn't be done against "some people", then I "need improvement."
When I questioned the evaluation, I was told that it wasn't enough to support the initiatives and get the results, but you also "NEED TO BELIEVE IN THEM FULLY". Apparently, my boss believes that I am not in 100% alignment with the philosophies behind them. He's correct in that I do not agree with flagrant discrimination based on sex, race, or any other characteristic, regardless of which direction they are in. I'd fire anyone who discriminated against women, minorities, etc., but if I even SEEM TO QUESTION or be troubled about whether the same shouldn't be done against "some people", then I "need improvement."
Assuming you have one, it might be worth talking to your HR department to clarify these instructions. Maybe there is something you aren't getting, or this is something setup by clueless management and they are unaware and would want to intervene.
Beyond that when in doubt, talk to a lawyer. At first glance to me (I am not a lawyer) this seems like it's probably illegal, but it's entirely possible there are nuances to which I'm not privy both in terms of legality and in terms of what's actually happening. A quick consult with an employment lawyer isn't that expensive and will give you a much better idea on how to proceed than HN ever can.
If you don't mind skipping straight to whistle-blowing, you can also talk to your State's department of labor, or the US Department of Labor. They tend to take such things seriously and will no doubt investigate.
Beyond that when in doubt, talk to a lawyer. At first glance to me (I am not a lawyer) this seems like it's probably illegal, but it's entirely possible there are nuances to which I'm not privy both in terms of legality and in terms of what's actually happening. A quick consult with an employment lawyer isn't that expensive and will give you a much better idea on how to proceed than HN ever can.
If you don't mind skipping straight to whistle-blowing, you can also talk to your State's department of labor, or the US Department of Labor. They tend to take such things seriously and will no doubt investigate.
HR only exists to protect the company from liability and lawsuits. Talk to them first at your own risk, and realize that almost no good can come from doing so. At best they will now see you as a 'problem' employee that is asking too many questions, and at worst it could start a chain of actions that lead to your termination or leaving the company (for completely unrelated reasons of course).
> HR only exists to protect the company from liability and lawsuits.
Exactly. This is exactly why HR will want to know this is happening. So they can shut it down. A half decent HR department will recognize that this carries major risk of lawsuits, and want it killed. You bringing information to about another part of the company trying to do something illegal doesn't make you a "problem" employee.
There are a lot of cases where I'd recommend against talking to HR, but getting a spreadsheet from your boss and asking "hey this seems weird, is it legal?" is one of the things they are good for. Your boss is far more likely to hold a grudge than HR.
Obviously, don't go in screaming it's illegal and they must do something on the off chance it was your Chief People Officer's shitty idea.
And again, nothing wrong with going to an employment lawyer first. But when I've seen blatantly illegal stuff like this it's usually that HR isn't involved in the hiring process and they want to know when it happens so they can educate the relevant parties.
Exactly. This is exactly why HR will want to know this is happening. So they can shut it down. A half decent HR department will recognize that this carries major risk of lawsuits, and want it killed. You bringing information to about another part of the company trying to do something illegal doesn't make you a "problem" employee.
There are a lot of cases where I'd recommend against talking to HR, but getting a spreadsheet from your boss and asking "hey this seems weird, is it legal?" is one of the things they are good for. Your boss is far more likely to hold a grudge than HR.
Obviously, don't go in screaming it's illegal and they must do something on the off chance it was your Chief People Officer's shitty idea.
And again, nothing wrong with going to an employment lawyer first. But when I've seen blatantly illegal stuff like this it's usually that HR isn't involved in the hiring process and they want to know when it happens so they can educate the relevant parties.
> Exactly. This is exactly why HR will want to know this is happening. So they can shut it down.
Sometimes. Some HR departments in Silicon Valley have taken DEI to heart to the point where they’d be champions of this hiring behavior.
Sometimes. Some HR departments in Silicon Valley have taken DEI to heart to the point where they’d be champions of this hiring behavior.
> You bringing information to about another part of the company trying to do something illegal doesn't make you a "problem" employee.
If you’re reading this and are in a similar situation, please don’t accept this advice without further reflection. On this particular topic, it could very well be wrong. If you’ve decided to report it then I’d suggest using your company’s outside anonymous reporting facility if such a thing exists.
If you’re reading this and are in a similar situation, please don’t accept this advice without further reflection. On this particular topic, it could very well be wrong. If you’ve decided to report it then I’d suggest using your company’s outside anonymous reporting facility if such a thing exists.
I feel like people are treating this differently than I'm saying it. I'm not saying you go in there, and announce your whistle blowing on discrimination. I'm saying pop by someone's office, go "hey I got this document from Bob, I'm not really qualified to judge, is this kosher?"
99% chance they say no, they'll handle it. 1% chance they say yes, it's fine. If you hit that 1%, don't argue it, lawyer up or decide this isn't your hill.
If you really live in an office so punitive that you think HR (not your boss) is going to come down on you for a casual question and accepting their answer, your already so screwed that no amount of playing things close to your chest is going to help you. You need to already be on your way out because your office is so wild you can't predict when the boot is coming. If you are in this office, you probably already know it, because everything is already broken, and aren't posting "Ask HNs" about it.
99% chance they say no, they'll handle it. 1% chance they say yes, it's fine. If you hit that 1%, don't argue it, lawyer up or decide this isn't your hill.
If you really live in an office so punitive that you think HR (not your boss) is going to come down on you for a casual question and accepting their answer, your already so screwed that no amount of playing things close to your chest is going to help you. You need to already be on your way out because your office is so wild you can't predict when the boot is coming. If you are in this office, you probably already know it, because everything is already broken, and aren't posting "Ask HNs" about it.
It's definitely not "a casual question." What OP is suggesting is heresy in many places. In many people's view, it is discriminatory not to "compensate" for uneven starting points by advantaging based on privilege. The logic goes that if you aren't actively working/supporting changing things, then you are against them.
Also worth noting is that HR managers are overwhelmingly female[1], and in my experience they tend to be some of the more die-hard believers in DEI. If you're concerned that a policy may be discriminating against a male, you're taking a huge gamble by talking to them. It's quite likely that it was their idea in the first place.
[1]: https://www.hrdive.com/news/the-hr-professions-big-diversity...
Also worth noting is that HR managers are overwhelmingly female[1], and in my experience they tend to be some of the more die-hard believers in DEI. If you're concerned that a policy may be discriminating against a male, you're taking a huge gamble by talking to them. It's quite likely that it was their idea in the first place.
[1]: https://www.hrdive.com/news/the-hr-professions-big-diversity...
This isn't a casual question, this is a question about hiring practices. Who do you think dictates the hiring practices which this person's boss is putting into spreadsheets, etc? Going to HR first is going right to the source and saying, "is what you're doing legal?" This is not a smart move IMHO.
[deleted]
You seem like an intelligent, experienced person who might be out of step with the culture in many companies as it has changed over the past five, and, especially, the last two years. I would be very careful about bringing this issue to your local HR.
> the off chance it was your Chief People Officer's shitty idea
Doesn't really seem like an "off chance" to me that this would come from either the Chief People Officer, or someone else sufficiently high up in the food chain that they can tell HR to fall back in line.
Doesn't really seem like an "off chance" to me that this would come from either the Chief People Officer, or someone else sufficiently high up in the food chain that they can tell HR to fall back in line.
This seems like a case where HR would actually care, because the person raising it is trying to protect the company from doing something potentially illegal.
While talking to a lawyer is the best option, wouldn't this be one of the few cases where HR is relevant? You're specifically bringing to attention a potential liability/lawsuit from external sources.
> You're specifically bringing to attention a potential liability/lawsuit from external sources.
Not unless the author reveal the name of the company, which they didn't (as far as I can see at the time of writing).
Not unless the author reveal the name of the company, which they didn't (as far as I can see at the time of writing).
[deleted]
A similar thing happened at a previous company I worked for. We had lots of male candidates apply to an opening but only one female candidate. The female candidate was by far the weakest and I strongly advised not hiring her, but I was overridden by higher ups desperate to improve DEI and she was the candidate hired.
So the company's performance suffers and their competition who don't indulge in DIE will benefit from those male candidates.
Sounds like another case of "go woke go broke". This is why we see a lot of progressive policies in academia and government... Where losing money doesn't matter.
Sounds like another case of "go woke go broke". This is why we see a lot of progressive policies in academia and government... Where losing money doesn't matter.
How did they do?
This is something I've tried to figure out in detail due to past similar circumstances. What you're being asked to do is almost certainly illegal. There are a couple small carve-outs for very specific situations, but I would bet almost anything your company has not set up the paper trail to make sure they're in those small carve outs. Either way, what they're doing is morally wrong and will lead to worse outcomes for both under-privileged people and everyone else.
You have a couple different possible moves here:
1) Bring it up to your company's HR, compliance people, or legal team. If you want to stay and look good, this is an okay move. Frame it as, "This probably exposes us to A LOT of liability, no? Just thought I'd let you know".
2) Report them to the relevant authorities. This is the EEOC at the Department of Labor (Federal) and your state's EEOC or EEOC-equivalent. If you're planning on leaving I would definitely do this. Gather evidence of the illegal activity first and then submit. Many states will have whistleblower protections such that what the company can do to hurt you is very limited. You may even end up getting paid for no work.
3) Develop a list of candidates who were illegally discriminated against and notify them. They can then sue the company themselves.
1, 2, and 3 aren't exclusive. You can do a combination: for instance, let the company know and report them to EEOC. If you have the means and want to do a little good in the world, I think spending a couple hundred dollars on talking to a lawyer for an hour or two is a good move as well.
You have a couple different possible moves here:
1) Bring it up to your company's HR, compliance people, or legal team. If you want to stay and look good, this is an okay move. Frame it as, "This probably exposes us to A LOT of liability, no? Just thought I'd let you know".
2) Report them to the relevant authorities. This is the EEOC at the Department of Labor (Federal) and your state's EEOC or EEOC-equivalent. If you're planning on leaving I would definitely do this. Gather evidence of the illegal activity first and then submit. Many states will have whistleblower protections such that what the company can do to hurt you is very limited. You may even end up getting paid for no work.
3) Develop a list of candidates who were illegally discriminated against and notify them. They can then sue the company themselves.
1, 2, and 3 aren't exclusive. You can do a combination: for instance, let the company know and report them to EEOC. If you have the means and want to do a little good in the world, I think spending a couple hundred dollars on talking to a lawyer for an hour or two is a good move as well.
Thanks for these ideas. Do you have any recs on where or how to find a lawyer for the advice call?
Call your local bar association and ask them for referrals to lawyers that deal with employment discrimination law.
The usual first stop advice is your local bar association. Tell them what you're looking for and they should be able to provide recommendations.
Next-level might be looking up similar cases in the past and talking to the attorneys who worked on them.
Of course, if you have any sympathetic lawyer friends you might ask them too!
As an aside, thank you for caring and for doing something about this :-)
Next-level might be looking up similar cases in the past and talking to the attorneys who worked on them.
Of course, if you have any sympathetic lawyer friends you might ask them too!
As an aside, thank you for caring and for doing something about this :-)
I'd file it under affirmative action [1], which is not illegal in most countries/states (on the contrary). Lots of commenters here simply cite single paragraphs from anti-discrimination laws but what they don't understand is that the laws often allow organizations to correct bias by giving preferential treatment to underrepresented groups. The logic behind is that the majority group (e.g. white caucasian young males) might have bias to hire peers that they identify with, hence perpetuating their majority. Quota-based hiring / candidate selection is one way to solve this problem. Different jurisdictions have different rules though, in Germany hiring practice for certain professions (e.g. professorships) is that if two candidates are equally qualified but one is a woman then she will always receive preferential treatment (which is fair IMHO).
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_Unit...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_Unit...
I'd file it as a violation of title VII of the civil rights act:
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title...
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title...
> Quota-based hiring / candidate selection is one way to solve this problem.
Quota based hiring is explicitly illegal in the US (Gratz v. Bollinger)
Quota based hiring is explicitly illegal in the US (Gratz v. Bollinger)
My understanding of US labor law is this is flamingly illegal. And you would be well served to talk to a lawyer for yourself before you make any moves.
I'm familiar with a smarter version of this: HR created a DEI working group of self-selected employees. This group is given a stack of resumes and charged with screening them for compatibility with the company's DEI goals. This way they can have a process to reliably screen out unwanted demographics without anyone being ordered or even suggested to do so.
Ah, the good 'ol "if we don't leave a paper trail they can't prove we broke the law" technique.
Not a lawyer take
1. Likely illegal
2. Likely no one will ever care
3. On the off chance they do care, very unlikely you will be in any trouble or hurt by it
4. It is a bigger risk to question it
5. This is wrong and bad, but choosing if you want to fight it is a hard choice.
1. Likely illegal
2. Likely no one will ever care
3. On the off chance they do care, very unlikely you will be in any trouble or hurt by it
4. It is a bigger risk to question it
5. This is wrong and bad, but choosing if you want to fight it is a hard choice.
Legal. Illegal. Don't know. You should ask a lawyer.
I can tell that you are not comfortable with this. You suspect it's illegal and might still be uncomfortable even if it's not. Were I in your shoes, I would be looking for an exit strategy right quick.
(For full disclosure, I should mention I'm looking for an exit from my current job for entirely different reasons).
Do not swallow your own sense of right and wrong. Do not go along to get along. You will regret that deeply later on. Find an environment that doesn't make you worry that you might be participating in something illegal, or unethical, or immoral.
I can tell that you are not comfortable with this. You suspect it's illegal and might still be uncomfortable even if it's not. Were I in your shoes, I would be looking for an exit strategy right quick.
(For full disclosure, I should mention I'm looking for an exit from my current job for entirely different reasons).
Do not swallow your own sense of right and wrong. Do not go along to get along. You will regret that deeply later on. Find an environment that doesn't make you worry that you might be participating in something illegal, or unethical, or immoral.
At best, it's unethical. Like someone else said, it's maybe possibly legal if done in a very specific and supervised way. That is almost certainly not happening. What's likely is that someone has decided to be diverse and people over the org are doing this on an ad-hoc manner by institution hard and soft quotas. This is absolutely illegal.
Speak with an attorney for 30m to discuss this properly.
What should you do though?
1. Go along with it. Some of the discovery during the Damore v Google lawsuit found that some Google employees was doing exactly this. Specifically holding positions for under-represented minorities or lowering the hiring bar.
2. Find a new job. A lot of work, and a lot of other companies do similar things.
3. Ignore the instructions. Depending on how invested upper management is in this, it may be a career limiting move and end up requiring (2) anyways.
4. Become a whistle-blower. More of a career limiting move than participating.
Speak with an attorney for 30m to discuss this properly.
What should you do though?
1. Go along with it. Some of the discovery during the Damore v Google lawsuit found that some Google employees was doing exactly this. Specifically holding positions for under-represented minorities or lowering the hiring bar.
2. Find a new job. A lot of work, and a lot of other companies do similar things.
3. Ignore the instructions. Depending on how invested upper management is in this, it may be a career limiting move and end up requiring (2) anyways.
4. Become a whistle-blower. More of a career limiting move than participating.
Here are a few things you should do, as well as explanations of why you should do them.
1. Do not delete or destroy any files. Doing the work your directed to do won’t put you in any personal danger (your company can be sued, you can’t). Destroying evidence could make you liable personally.
2. Let your VP know again that you think this violates US non-discrimination law. Let them know in an email and copy your personal account so you always have a record. Also copy your company’s legal or ethics department if possible. I would write something like “Hi [VP]. I was asked to create a list of job requirements which were based on gender and race. I support increasing diversity in our company but doing this would violate US equal opportunity employment law and would put the company in legal jeopardy. I will not perform this action because it would result in discrimination. I will gladly perform other actions to support our DEI initiatives.” That way, it’s clear you protested. If anyone tries to say it was your fault, you’ll have evidence showing that you protested.
3. If you wish, you could advise your boss on other DEI initiatives that would not be discriminatory, such as recruiting at women in STEM events or offering a leadership training course for underrepresented groups.
4. Refuse to perform tasks that would result in discrimination. Know that US EEO law also protects you against retaliation for refusing to discriminate. According to EEOC.gov, “It is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for… refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination.” Having an email record that you refused to perform the discriminatory action (see point #2) will help you win a lawsuit or settlement if you are fired or turned down for a promotion due to this.
At the end of the day, you are doing your company a favor by not taking this action. If the line “Senior Software Engineer (must be female)” ever showed up in an employment discrimination case your company would lose the trial pretty much instantly.
1. Do not delete or destroy any files. Doing the work your directed to do won’t put you in any personal danger (your company can be sued, you can’t). Destroying evidence could make you liable personally.
2. Let your VP know again that you think this violates US non-discrimination law. Let them know in an email and copy your personal account so you always have a record. Also copy your company’s legal or ethics department if possible. I would write something like “Hi [VP]. I was asked to create a list of job requirements which were based on gender and race. I support increasing diversity in our company but doing this would violate US equal opportunity employment law and would put the company in legal jeopardy. I will not perform this action because it would result in discrimination. I will gladly perform other actions to support our DEI initiatives.” That way, it’s clear you protested. If anyone tries to say it was your fault, you’ll have evidence showing that you protested.
3. If you wish, you could advise your boss on other DEI initiatives that would not be discriminatory, such as recruiting at women in STEM events or offering a leadership training course for underrepresented groups.
4. Refuse to perform tasks that would result in discrimination. Know that US EEO law also protects you against retaliation for refusing to discriminate. According to EEOC.gov, “It is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for… refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination.” Having an email record that you refused to perform the discriminatory action (see point #2) will help you win a lawsuit or settlement if you are fired or turned down for a promotion due to this.
At the end of the day, you are doing your company a favor by not taking this action. If the line “Senior Software Engineer (must be female)” ever showed up in an employment discrimination case your company would lose the trial pretty much instantly.
IANAL, but I did work as a recruiter. This sounds illegal from what I know about hiring. Diversity good. Discrimination bad (and stupid).
If your company competes with mine, then I encourage you to select for attributes other than fitness for the job.
Might be worth asking Reddit's r/legaladvice (but take what they say with a grain of salt). In the UK this would be illegal afaik - you are only allowed to favour one sex over the other if there are two equivalent applicants for a position and you are trying to counteract an existing imbalance in your team. But you can't outright reject one sex from the start.
Lots of redditors saying go to HR. That is a bad idea. Your company's DEI initiatives probably originated in the HR department. Or they originated higher up, and HR was tapped to implement. Either way HR is not your ally.
This is incorrect. I hired in the UK and we were legally discriminating based on people being "minority" or women. It sickens me.
From Wikipedia:
>"Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity."
From Wikipedia:
>"Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity."
Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start.
I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.
I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.
> Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start.
How would one even begin to prove the difference? This seems like some sort of mental gymnastic to explain away well meaning discrimination. If I had a thing against men, I'd take their applications, maybe give a few of them interviews for the sake of plausible deniability without a plan to actually hire them. And fortunately for me, society is callously indifferent to men in general unless they are part of a protected class.
How would one even begin to prove the difference? This seems like some sort of mental gymnastic to explain away well meaning discrimination. If I had a thing against men, I'd take their applications, maybe give a few of them interviews for the sake of plausible deniability without a plan to actually hire them. And fortunately for me, society is callously indifferent to men in general unless they are part of a protected class.
Well that's a problem you always have with subjective decisions during hiring. At the end of the day you'll most likely get away with it unless you're being as blatant as OP's company. But it only takes one disgruntled whistleblower to get yourself into trouble.
And at least historically it's usually been the men who benefitted from this.
And at least historically it's usually been the men who benefitted from this.
> Does region or state within the USA matter?
No, this is covered by Federal law.
> If this is illegal then what's the right way to handle this?
This is incontrovertibly a direct and intentional violation of Title VII. Call the EOC immediately and get it on record that you have informed them of this. Otherwise you are in danger of being seen as an accomplice or otherwise complicit—even if you are not involved directly at implementing the illegal policy. Intentional violations of Title VII open up the possibility of punitive damages in any suit brought by any man who believes that he has been discriminated against. You can be named as a defendant. Protect yourself now.
Obviously, this is also deeply immoral.
No, this is covered by Federal law.
> If this is illegal then what's the right way to handle this?
This is incontrovertibly a direct and intentional violation of Title VII. Call the EOC immediately and get it on record that you have informed them of this. Otherwise you are in danger of being seen as an accomplice or otherwise complicit—even if you are not involved directly at implementing the illegal policy. Intentional violations of Title VII open up the possibility of punitive damages in any suit brought by any man who believes that he has been discriminated against. You can be named as a defendant. Protect yourself now.
Obviously, this is also deeply immoral.
Unfortunately discrimination is alive and well in our days and it's called "Affirmative Action".
I'm not sure about the USA but in the UK discriminating is acceptable as long as you are discriminating in favour of a category which is under-represented.
Of course, given you can split humans in an infinite number of categories, this is basically meaningless and it's just plain discrimination.
One of my previous employers in the UK was working primarily with recruiters that brought candidates with the correct gender / race.
I'm not sure about the USA but in the UK discriminating is acceptable as long as you are discriminating in favour of a category which is under-represented.
Of course, given you can split humans in an infinite number of categories, this is basically meaningless and it's just plain discrimination.
One of my previous employers in the UK was working primarily with recruiters that brought candidates with the correct gender / race.
Contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or file a complaint depending on what your situation is:
https://www.eeoc.gov/contact-eeoc
Sex and gender are protected classes, an employer cannot discriminate based on a protected class.
The law forbids the company from retaliating against you in any way as a result of an EEOC complaint investigation.
If you have signed a waiver or arbitration aggreement, you should take a look at that and talk to a lawyer.
https://www.eeoc.gov/contact-eeoc
Sex and gender are protected classes, an employer cannot discriminate based on a protected class.
The law forbids the company from retaliating against you in any way as a result of an EEOC complaint investigation.
If you have signed a waiver or arbitration aggreement, you should take a look at that and talk to a lawyer.
Does your company have a legal department? That's who you really want to consult, not internet forums.
I'm not trying to be a jerk - it's just that the legally depends on the particular specifics. Sounds illegal to me at first pass, but if government contacting is involved or other special cases it gets more complicated.
You should probably make a report to the EEOC if you can't consult legal. You should also ask your engineering VP if they consulted legal before instituting the requirement.
I'm not trying to be a jerk - it's just that the legally depends on the particular specifics. Sounds illegal to me at first pass, but if government contacting is involved or other special cases it gets more complicated.
You should probably make a report to the EEOC if you can't consult legal. You should also ask your engineering VP if they consulted legal before instituting the requirement.
When filling out forms when it includes DIE questions, the best approach is to check all the boxes. If anyone questions it they can land themselves in real deep water.
The best way to combat this nonsense is peaceful protesting.
The best way to combat this nonsense is peaceful protesting.
They don't have to question your checked boxes to your face, they can just immediately reject you when it's obvious you're not what they're actually looking for.
"I identify as female"
The hole that the left has dug itself is very very deep at this point.
The hole that the left has dug itself is very very deep at this point.
(I am not a lawyer)
It’s ok in the US to have a goal to hire more women or URMs, and to do sourcing, etc. to bring in more candidates like this.
I think the potential concerns here are the use of “must” in the spreadsheet, and what activities you’ll be expected to perform, OP.
I’d recommend advocating for changing “must” to some other goal-based language.
If you’re doing the sourcing, I’d also think about setting goals here (x% of candidates moved from stage 1 to stage 2 are women/urms, for example).
What’s not ok:
* not interviewing or hiring someone because they are not a woman
* giving someone a different interview for any reason (barring accommodations for disabilities, etc)
* saying “we are only hiring women for this role” (for example)
* saying “we are not hiring any men for this role” (for example)
* having a quota that must be met. (i.e. a target, not a goal).
There are ways that this can play out that might seem discriminatory but are not. For example, if your goal is to have X% of final stage candidates be women and you haven’t gotten there yet, not hiring a non-woman final stage candidate that is otherwise hirable is not discriminatory. See the “Rooney rule” and other examples.
What I think you should do: * assume positive intent. No one person is responsible for this systemic shitshow / imbalance, and people are doing the best they can to fix it. Understanding how to do that in the context of the law is sometimes difficult. * advocate for the use of appropriate goals that support the initiative. * politely object when someone asks you to do one of the “should not dos” above. Ask them to restate in the context of goals. * don’t get caught up in culture warrior nonsense that circulates around this issue. You’re an engineer, recruitment is a system. Treat it like a systems problem. * support your women colleagues and women in tech in general. Systemic bias is real. People who believe women shouldn’t be in tech exist. Do what you can to help overcome these obstacles.
There are ways that this can play out that might seem discriminatory but are not. For example, if your goal is to have X% of final stage candidates be women and you haven’t gotten there yet, not hiring a non-woman final stage candidate that is otherwise hirable is not discriminatory. See the “Rooney rule” and other examples.
What I think you should do: * assume positive intent. No one person is responsible for this systemic shitshow / imbalance, and people are doing the best they can to fix it. Understanding how to do that in the context of the law is sometimes difficult. * advocate for the use of appropriate goals that support the initiative. * politely object when someone asks you to do one of the “should not dos” above. Ask them to restate in the context of goals. * don’t get caught up in culture warrior nonsense that circulates around this issue. You’re an engineer, recruitment is a system. Treat it like a systems problem. * support your women colleagues and women in tech in general. Systemic bias is real. People who believe women shouldn’t be in tech exist. Do what you can to help overcome these obstacles.
Whatever you do, don't take legal advice from comments here.
I would hope/think that the company's leader(s) consulted their attorney before instituting an objectively discriminatory practice. You might ask about that -- but if you're not a principal of the company, they don't necessarily have to answer your question (honestly).
I thought a people manager was an “agent of the company” and was held to more legal liability than an IC. E.g. as an IC if I see discrimination that does not involve me I don’t _need_ to report it. But as an agent of the company I would.
Or maybe my HR training course fibbed? /shrug
Or maybe my HR training course fibbed? /shrug
Even if it isn't illegal it is unethical.
Get their insistence in writing ( in an email ) to CYA.
I worked in one particular tech company where this went on for promotions as well as hiring, but nothing was ever put down in writing.
It was all handled in back room meetings at a manager, director or VP level, so they could meet diversity quotas and get personal share bonuses.
First be 100 percent sure you've got something in writing to back up what you are claiming, then, bring it to the US Dept of Labor.
But you won't get everything in writing, and it's a dangerous short term career move, even though it might be right/moral/legal thing to do.
It was all handled in back room meetings at a manager, director or VP level, so they could meet diversity quotas and get personal share bonuses.
First be 100 percent sure you've got something in writing to back up what you are claiming, then, bring it to the US Dept of Labor.
But you won't get everything in writing, and it's a dangerous short term career move, even though it might be right/moral/legal thing to do.
Yes, that is illegal according to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I have had many software job interviews that were illegal. Most of that were interviewers asking about my familial status because parents are perceived as more dependent upon the employment with less mobility and spouses are perceived as more stable and less likely to commit inter-personnel policy violations. I just disclose the requested information.
If you actually are a senior manager you should already know this is illegal.
I have had many software job interviews that were illegal. Most of that were interviewers asking about my familial status because parents are perceived as more dependent upon the employment with less mobility and spouses are perceived as more stable and less likely to commit inter-personnel policy violations. I just disclose the requested information.
If you actually are a senior manager you should already know this is illegal.
I think the more pertinent question is, why would you want to continue working for such a company.
Most companies these days are doing exactly the same, the more competent ones just don’t put it in writing, leaving paper trail. You can’t escape this sort of systemic discrimination, it permeates the society to the bone.
Decisions like these from companies just lead to resentment. Engineers start to feel like minority engineers are just diversity hires. In this case they are right which leads to animosity by the established engineers and a feeling of being disliked because of their minority status by the new hire. In most cases the minority engineer does not even know they had an advantage and will likely take a massive confidence hit when they find out. If the new engineer is also not as good an engineer as could have been hired had the hiring pool been larger the animosity will compound, established engineers will feel like they have to work more to compensate for the weak new hire and even though they complain, management will insist that they remain, further inciting negativity. Eventually the older engineers will leave as they feel they are now being unfairly discriminated against themselves. The insane thing is that all parties in this are correct. All of them are being discriminated against, both new and established engineers but its because of the probably well meaning actions of the HR / Diversity department.
IMO limiting hiring pools based on race or gender is not a good thing and can only lead to animosity and eventually employee churn.
IMO limiting hiring pools based on race or gender is not a good thing and can only lead to animosity and eventually employee churn.
> Engineers start to feel like minority engineers are just diversity hires.
As an engineer I don’t really care- have I been discriminated against ? maybe, have I been privileged? Absolutely
With all the biases that humans have someone is always getting shafted - nothing is always 100% fair
As an engineer I don’t really care- have I been discriminated against ? maybe, have I been privileged? Absolutely
With all the biases that humans have someone is always getting shafted - nothing is always 100% fair
Maybe ask about what this policy means for non-binary people and see if it makes them squirm.
One of the reasons why a lot of SV companies like Google have a problem with diversity is because they focus almost all of their recruiting drives on a few schools and hire mostly people with degrees from those schools, which themselves have diversity problems.
If you keep going to the same wells you shouldn't be surprised to buy find different results.
One of the reasons why a lot of SV companies like Google have a problem with diversity is because they focus almost all of their recruiting drives on a few schools and hire mostly people with degrees from those schools, which themselves have diversity problems.
If you keep going to the same wells you shouldn't be surprised to buy find different results.
If your company is large enough, you should have an HR department and HR person working with you directly as a hiring manager. Reach out to them. Do everything in writing (emails), refuse to get any guidance on the phone. Get approval from them. If you are still unsure - ask to involve company’s legal department. Print the finished email threads, store outside your place of work.
If you are worried that you are being asked to do something illegal, you should get your own legal advice. The companies lawyer is obliged to protect them, not you.
Having said that, the above is probably good advice in many situations. Just not if you have an concern that you might personally get sued or prosecuted.
Having said that, the above is probably good advice in many situations. Just not if you have an concern that you might personally get sued or prosecuted.
You should talk to an employment lawyer before you go to HR or anyone in your company. You also have the right to file a complaint with the EEOC, but I would not do that until you talk to a lawyer.
The reason why you need to talk to a lawyer is that your lawyer is ethically obligated to represent your best interests, not your company's.
The reason why you need to talk to a lawyer is that your lawyer is ethically obligated to represent your best interests, not your company's.
No, unless women are not a minority in that job bucket at your employer. Remediation for insufficient diversity is acceptable. Gratuitous hiring of “do nothing” / “under spec” employees is not, but that’s not in play in your case. I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
[deleted]
how do you choose between white female and black male given that both are equally qualified ?
I've been a hiring manager for 3 years and have been interviewing candidates for 7. In all that time, I have _never_ had a situation where two candidates were exactly equally qualified. There has always been factors that we can use to choose one over the other. the last time I had to make a recommendation on a candidate decision, both would have been appropriate for the job. I recommended we contact the one we didn't hire for our next opening, and my hire recommendation was because candidate A had marginally more experience than B in an area that our team was weaker on.
If you are DEI conscious company you hire both
I just choose the sexier candidate. Better for morale.
From U.S. Government Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
Job Advertisements
It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
Job Advertisements
It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
I am a minority and I find it disgusting. If you want to increase diversity - don’t give internal referrals more weight than external applications. Recruit from a diversity of schools or heck I’m even okay with training programs that help underrepresented groups prepare for tech interviews by targeting schools like HBCUs and local non prestigious schools.
On the other hand, I mentored a female intern last summer. After talking to her, I’m convinced that attractive females in tech have it a lot harder than males. They have to be extra careful to set boundaries and not give off the wrong signals by mistake.
On the other hand, I mentored a female intern last summer. After talking to her, I’m convinced that attractive females in tech have it a lot harder than males. They have to be extra careful to set boundaries and not give off the wrong signals by mistake.
Attractive guys too!
I'd advise all US devs to just flee the country, if it weren't for VCs and US-led unicorn-acquisitions who'll eventually spread this DEI nonsense to the rest of the world (some US-financed European unicorns already start introducing Black History months in February, talking about cultural imperialism eh?). But it'll at least buy you some time.
And who knows, maybe when your country of choice is up – there'll be a self-hating non-white country adopting this crap and you'll be able to get the minority treatment.
And who knows, maybe when your country of choice is up – there'll be a self-hating non-white country adopting this crap and you'll be able to get the minority treatment.
What would happen if you don't sue this company, but also don't comply with the discriminatory requirement? Would they fire you for not following an illegal order? (As in, interviewing and including male candidates anyway).
"I was just following orders" is not a valid legal defense in this situation. And beyond the legal sphere, what do you know is the right thing to do?
Either way, I'd recommend you preserve whatever documents and notes that you can for the future.
"I was just following orders" is not a valid legal defense in this situation. And beyond the legal sphere, what do you know is the right thing to do?
Either way, I'd recommend you preserve whatever documents and notes that you can for the future.
If you seriously need legal advice talk to an attorney, not HN.
[deleted]
Extremely illegal. A position should go to the best candidate for the job, not to someone that passes discriminatory filters. You need to report this ASAP.
[deleted]
> I had a call with VP eng where I raised the issue again and they insisted that the requirement remain.
I would have loved for you to have followed that up with "Ok then. Do you also have particular breast size requirements?" and watch them squirm as they realise how the "must be female" requirement could be interpreted in other ways.
I would have loved for you to have followed that up with "Ok then. Do you also have particular breast size requirements?" and watch them squirm as they realise how the "must be female" requirement could be interpreted in other ways.
DEI came out of no where. It was as if 2020 happened, and then, suddenly every company in the country had a DEI consultant directing hiring and compensation practices. It reminds me of a party commissar, embedded in every organization telling the organization who, based on the politics of the day, to hire.
[deleted]
Typo in the title. If anyone has edit privileges then can they update it to "Ask HN:"
This posting looks recent enough that you should still have the edit button yourself.
Used it once for other typos but then the edit link disappeared!
My brain instinctively read "ask hn" anyway so you're probably fine
Do you have a centralized hiring committee? If so then you might be able too to "blame" it on them for not having too many "ideal" candidates in the pipeline?
HR should have denoted an asterisk on each entry saying something to the effect of “to comply with hiring policy.”
And to use phrase like “try for more female”, instead of “must be female”.
And to use phrase like “try for more female”, instead of “must be female”.
Incredible how many lawyers frequent HN.
for me personally as an applicant, I won’t care that much as long as you don’t waste my time giving me interviews that won’t get me nowhere because I’m a male…. just reject my application and we are good.
It is illegal. Report it.
WHY DO PEOPLE ASK FOR LEGAL ADVICE HERE? ASK A LAWYER....
"Lawyer" seems to be a synonym for All Seeing All Comprehending God. Lawyers that I have met were mostly clueless, lazy, greedy and caused harm to the client.
Whatever opinions you have, the legal system was designed by lawyers in such a complicated fashion that only lawyers can keep track of it. Like that or not, it's the way it is.
What percentage of your current SSEs are female?
It is common in big companies. These days, HR is heavy on hiring women and minorities. No whites, no Indians, etc. Definitely not illegal.
Well, it's clearly illegal, but you're correct, it's common in big companies.
It's kind of mind-boggling that we're in this situation where illegal discrimination in hiring is not only tolerated, but generally encouraged.
It's kind of mind-boggling that we're in this situation where illegal discrimination in hiring is not only tolerated, but generally encouraged.
I’d be far more concerned about anti-female bias that doesn’t even get recognized.
I'm studying statistics just at the moment, and for anyone who is curious and has an open mind, the most likely (in a Bayesian sense) reason that the OP has posted this comment is because they do not have access to a single female Senior Software Engineer who they feel meet their requirements. (This is more likely than an alternative explanation such as that the best candidate for the position OP wishes to fill is female, but OP refuses to hire a female.)
For anyone who is curious and has an open mind, since women are half of the population and attain a large number of degrees (as opposed to many decades ago when they were not allowed in education at all), why does OP not have access to female candidates OP feeels meets their requirements?
Since I am studying statistics, I looked up the answer in a lecture about women, collected in a book called the Past, Present, and Future of Statistical Science[1]
There are interesting comments about sexism within the science of statistics, for example:
Thwarted employment search after college Having discarded high school and college teaching, actuarial science, and medicine, I sought employment after college graduation in 1960. I was aware of only two methods to find a job: look in the newspapers’ “Help Wanted” sections and talk with employers at job fairs on campus. The newspaper route proved fruitless. Younger readers may not be aware that newspapers had separate “Help Wanted Female” and “Help Wanted Male” sections until the late 1960s or early 1970s when such practice eventually was ruled to be illegal sex discrimination. In 1960 advertised positions using math skills and interest were in “Help Wanted Male,” and I assumed that it would be futile to apply. Job interviews on campus with employers played out similarly; all positions were segregated by gender and all technical positions were for males. One vignette, among many, illustrates the employment culture for women in the US in 1960. When I registered for an interview on campus with IBM, I was required to take a math aptitude test. The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation.
-
Clearly, this process explains why OP does not have access to female applicants he feels are qualified. Perhaps OP is judging the history of candidates and applicants, but many other people judged their gender in the past when excluding them.
What should OP do? Of course, OP can't force others who excluded women from going back in history and including them instead. Is there anything OP can do now to try to rectify the injustice?
I think that one thing that OP could potentially do is follow the process outlined in the company. He could hire a woman for the role.
I think it is the right thing to do in OP's situation and given the history of the industry.
[1] if you search for this title on Google one of the top results is the full PDF so I think it's okay to post it here: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AMSTAT/71a758c7...
For anyone who is curious and has an open mind, since women are half of the population and attain a large number of degrees (as opposed to many decades ago when they were not allowed in education at all), why does OP not have access to female candidates OP feeels meets their requirements?
Since I am studying statistics, I looked up the answer in a lecture about women, collected in a book called the Past, Present, and Future of Statistical Science[1]
There are interesting comments about sexism within the science of statistics, for example:
Thwarted employment search after college Having discarded high school and college teaching, actuarial science, and medicine, I sought employment after college graduation in 1960. I was aware of only two methods to find a job: look in the newspapers’ “Help Wanted” sections and talk with employers at job fairs on campus. The newspaper route proved fruitless. Younger readers may not be aware that newspapers had separate “Help Wanted Female” and “Help Wanted Male” sections until the late 1960s or early 1970s when such practice eventually was ruled to be illegal sex discrimination. In 1960 advertised positions using math skills and interest were in “Help Wanted Male,” and I assumed that it would be futile to apply. Job interviews on campus with employers played out similarly; all positions were segregated by gender and all technical positions were for males. One vignette, among many, illustrates the employment culture for women in the US in 1960. When I registered for an interview on campus with IBM, I was required to take a math aptitude test. The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation.
-
Clearly, this process explains why OP does not have access to female applicants he feels are qualified. Perhaps OP is judging the history of candidates and applicants, but many other people judged their gender in the past when excluding them.
What should OP do? Of course, OP can't force others who excluded women from going back in history and including them instead. Is there anything OP can do now to try to rectify the injustice?
I think that one thing that OP could potentially do is follow the process outlined in the company. He could hire a woman for the role.
I think it is the right thing to do in OP's situation and given the history of the industry.
[1] if you search for this title on Google one of the top results is the full PDF so I think it's okay to post it here: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AMSTAT/71a758c7...
Past discrimination doesn't justify discrimination in the present.
>Past discrimination doesn't justify discrimination in the present.
You show a kind of logical thinking, since it is in fact a kind of discrimination in the present. However, you can verify for yourself that this is correct through something like the following. It's pseudocode, to help you reason correctly:
This is the situation under the true historical context I quoted above:
>The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation.
This means that my outrageous pseudocode with this corrupt line that caps talented candidates at 0 years of experience - actually describes real life. Continuing to use the proxy rather than get the trueability is not justified.
Under such a scenario, it is no longer possible to use the salient proxy characteristic to judge the candidate.
I want you to really get this, so I'll use a final motivating example.
- Should a company hire violent rapists?
Of course not. They are a threat to other employees.
Okay, so what if someone accused you of being a violent rapist even though you were innocent? That would suck! Imagine if you tried to appeal but were told: "Sorry. We understand you were falsely accused in the past, but a false accusation in the past does NOT justify us spending resources on determining whether the accusation is true or not. It is easiest for us to use the proxy of not hiring anyone like you."
I use this example because if I were a woman denied a job just because I wasn't a man, I would feel it is a gross injustice similar to a false accusation. So, you should use that feeling to realize that the "discrimination" you're complaining about is in fact righting a wrong.
You are saying: "Righting past wrongs does not justify spending present resources". This is a moral question. Personally, I feel I have enough resources to spend an extra few seconds each candidate to see their true ability, rather than applying a heuristic based on past discrimination. In my experience this also gives me access to better teams faster. If that comes at the cost that I have to get to know candidates it seems like a small price to pay.
You show a kind of logical thinking, since it is in fact a kind of discrimination in the present. However, you can verify for yourself that this is correct through something like the following. It's pseudocode, to help you reason correctly:
// assume all we know about the candidate is whether they are "A" or "B" and their years of experience.
// generate 10,000 candidates
candidates = 10,000 x random (a or b)
for each candidate trueability = random (1 to 100) // their true ability which we don't know is a random number 1 to 100
for each candidate years of experience = random (1 to 20)
// however, let's corrupt our data. Let's artificially reduce the years of experience for all candidates who are "A".
// let's add sexism
for each candidate:
if candidate gender == "A" then years of experience = 0
Bag of candidates = 10 random candidates from all candidates
This is the situation under the true historical context I quoted above:
>The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation.
This means that my outrageous pseudocode with this corrupt line that caps talented candidates at 0 years of experience - actually describes real life. Continuing to use the proxy rather than get the trueability is not justified.
Under such a scenario, it is no longer possible to use the salient proxy characteristic to judge the candidate.
I want you to really get this, so I'll use a final motivating example.
- Should a company hire violent rapists?
Of course not. They are a threat to other employees.
Okay, so what if someone accused you of being a violent rapist even though you were innocent? That would suck! Imagine if you tried to appeal but were told: "Sorry. We understand you were falsely accused in the past, but a false accusation in the past does NOT justify us spending resources on determining whether the accusation is true or not. It is easiest for us to use the proxy of not hiring anyone like you."
I use this example because if I were a woman denied a job just because I wasn't a man, I would feel it is a gross injustice similar to a false accusation. So, you should use that feeling to realize that the "discrimination" you're complaining about is in fact righting a wrong.
You are saying: "Righting past wrongs does not justify spending present resources". This is a moral question. Personally, I feel I have enough resources to spend an extra few seconds each candidate to see their true ability, rather than applying a heuristic based on past discrimination. In my experience this also gives me access to better teams faster. If that comes at the cost that I have to get to know candidates it seems like a small price to pay.
Legality aside, this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI. Candidates recruited this way will have a stigma attached to them (“they were recruited because they were X”).
A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer.
The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the role, but ensure a broad set of candidates has been considered. It’s a win win for all and it works.
A better way is to enforce DSA - Diverse Slate Approach - which ensure that you don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer.
The goal of DSA is to recruit the best candidate for the role, but ensure a broad set of candidates has been considered. It’s a win win for all and it works.
I have to disagree that this is a win-win. My friend recently went through another round of interviews trying to find a job.
He got tons of follow up interviews, only to be told that the company decided to hire internally, or some other excuse that strongly implied they already had another candidate in mind.
My friend, it ought not surprise you to discover, fits into several "minority" categories. The worst industry for this was academia, though his last round in the private sector was also tough.
Moral of the story: if you find a candidate that you want to hire, just hire them. Don't bring in a bunch of DEI candidates and make them feel like show dogs just so you can tick a checkbox that says you pretended to care about DEI.
He got tons of follow up interviews, only to be told that the company decided to hire internally, or some other excuse that strongly implied they already had another candidate in mind.
My friend, it ought not surprise you to discover, fits into several "minority" categories. The worst industry for this was academia, though his last round in the private sector was also tough.
Moral of the story: if you find a candidate that you want to hire, just hire them. Don't bring in a bunch of DEI candidates and make them feel like show dogs just so you can tick a checkbox that says you pretended to care about DEI.
This isn't necessarily a DEI thing and more that the company has some dumb policy that you have to have job descriptions posted publicly for $x number of weeks and interview at least $y candidates. And then you make internal promotions go through the same process because reasons.
Source: have worked for companies that have this policy, academia especially is famous for this level of institutional incompetence.
Source: have worked for companies that have this policy, academia especially is famous for this level of institutional incompetence.
Not sure why this guy is downvoted. His comment is 100% true in at least some contexts. In a past life I worked at a state university. Greater than 80% of positions during my tenure were filled by nepotism. Friends and family of a currently employed person. Every time they would post the job, bring in 2 poor sobs to interview alongside the friend or family member, and then hire the friend or family member even when they were glaringly weaker (the most egregious example I remember was for a position running a copy center for one of the colleges and one of the passed over interview candidates had 10 years of experience at a local Kinkos like shop. The actual person hired had been a stay at home mom for the last 10 years, and worked in retail before that. She was also a close friend of one of the people at the college where the copy shop was located. Both were asking for commensurate pay.)
Yes, academia and private can both be bad about this, but because of DEI initiatives, my friend got sent to many second and third interviews even though they didn't plan on hiring him.
Had he been a vanilla white guy, fewer places would have wasted his time. Instead they used him. Universities were especially bad about doing this, though not the only ones.
Had he been a vanilla white guy, fewer places would have wasted his time. Instead they used him. Universities were especially bad about doing this, though not the only ones.
What was most aggregating is that, because my friend fit the DEI categories, he always got passed through to subsequent interviews even though they had no intention of hiring him, all so they could pad their DEI checklists.
Had be been your run of the mill white guy, far fewer of them would have wasted his time.
Had be been your run of the mill white guy, far fewer of them would have wasted his time.
I've heard of a mechanism with similar results where certain positions (government contractors?) are required to be "offered" to domestic candidates, although the company would rather hire a foreigner because they're generally cheaper. So they technically post an ad somewhere (ideally in a place no one will read) and they'll technically interview domestic candidates who apply, even though they plan to say no.
Regardless of the reason, it wastes people's time and is somewhat dishonest.
Regardless of the reason, it wastes people's time and is somewhat dishonest.
The issue with DSA is that some hiring managers will inevitably try to game the system.
A friend once shared a strategy he saw at BigCorp - a hiring manager would fill the pipeline with 10 quality applicants, but if none of them matched the diversity requirement, that manager would add 2-3 diversity candidates that were horrible fits.
They still started the interview loop, but failed miserably compared to a normal candidate, and no interviewer could really be ignore the difference in the CVs.
I personally really want be part of a diverse and inclusive team, but so far, all attempts to "enforce" D&I I've seen or heard of inevitably failed in some form or another. I would argue that the biggest issue has to do with supply, not demand for diverse talent, and resolving that will take a while sadly.
I personally really want be part of a diverse and inclusive team, but so far, all attempts to "enforce" D&I I've seen or heard of inevitably failed in some form or another. I would argue that the biggest issue has to do with supply, not demand for diverse talent, and resolving that will take a while sadly.
Supply will never be fully resolved from a minority pool; there are less of them - the definition of a minority.
> this is a terrible and naive way to think of DEI
No, it isn’t. OP is describing the intended use of DEI. A proper merit based approach would have 0 knowledge of race, gender, etc. DSA as well requires prior knowledge of irrelevant attributes of a candidate because its goal is to increase the representation of people with those attributes, not hire the best candidates.
Any process trying to select for the best developer does not need to know about race, gender, etc. Any process that asks for those is not looking for the best developers.
No, it isn’t. OP is describing the intended use of DEI. A proper merit based approach would have 0 knowledge of race, gender, etc. DSA as well requires prior knowledge of irrelevant attributes of a candidate because its goal is to increase the representation of people with those attributes, not hire the best candidates.
Any process trying to select for the best developer does not need to know about race, gender, etc. Any process that asks for those is not looking for the best developers.
Hmm. Without actively taking steps to widen the net and account for those irrelevant attributes, those attributes instead act as the first filter in your hiring process. IMO the process that ignores this is the one that’s not looking for the best developers. In order to make those attributes truly irrelevant we have to correct for the massive, obvious influence they have in human decision making (on both sides of the hiring equation). Accepting the status quo is actually letting those attributes rob you of good hires.
" In order to make those attributes truly irrelevant we have to correct for the massive, obvious influence they have in human decision making"
Which is exactly what blind-hiring / blind-auditions are meant to do. The problem, from my perspective having tried to implement it, is that it requires a real cognitive leap from people who are most successful for their social acumen and don't regularly make decisions based on hard evidence. Often those kinds of people have a title with Manager or Officer in it.
Which is exactly what blind-hiring / blind-auditions are meant to do. The problem, from my perspective having tried to implement it, is that it requires a real cognitive leap from people who are most successful for their social acumen and don't regularly make decisions based on hard evidence. Often those kinds of people have a title with Manager or Officer in it.
What’s the correct breakdown of software developers by race / gender / etc? I think if we can answer that question we can then accurately assess whether or not those attributes are acting as filters. However, without knowing those breakdowns, taking any action to correct those breakdowns is wrong. We can’t accurately say there is a problem.
The best we can do is remove any bias we find at an individual level (ie a blind hiring process). Looking at aggregate level metrics is nearly useless because we cannot accurately account for all the factors contributing to them.
The best we can do is remove any bias we find at an individual level (ie a blind hiring process). Looking at aggregate level metrics is nearly useless because we cannot accurately account for all the factors contributing to them.
> However, without knowing those breakdowns, taking any action to correct those breakdowns is wrong. We can’t accurately say there is a problem.
You’re arguing a different point. I’m talking about the filter on candidates, not eventual hires. Though of course, people who don’t become candidates will never become hires so there’s a relationship there.
It would be easy to see whether doing X to increase candidate diversity (opening up the filter) led to more diverse hires. Especially combined with blind hiring process or whatever at the individual level. But the individual work alone is not worth much if the candidate pool itself is too limited.
If changing the candidate pool leads to more diverse candidates, and then employees as a whole end up more diverse, it would follow that some of those people brought in at the candidate level out-competed their peers & that the overall standard of hires has increased, or at least is no different.
This is not about a target ratio of employed people. Though I think observations about such ratios compared to the general population and to other similar companies can be informative.
To get at the point you thought I was making though… How I feel about quotas is: they might be an ok temporary measure, especially if managed gently, not “must be a woman” for X role, cause yikes. Hiring is capricious a lot of the time anyway, especially at the margin when there is more than one acceptable candidate and all have different backgrounds and experience. All sorts of stuff will come into play. Good people will still be in demand regardless of their race. But if you lose a couple things because you aren’t from an underrepresented group and another acceptable candidate was, who actually cares. If it wasn’t that, it would be some other nonsense like the guy was the same race as you but supports the same football team as the interviewer, or your interview took place before lunch and the other person’s was after.
Since it’s already capricious and full of coin flips, I don’t care at all that sometimes it’s capricious for a relatively good reason like giving somebody else a shot. Fine.
I disagree completely that we have to be 100% certain about a problem before we take action. We just have to know that, more likely than not, there is a problem, and take measured, cautious steps to address it. To me it would be an extraordinary, mind-boggling, coincidence if it turned out that the status quo was working perfectly to get the best candidates hired.
You’re arguing a different point. I’m talking about the filter on candidates, not eventual hires. Though of course, people who don’t become candidates will never become hires so there’s a relationship there.
It would be easy to see whether doing X to increase candidate diversity (opening up the filter) led to more diverse hires. Especially combined with blind hiring process or whatever at the individual level. But the individual work alone is not worth much if the candidate pool itself is too limited.
If changing the candidate pool leads to more diverse candidates, and then employees as a whole end up more diverse, it would follow that some of those people brought in at the candidate level out-competed their peers & that the overall standard of hires has increased, or at least is no different.
This is not about a target ratio of employed people. Though I think observations about such ratios compared to the general population and to other similar companies can be informative.
To get at the point you thought I was making though… How I feel about quotas is: they might be an ok temporary measure, especially if managed gently, not “must be a woman” for X role, cause yikes. Hiring is capricious a lot of the time anyway, especially at the margin when there is more than one acceptable candidate and all have different backgrounds and experience. All sorts of stuff will come into play. Good people will still be in demand regardless of their race. But if you lose a couple things because you aren’t from an underrepresented group and another acceptable candidate was, who actually cares. If it wasn’t that, it would be some other nonsense like the guy was the same race as you but supports the same football team as the interviewer, or your interview took place before lunch and the other person’s was after.
Since it’s already capricious and full of coin flips, I don’t care at all that sometimes it’s capricious for a relatively good reason like giving somebody else a shot. Fine.
I disagree completely that we have to be 100% certain about a problem before we take action. We just have to know that, more likely than not, there is a problem, and take measured, cautious steps to address it. To me it would be an extraordinary, mind-boggling, coincidence if it turned out that the status quo was working perfectly to get the best candidates hired.
Yep, I have to agree. Candidates (rightly!) are upset when they are explicitly considered the "token" hire and avoid these roles - some companies even have the gall to put this in their job listing!
The real solution to diverse hiring is to actively recruit from sources that have the kind of people you're looking for. Your (not you parent comment, but the anonymous "you") current candidate sources are probably not very diverse so the end result is that your hiring is mirroring that.
Actively recruit and go after diverse candidate sources, and you'll hire diverse candidates.
The real solution to diverse hiring is to actively recruit from sources that have the kind of people you're looking for. Your (not you parent comment, but the anonymous "you") current candidate sources are probably not very diverse so the end result is that your hiring is mirroring that.
Actively recruit and go after diverse candidate sources, and you'll hire diverse candidates.
> don’t recruit anybody without having considered multiple genders and/or ethnicity before making the offer.
There are downsides to this approach as well.
My previous company had such a policy (no offer could be extended until at least one female or under-represented minority had been interviewed) - and we had someone who interned with us twice while in school and he was amazing, everybody on the team thought he was great and wanted to bring him on full-time once he graduated. So as he neared graduation our manager got us an open req and we extended him a (verbal) offer without interviewing him but HR blocked us from extending a formal offer because this exceptional engineer had the misfortune of being born male and Indian. HR told us we could extend an offer to him only after interviewing (on-site) a female or under-represented minority. And so we brought in and interviewed a female applicant wasting five hours of her time and ours as she had virtually zero chance of getting the job.
Generally it also meant female candidates were almost guaranteed to make it to the onsite, regardless of how they performed during the phonescreen because if you tried to pass on a female candidate you'd get pushback from the recruiter and/or manager, because with this policy we needed to interview at least one on-site before extending an offer to anyone.
I do genuinely applaud efforts at increasing diversity in tech, but I don't think policies like this are the right approach. We should probably be looking at other historically male dominated professions that now have gender-parity like medicine and law and emulate what they did to increase diversity (I have no idea what that is/was, but I'm guessing it's not what we're spinning our wheels on, since as far as I can tell we've barely moved the needle despite a very concerted effort).
There are downsides to this approach as well.
My previous company had such a policy (no offer could be extended until at least one female or under-represented minority had been interviewed) - and we had someone who interned with us twice while in school and he was amazing, everybody on the team thought he was great and wanted to bring him on full-time once he graduated. So as he neared graduation our manager got us an open req and we extended him a (verbal) offer without interviewing him but HR blocked us from extending a formal offer because this exceptional engineer had the misfortune of being born male and Indian. HR told us we could extend an offer to him only after interviewing (on-site) a female or under-represented minority. And so we brought in and interviewed a female applicant wasting five hours of her time and ours as she had virtually zero chance of getting the job.
Generally it also meant female candidates were almost guaranteed to make it to the onsite, regardless of how they performed during the phonescreen because if you tried to pass on a female candidate you'd get pushback from the recruiter and/or manager, because with this policy we needed to interview at least one on-site before extending an offer to anyone.
I do genuinely applaud efforts at increasing diversity in tech, but I don't think policies like this are the right approach. We should probably be looking at other historically male dominated professions that now have gender-parity like medicine and law and emulate what they did to increase diversity (I have no idea what that is/was, but I'm guessing it's not what we're spinning our wheels on, since as far as I can tell we've barely moved the needle despite a very concerted effort).
You can dress it up however you like; the goal is to tip the scales in favor of certain types of candidates.
If you're hiring for a particular position and you only get qualified white and Asian male applicants, for example, your three options are to either nuke the position, recruit somewhere that specifically selects against white and Asian men, or lower your qualification standards. Either way, the net result is that A) you don't fill the job and discriminate against all the applicants you got B) you spend more money on recruiting and outsource discrimination against the current applicant pool (e.g. to a women's college) C) you hire a worse employee and discriminate against the applicants who are a better fit for the job. This is not a "win win".
If you're hiring for a particular position and you only get qualified white and Asian male applicants, for example, your three options are to either nuke the position, recruit somewhere that specifically selects against white and Asian men, or lower your qualification standards. Either way, the net result is that A) you don't fill the job and discriminate against all the applicants you got B) you spend more money on recruiting and outsource discrimination against the current applicant pool (e.g. to a women's college) C) you hire a worse employee and discriminate against the applicants who are a better fit for the job. This is not a "win win".
This is just what OP is experiencing with extra steps. Here's why:
1. Find merit based, good, but (unfortunately) majority candidate. 2. Position is held open, the meritorious engineer is waiting for an offer. 3. A few minority position trickle in that are nearly as good but not quite. 4. DEI argues you should choose the minority and uses an excuse like "they're trainable" to justify racist hiring practices.
In both these systems you really only wanted to use racist recruiting practices to hire non-white non-males. But to get around the legal concern step (4) gives you plausible deniability.
It is no surprise that your average person thinks these hiring practices are racist and they lead to tokenization of the very group you're trying to protect. Consequently all the "hidden bias" DEI bleets on about is brought on by them. Things like "they were only hired/promoted because they fit in X category" where X is something innate and uncontrollable. It is not "racist" to look at a minority coworker differently if you know for the fact they weren't hired on merit. No different than the CEO's son getting a promotion to VP. Both people are undeserving.
I am in the "majority" and have been passed up on promotions and probably not hired in several jobs because of things like this. Thanks to step (4) it is difficult to sue, but it would bring me great pleasure to take a company to court because of this.
DEI should be renamed DIE to reflect it's true nature at a company. The extremist, racist, wing of HR.
1. Find merit based, good, but (unfortunately) majority candidate. 2. Position is held open, the meritorious engineer is waiting for an offer. 3. A few minority position trickle in that are nearly as good but not quite. 4. DEI argues you should choose the minority and uses an excuse like "they're trainable" to justify racist hiring practices.
In both these systems you really only wanted to use racist recruiting practices to hire non-white non-males. But to get around the legal concern step (4) gives you plausible deniability.
It is no surprise that your average person thinks these hiring practices are racist and they lead to tokenization of the very group you're trying to protect. Consequently all the "hidden bias" DEI bleets on about is brought on by them. Things like "they were only hired/promoted because they fit in X category" where X is something innate and uncontrollable. It is not "racist" to look at a minority coworker differently if you know for the fact they weren't hired on merit. No different than the CEO's son getting a promotion to VP. Both people are undeserving.
I am in the "majority" and have been passed up on promotions and probably not hired in several jobs because of things like this. Thanks to step (4) it is difficult to sue, but it would bring me great pleasure to take a company to court because of this.
DEI should be renamed DIE to reflect it's true nature at a company. The extremist, racist, wing of HR.
It's not racism it's prejudice.
"According to the sociological perspective, members of privileged groups can experience prejudice, but their experience will be different than the experience of someone who experiences systemic racism."
One could argue that being in the majority you would have an easier time getting a lateral promotion than someone as a minority.
"According to the sociological perspective, members of privileged groups can experience prejudice, but their experience will be different than the experience of someone who experiences systemic racism."
One could argue that being in the majority you would have an easier time getting a lateral promotion than someone as a minority.
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people
on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group,
typically one that is a minority or marginalized.Racism is literally defined as prejudice + discrimination + unequal power relationship. It's quite undeniable that a majority-race person who gets rejected solely because of DIE practices in a bureaucratic hiring process is experiencing all three - in particular, she is in an unequal power relationship with the people who are deciding whether or not to hire her.
Just another attempt to exert power over others by (an attempt at) imposing a definition used by one group, on the rest of society.
The common understanding of the term is not “incorrect”.
The common understanding of the term is not “incorrect”.
This is one of those ‘well actually’ type of statements that assumes that there is a single correct definition of a concept and it is defined by a consortium of researchers 5 years ago. The the term already had common definition and widespread use for 50 years. Saying people don’t know what the concept means because they were taught a different definition since the age of 6 is not going to move the discussion forward.
Racism is a much more apt word for it than prejudice
Systemic racism is one form of racism, but not the only one. Just because you don't experience systemic racism doesn't mean that you don't experience racism at all.
I would say that only hiring non-white people would be prejudice if and only if you consider that only hiring white people is prejudice and not racism too.
I would say that only hiring non-white people would be prejudice if and only if you consider that only hiring white people is prejudice and not racism too.
What good is diversity when everyone thinks alike and they just look different (skin pigmentation)? IMO diversity is about diversity of thought. If they happen to look different, fine. If I were to grow our team, I would want people with diverse range of convictions and opinions.
DEI crowd in silicon valley has no diversity of thought. It is a monoculture.
Also, depending on industry or company objectives, sometimes you don't want diversity of thought at all. You want coworkers that are aligned on a particular niche objective and have similar opinions especially if the company is trying to do something unconventional. Diversity hurts there and having people with various backgrounds is a disadvantage.
DEI crowd in silicon valley has no diversity of thought. It is a monoculture.
Also, depending on industry or company objectives, sometimes you don't want diversity of thought at all. You want coworkers that are aligned on a particular niche objective and have similar opinions especially if the company is trying to do something unconventional. Diversity hurts there and having people with various backgrounds is a disadvantage.
God, if only.
I'm at a non-tech company nowhere near SV. Diversity of thought is a joke. The company tells us to be candid, which is also a joke. I've been punished, both directly and indirectly, for speaking my mind and bringing up inconsistencies (respectfully).
I'm at a non-tech company nowhere near SV. Diversity of thought is a joke. The company tells us to be candid, which is also a joke. I've been punished, both directly and indirectly, for speaking my mind and bringing up inconsistencies (respectfully).
It all starts to make sense when you understand that it is really a intra-white social hierarchy contest, rooted in ethnic origins: anglo-Puritan virtue signaling, etc.
I think DEI needs to be tackled at the fundamental level. Improving minority conditions, education opportunities, etc. Top-down approach of DEI is creating more problems than solving. Progressives love to make fun of Trickle down economics, but they turn a blind eye to Trickle down DEI practices which create a toxic work environment ironically.
Just make sure that the diverse slate includes diversity of age, experience, and educational background - diversity of the mind, not just of the body.
The E in DEI is for Equity, not Equality. It is outcome focused, and not about equal opportunity. DSA would technically be insufficient if you were maximizing DEI.
Precisely.
OP should share the name of his employer. It’s win-win. People his leadership considers undesirable will know not to apply. Big time saver all around.
OP should share the name of his employer. It’s win-win. People his leadership considers undesirable will know not to apply. Big time saver all around.
Since time is finite, with DSA you will likely deny interviews on the basis of race and sex, and that is morally and legally wrong too.
Contact your local labor board with a copy of the spreadsheet. There are hundreds of lawyers who will take your case pro-bono and probably bankrupt your company unless it's a FAANG.
So the real question is do you want to go out into the world again and look for a job, or not? Because if this is true, you have absolute evidence of racism in hiring which is very, very, very illegal.
So the real question is do you want to go out into the world again and look for a job, or not? Because if this is true, you have absolute evidence of racism in hiring which is very, very, very illegal.
What's your motive here? Are you planning to leave the company if this escalates?
I'm asking because if you want to "take them down" you totally can. Capture evidence and involve an employment lawyer. But what is in it for you? The lawyer will get paid handsomely. What about you? I don't think you're particularly damaged by this to ask for damages.
I'm asking because if you want to "take them down" you totally can. Capture evidence and involve an employment lawyer. But what is in it for you? The lawyer will get paid handsomely. What about you? I don't think you're particularly damaged by this to ask for damages.
I have thought about leaving. My first goal is to confirm that I really understand what I'm observing. I don't want to resign because of a legal issue only to discover later that it's not actually illegal and I misread the situation.
I have no animosity for the company or the leaders. No desire to "take them down" or cause any drama. But avoiding drama definitely wouldn't be a reason to do something illegal imo.
I have no animosity for the company or the leaders. No desire to "take them down" or cause any drama. But avoiding drama definitely wouldn't be a reason to do something illegal imo.
Not wanting to violate labor law and anti discrimination regulations isn’t “causing drama”. It’s wanting to avoid civil and criminal repercussions, both against the corporation and individuals personally.
If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, report them to the US Dept of Labor/EEOC. I’d also recommend reporting them to the labor board in whichever state their headquarters is located (or what they consider their HQ if a remote org). To do nothing is to allow the unfair, abusive practice to continue. And if you do nothing, it will continue after you leave.
https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discriminati...
If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, report them to the US Dept of Labor/EEOC. I’d also recommend reporting them to the labor board in whichever state their headquarters is located (or what they consider their HQ if a remote org). To do nothing is to allow the unfair, abusive practice to continue. And if you do nothing, it will continue after you leave.
https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discriminati...
I think they are just saying that they don’t have a positive motivation to “cause drama” and don’t have any vendetta against anyone which would motivate them to act against the company,
but at the same time, that they don’t see “avoiding drama” as a reason enough to do an illegal thing asked of them.
I’m not sure quite what you mean when you say it «isn’t “causing drama”». It seems to me like some actions taken out of a desire to avoid violating labor law and anti-discrimination regulations, could result in people being upset with people, etc. which could be called “drama”. If you interpret “causing drama” as meaning, acting with a motivation of causing drama, then yes, as you say, acting with a motivation of avoiding violating [stuff] is not acting with a motivation of causing drama.
(I have no comment on what they should do; I imagine you are likely correct on that front, idk.)
I’m not sure quite what you mean when you say it «isn’t “causing drama”». It seems to me like some actions taken out of a desire to avoid violating labor law and anti-discrimination regulations, could result in people being upset with people, etc. which could be called “drama”. If you interpret “causing drama” as meaning, acting with a motivation of causing drama, then yes, as you say, acting with a motivation of avoiding violating [stuff] is not acting with a motivation of causing drama.
(I have no comment on what they should do; I imagine you are likely correct on that front, idk.)
I get the feeling OP doesn't want to end up in court if he follows the instruction in the spreadsheet.
OP is going to end up in court either way. Though getting burned for being a racist hiring manager is probably a better look in tech today than standing up against racist hiring practices and contacting the labor board to sue.
I'm reading OP as wanting to figure out what the consequences to them might be if they go along with this.
I'm not surprised that on HN, basic ethics is too much of an ask
"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: your account has repeatedly been posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments. Would you please stop that? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: your account has repeatedly been posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments. Would you please stop that? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
In the spreadsheet that lists all the open positions, there's a new column next to open positions with DEI comments. It has a line like this:
Senior Software Engineer (must be female)
If I follow this spreadsheet and exclude male applicants, then would I break any laws? Or if not laws, then would I violate other regulations or ethical standards in the industry?
I ask because my understanding of anti-discrimination law is that there are certain classes of people that cannot be excluded from job openings. Things like sex and race.
If this is illegal then what's the right way to handle this? Are there other ways I should think about this besides legal/illegal or ethical/unethical? Does region or state within the USA matter?
A little more context:
As a SSE I would do interviews or screen candidates but now in a Sr Manager role I'm more involved in the early planning and management of the process. In the first meeting where I saw the comments I said nothing. I followed up a few days later with an email to VP eng to say I opposed. 2 days after that I had a call with VP eng where I raised the issue again and they insisted that the requirement remain. I've taken no more action after that.