Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'(timesnownews.com)
timesnownews.com
Infosys asked HR not to hire 'Indian-origin candidates', 'women with children'
https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/companies/infosys-asked-hr-executive-not-to-hire-indian-origin-candidates-women-with-children-complainant-to-us-court-article-94725018
411 comments
My company quickly realized that outsourcing to an offshore Indian company was a mistake. We tried giving them new projects, but it was useless. We still use them, but only for very simple support work. My project was outsourced to them for support. The transition of our mature project to them took about a year. They wanted to replace our 10-12 person team with about 19 of their people. They also needed some of the people onshore due to regulations. So much for cost savings. And as soon as someone got good, they left the team/company because they could get a better job anywhere else.
My company also outsourced onshore to another Indian company to modernize an area of our business (same area as rhe above example). It's a mess. They're behind schedule by years. They promised they had an ML system to handle this type of business case, but it's not working. They're also telling people to only record 40 hours on their time sheet even if they're working 50-60 hours. They've had so many people leave that they're throwing money at the remaining expert people to stay.
My company also outsourced onshore to another Indian company to modernize an area of our business (same area as rhe above example). It's a mess. They're behind schedule by years. They promised they had an ML system to handle this type of business case, but it's not working. They're also telling people to only record 40 hours on their time sheet even if they're working 50-60 hours. They've had so many people leave that they're throwing money at the remaining expert people to stay.
When I worked with a large team for 2 years, including going over to run a week long training program .. I found just a general disinclination for efficiency, automation or time saving... which cynically wouldn't surprise you when you consider they are running a quantity/body shop.
The craziest conversation I had was trying to convince a guy who came in every morning and ran a script that he could put it on a timer/scheduler/cron/anything to just run the report so it was in his inbox every morning. It's not that he was incapable technically, or did not understand it. It was as if I was asking him to violate a religious oath. "Thou shall not reduce billable hours." His workflow remained - login to desktop, open IDE, open script, modify date, save, execute script, open FTP app, login to server, download file to desktop, open email app, create new email, attach file, email file to onshore. Solid 30min++ of work if you do it right.
The craziest conversation I had was trying to convince a guy who came in every morning and ran a script that he could put it on a timer/scheduler/cron/anything to just run the report so it was in his inbox every morning. It's not that he was incapable technically, or did not understand it. It was as if I was asking him to violate a religious oath. "Thou shall not reduce billable hours." His workflow remained - login to desktop, open IDE, open script, modify date, save, execute script, open FTP app, login to server, download file to desktop, open email app, create new email, attach file, email file to onshore. Solid 30min++ of work if you do it right.
Devils advocate: would he get paid any more to be more efficient? Or would he just get more work?
Sure but I can’t imagine that mindset from an onshore FTE dev, can you? Let me do stuff as slowly as possible so my boss doesn’t give me more work. Can be applied to any job.
Refusal to do obvious time saving tasks when instructed to would probably put you on the “does not meet” list next review cycle.
Refusal to do obvious time saving tasks when instructed to would probably put you on the “does not meet” list next review cycle.
I agree but the reason for the difference is because the “offshore” folks have zero incentive to do so. There’s literally no point beyond keeping their job (and because of the incredibly low bar and compensation, it’s not at all difficult to find another one). They are there to fill seats and hours, not be productive or efficient.
Even if the client complains, the company won't fire the person. They can just move them to one of their many other projects.
And let me follow up by saying the problem with many of these offshoring firm arrangements is that the number of layers in between the person assigning tasks and person doing tasks.
Purposeful inefficiency is harder to sniff out because it’s not a manager-ic relationship. There’s often 2-3 hops inserted into the middle with the work going into a pool for the offshore team lead to manage. The offshore team lead is also consulting company so they have no efficiency incentives either.
Purposeful inefficiency is harder to sniff out because it’s not a manager-ic relationship. There’s often 2-3 hops inserted into the middle with the work going into a pool for the offshore team lead to manage. The offshore team lead is also consulting company so they have no efficiency incentives either.
> And as soon as someone got good, they left the team/company because they could get a better job anywhere else.
they left the company because they could get a "better pay" anywhere else.
For offshore outsourcing company, their only business model is: amount they receive per resource - A. salary per resource - B. fix cost at company level. i.e. office rent, office maintenance, etc.
And Project manager's OKR are mostly to increase margin. Project manager have only control over A. hence they will always try to hire junior resource. So good resource often have to waste time in spoon feeding to rest of the team and they will leave the company as soon as they got better offer/company.
they left the company because they could get a "better pay" anywhere else.
For offshore outsourcing company, their only business model is: amount they receive per resource - A. salary per resource - B. fix cost at company level. i.e. office rent, office maintenance, etc.
And Project manager's OKR are mostly to increase margin. Project manager have only control over A. hence they will always try to hire junior resource. So good resource often have to waste time in spoon feeding to rest of the team and they will leave the company as soon as they got better offer/company.
Yeah, I don't blame the person for leaving. It's either the company increasing margin too much, or more likely the executives in this country not understanding the full implications of this model on tech projects. It might work for call centers where you read off a script, but building software is different.
Racism is thick here.
Many years ago I worked at big dumb banks.
There was a lot of top down forced offshoring with ultimatums like - hey you can have +4 headcount in Mumbai or +0 in NY.
Further, we found we had to spend $10Ks at a time to send NY/London staff over there monthly to figure out wtf was going on. These offshoring firms were running some serious scams. We once had a guy come back (mid 2000s) and say that his 5 devs in Hyderabad were equipped with 4 PCs and 3 phones between them!!
We had one bank offshore its datacenter ops (while the datacenter physically remained onshore). It was incredible. We'd have a RAID disk failure in a datacenter across the Hudson River in Jersey City, practically visible out my window, raise a ticket which would take 36 hours to get picked up by someone in India, to bounce around the globe and eventually get back to the onshore datacenter ops person who would do the physical disk replacement. Finally one ticket took so long to address that we had a cascade of disk failure and lost the whole RAID.
Just anecdote after anecdote of crazy stuff like this. Lot of these deals ended up in litigation.
There were many very smart developers over there, but the offshoring industrial system creates a race to the bottom and quantity over quality preference. With the turnover of good staff, the only way to keep the better ones was to get the visas sorted to nearshore them in US - largely defeating the purpose of the cost saving.
A lot of the banks moved away from this model and created "centers of excellence" in UK/US/Canada nearshore locations. You get competent staff for decent rates who are happy to have a great job without moving to the big city away from home/school/family. Not everyone who writes software wants to live in Bay Area/NYC/London. Time zones line up more humanely. Win win.
There was a lot of top down forced offshoring with ultimatums like - hey you can have +4 headcount in Mumbai or +0 in NY.
Further, we found we had to spend $10Ks at a time to send NY/London staff over there monthly to figure out wtf was going on. These offshoring firms were running some serious scams. We once had a guy come back (mid 2000s) and say that his 5 devs in Hyderabad were equipped with 4 PCs and 3 phones between them!!
We had one bank offshore its datacenter ops (while the datacenter physically remained onshore). It was incredible. We'd have a RAID disk failure in a datacenter across the Hudson River in Jersey City, practically visible out my window, raise a ticket which would take 36 hours to get picked up by someone in India, to bounce around the globe and eventually get back to the onshore datacenter ops person who would do the physical disk replacement. Finally one ticket took so long to address that we had a cascade of disk failure and lost the whole RAID.
Just anecdote after anecdote of crazy stuff like this. Lot of these deals ended up in litigation.
There were many very smart developers over there, but the offshoring industrial system creates a race to the bottom and quantity over quality preference. With the turnover of good staff, the only way to keep the better ones was to get the visas sorted to nearshore them in US - largely defeating the purpose of the cost saving.
A lot of the banks moved away from this model and created "centers of excellence" in UK/US/Canada nearshore locations. You get competent staff for decent rates who are happy to have a great job without moving to the big city away from home/school/family. Not everyone who writes software wants to live in Bay Area/NYC/London. Time zones line up more humanely. Win win.
> Further, we found we had to spend $10Ks at a time to send NY/London staff over there monthly to figure out wtf was going on. These offshoring firms were running some serious scams. We once had a guy come back (mid 2000s) and say that his 5 devs in Hyderabad were equipped with 4 PCs and 3 phones between them!!
Oh this brings back memories. A few years ago I worked for a company which offloaded functional testing to a team in Chennai, including pre-release shakedown tests. We did that until there was a release which started to blow up in a critical point that was very hard to recover from, right after being deployed to all customers. We were baffled because we had test sets covering precisely this scenario, and the tests all passed. To cut to the chase, we soon discovered that our trusty Chennai team was not to be trusted and in reality was signing off releases without performing a single test. Everyone in that team was fired and replaced by other replacement testers also based from Chennai, and once the new testers started running the exact same test sets then all sorts of red flags started to surface. Now, here's the kicker: it only took a couple of weeks until the new Chennai-based testers started to flag tests as passes even though they never ran them at all, which we discovered because we also added telemetry to track those.
Anecdotal evidence, but we only ceased to have problems with Chennai-based teams once we finished automating away their job.
Oh this brings back memories. A few years ago I worked for a company which offloaded functional testing to a team in Chennai, including pre-release shakedown tests. We did that until there was a release which started to blow up in a critical point that was very hard to recover from, right after being deployed to all customers. We were baffled because we had test sets covering precisely this scenario, and the tests all passed. To cut to the chase, we soon discovered that our trusty Chennai team was not to be trusted and in reality was signing off releases without performing a single test. Everyone in that team was fired and replaced by other replacement testers also based from Chennai, and once the new testers started running the exact same test sets then all sorts of red flags started to surface. Now, here's the kicker: it only took a couple of weeks until the new Chennai-based testers started to flag tests as passes even though they never ran them at all, which we discovered because we also added telemetry to track those.
Anecdotal evidence, but we only ceased to have problems with Chennai-based teams once we finished automating away their job.
> With the turnover of good staff, the only way to keep the better ones was to get the visas sorted to nearshore them in US
> largely defeating the purpose of the cost saving.
agree on most part including that onshore billing is obvious more than offshore but still for client it's saving as oppose to hiring FTE. Often client also want good resource to stick so they allow them to move to onsite. In my case, we informed client after my H1B was stamped, that I have to move to States either in this project or other project, client approved in 2-3 hours. For the another resource, client took 4-5 months to decide and then replied that we don't have budget for onshore billing.
So in case of good resource, it's often win-win for everyone involved.
> largely defeating the purpose of the cost saving.
agree on most part including that onshore billing is obvious more than offshore but still for client it's saving as oppose to hiring FTE. Often client also want good resource to stick so they allow them to move to onsite. In my case, we informed client after my H1B was stamped, that I have to move to States either in this project or other project, client approved in 2-3 hours. For the another resource, client took 4-5 months to decide and then replied that we don't have budget for onshore billing.
So in case of good resource, it's often win-win for everyone involved.
Yes when viewed this way it can be an alternative recruiting pipeline for good nearshore staff. It would be better to just directly recruit this way and skip the middle man consulting firms taking so much margin and having to hire teams of 20-30 to poach the top 5 nearshore.
Many of them just can't speak English correctly. Only a small percentage of the individuals who speak English at a proficient level of those who do, they predominately come from very wealthy upper caste families and now you have a new problem. And well. When it comes to caste, many Indians simply believe it to not exist anymore in India because of how deeply engrained it is in their social classes they never notice it.
It's one of those dumb human antipatterns like racism, sexism, and most other legitimately bad -isms: pick attribute A and make that undesirable while making attribute B desirable. Perhaps in Indian and Western schools alike, they should consider the (in)famous eye color discrimination exercise to give a glimpse of how horrible it is. Comfortable, sheltered children tend to grow up to be ignorant adults bordering on clueless. It's only when someone has experienced what it feels like can they grow a modicum of empathy or sympathy.
> Many of them just can't speak English correctly. Only a small percentage of the individuals who speak English at a proficient level of those who do, they predominately come from very wealthy upper caste families and now you have a new problem.
There is something very confusing to me in this paragraph.
You put forth as a premise (at least if I am understanding the logic of the paragraph correctly) that fluency in English is an important skill for doing a job properly. You also say that it is the wealthy part of the population that will have access to resources to train their children in that skill. All good so far. But then you say that it is a problem, and this is where I am lost. Are you suggesting that money should not buy good education? Assuming good education is a scarce commodity, that would go against the principles of markets. Or are you suggesting that English fluency (or other consequences of good education) should not be considered when screening for a job in a tech company? But that goes against your initial premise, and also makes one wonder what purpose a good education has if not getting one prepared for a high-skilled job.
There is something very confusing to me in this paragraph.
You put forth as a premise (at least if I am understanding the logic of the paragraph correctly) that fluency in English is an important skill for doing a job properly. You also say that it is the wealthy part of the population that will have access to resources to train their children in that skill. All good so far. But then you say that it is a problem, and this is where I am lost. Are you suggesting that money should not buy good education? Assuming good education is a scarce commodity, that would go against the principles of markets. Or are you suggesting that English fluency (or other consequences of good education) should not be considered when screening for a job in a tech company? But that goes against your initial premise, and also makes one wonder what purpose a good education has if not getting one prepared for a high-skilled job.
I think he might be implying some issues related to the caste system. It’s been discussed on HN before about how some members of the upper caste may not treat other team members from a lower caste appropriately. Despite no longer being in India, and despite that behavior not being acceptable in the host country.
From personal experience, I've heard plenty of caste-based insults when I was there a decade or so ago, as well as other forms of prejudice. This manifests most explicitly when it comes to marriages I think, but it would be naïve to assume nepotism, and by extension caste-based discrimination, doesn't proliferate to other aspects of life.
> It’s been discussed on HN before...
Yes, it has been used on HN as a bludgeon but the reality is a little different!
Yes, the ancient caste system still exists in India. But today it is only relevant when it comes to politics and marriage. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...
Yes, it has been used on HN as a bludgeon but the reality is a little different!
Yes, the ancient caste system still exists in India. But today it is only relevant when it comes to politics and marriage. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...
The fact you believe it to only be relevant in marriage and politics goes to show the naivety of your understanding of how prevalent this 2000+ year caste system is. I'd go as far as calling it the oldest system of systemic slavery in the world. The fact it plays such a level to this day in the modern lives of individuals shows how the Indians have normalized it in their society and often directly bring it into our own. It even goes as far as impacting children, and starts from their. Who they know. Who they can interact with. Where they're accepted. At every step impacting and controlling their lives. To claim what you have said to trivialize it is kind of shocking to me.
A lot of false claims in this thread are being made by people who see these immigrants as a competitive threat.
India works on a caste system, said caste system being very discriminatory.
What the other poster meant is that you'll end up hiring out of the upper castes and they'll display a lot of bias towards other castes.
It's to the point that many from India won't admit to the caste they're in.
What the other poster meant is that you'll end up hiring out of the upper castes and they'll display a lot of bias towards other castes.
It's to the point that many from India won't admit to the caste they're in.
That is a very far fetched statement. I am an Indian and technically from Other backward class (OBC) as classified in the system. I have never had a problem in my city. Off course that doesn't mean that India is not a huge and complex country with 100s if not thousands of groups differentiated based on region, class , caste etc. You are colouring a very complicated and nuanced issue with your personal biases.
About a month ago I watched an Indian man absolutely go off on another Indian man after hearing his name (this was over zoom). The Indian Man being accosted just took it, and yes, the disagreement was about the name.
I've both read about it and seen it first hand. You don't typically see it expressed so publicly as the above anecdote, most of the time it comes across as an odd sort of subservience. Almost the way you would expect a mail room worker to act towards the CEO.
No one said all Indian's are like this, but it has to do with the Paradox of Intolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
All it takes is for 1 or 2 individuals to have this attitude and it will eventually take over.
No one ever said it was everyone, but the issue exists.
I've both read about it and seen it first hand. You don't typically see it expressed so publicly as the above anecdote, most of the time it comes across as an odd sort of subservience. Almost the way you would expect a mail room worker to act towards the CEO.
No one said all Indian's are like this, but it has to do with the Paradox of Intolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
All it takes is for 1 or 2 individuals to have this attitude and it will eventually take over.
No one ever said it was everyone, but the issue exists.
What bias is it you think I have?
The only comment here that actually spoke the Facts as it is. Another commenter even said there is "systemic slavery" in India. Don't know whether to laugh or cry at the naivety of this individual. To think that 1.4 billion people, of which 80% belong to the so called "lower caste" strata, and that the rest 20% are enslaving the 80% is not only laughable but downright insane proposition. I wanted to respond but I know it is not worth spending my time and energy on such individuals.
Just goes to show how bias clouds reason and logic. Propaganda in full swing!
Thank you for speaking facts.
Just goes to show how bias clouds reason and logic. Propaganda in full swing!
Thank you for speaking facts.
I said nothing about slavery, what are you talking about?
Did I say it was you? I said "another commenter". If I wanted to say it was you, I would have said it was you.
you lumped me in with them, implying an attitude I don't have.
And before you try to claim otherwise, don't bother. The English language has implicature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/
And before you try to claim otherwise, don't bother. The English language has implicature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/
I lumped you in with propagandists. Some spread propaganda of there being "systemic slavery" while others say "What the other poster meant is that you'll end up hiring out of the upper castes and they'll display a lot of bias towards other castes".
Both are not borne out of facts but malicious propaganda.
"It's to the point that many from India won't admit to the caste they're in."
You are implying this in a negative manner. The reason people don't talk about caste is because we have progressed a lot in the past century. No one gives a damn about caste in their day-to-day life. It only props up in political rallies where talking about caste based discrimination is a precursor to lay the stage for either increased reservation or introducing new reservation in the already prevalent discriminatory quota system that exists in India (which should have been done away with in 10 years after our Independence as envisaged by Ambedkar himself but nevertheless continues to exist 70+ years after Independence corroding our society further).
> And before you try to claim otherwise, don't bother
I don't have to. You are a propagandist. I stand by that.
Both are not borne out of facts but malicious propaganda.
"It's to the point that many from India won't admit to the caste they're in."
You are implying this in a negative manner. The reason people don't talk about caste is because we have progressed a lot in the past century. No one gives a damn about caste in their day-to-day life. It only props up in political rallies where talking about caste based discrimination is a precursor to lay the stage for either increased reservation or introducing new reservation in the already prevalent discriminatory quota system that exists in India (which should have been done away with in 10 years after our Independence as envisaged by Ambedkar himself but nevertheless continues to exist 70+ years after Independence corroding our society further).
> And before you try to claim otherwise, don't bother
I don't have to. You are a propagandist. I stand by that.
right, you lumped me in with someone talking about slavery.
That might have been the first indication you were being unfair.
The poster I responded to thought they were talking about money, the poster was talking about castes.
Leave your religious wars at the door please.
That might have been the first indication you were being unfair.
The poster I responded to thought they were talking about money, the poster was talking about castes.
Leave your religious wars at the door please.
I mean, legally they are not in a caste, right? Does the Indian state recognize caste?
Yes Indian state recognizes all castes. That is the core problem. For the system to be dismantled you need the Indian state to stop recognizing castes and implement US style Affirmative Action and only provide Reservation opportunities to those from low income groups.
But the first ones to fight against this reform would be the "lower caste" strata of the population. Who would give up freebies, Government jobs as well as an education in Prestigious Universities where you can guaranteed to get it based on your birth caste and not on merit? No one would. If I am born in any of the "lower caste" groups I can easily get a Government job, free/subsidized education in any Prestigious University irrespective of my scores/performance. Now there is talk of reservation/quotas in land distribution as well (comments by a politician in a recent speech to his base). Idea is that if you want to purchase land some section of the land is reserved if you belong to a particular caste (and will probably be available for lower than market rate as well). However ridiculous it might sound.
Affirmative Action in US doesn't have a quota system or reservation. It instead focuses on equal opportunity (no denial of opportunity to anyone based on their race/creed/color/sex/religion etc). This is different from India's Caste based reservation system where you are guaranteed of a job/education if you belong to lower caste. Doesn't matter if you are merited or not. Doesn't matter if you are rich or not. Even seats in the Parliament of India have reservations/quotas for lower castes.
It is ridiculous to talk about dismantling caste system while in the same breath prop up structures that actively promotes this same caste system on the Government level. And the Politicians do not want to dismantle said system because it helps with their vote bank.
But the first ones to fight against this reform would be the "lower caste" strata of the population. Who would give up freebies, Government jobs as well as an education in Prestigious Universities where you can guaranteed to get it based on your birth caste and not on merit? No one would. If I am born in any of the "lower caste" groups I can easily get a Government job, free/subsidized education in any Prestigious University irrespective of my scores/performance. Now there is talk of reservation/quotas in land distribution as well (comments by a politician in a recent speech to his base). Idea is that if you want to purchase land some section of the land is reserved if you belong to a particular caste (and will probably be available for lower than market rate as well). However ridiculous it might sound.
Affirmative Action in US doesn't have a quota system or reservation. It instead focuses on equal opportunity (no denial of opportunity to anyone based on their race/creed/color/sex/religion etc). This is different from India's Caste based reservation system where you are guaranteed of a job/education if you belong to lower caste. Doesn't matter if you are merited or not. Doesn't matter if you are rich or not. Even seats in the Parliament of India have reservations/quotas for lower castes.
It is ridiculous to talk about dismantling caste system while in the same breath prop up structures that actively promotes this same caste system on the Government level. And the Politicians do not want to dismantle said system because it helps with their vote bank.
Maybe you should dust off your reading compression skills, his paragraph is pretty self explanatory. He is saying that those who speak English usually come from wealthy families and those whealty families have been raised to treat people from lower caste poorly.
> Maybe you should dust off your reading compression skills, his paragraph is pretty self explanatory
Thank you for your suggestion :-) Can you show where this specific point: "...and those whealty families have been raised to treat people from lower caste poorly" is made in his (we are assuming it's a he, aren't we? how bad of us) comment?
Thank you for your suggestion :-) Can you show where this specific point: "...and those whealty families have been raised to treat people from lower caste poorly" is made in his (we are assuming it's a he, aren't we? how bad of us) comment?
It's used to be the case that, high caste people (Brahmins mostly) are the ones who can afford higher education and in turn they can speak English fluently compared to others in India. They were also the first to emigrate and likely hold high level positions in many companies.
Fortunately, this situation is changing rapidly. I don't see any caste discrimination in my line of work (urban IT companies). Nearly none of my coworkers know my caste, they don't care, neither am I.
It does happen in rural villages, specially inter caste marriages are still frowned upon. But it getting less effective over time. Determined people go make money and caste is not a hinder in many cases.
Fortunately, this situation is changing rapidly. I don't see any caste discrimination in my line of work (urban IT companies). Nearly none of my coworkers know my caste, they don't care, neither am I.
It does happen in rural villages, specially inter caste marriages are still frowned upon. But it getting less effective over time. Determined people go make money and caste is not a hinder in many cases.
I assume that he meant they are well educated, skilled and thusly won’t be working for dirt cheap as they’d have better options.
He said the problem isn’t with hiring Indians, it is with cheap labor.
He said the problem isn’t with hiring Indians, it is with cheap labor.
[deleted]
The sentence referred to here:
> All good so far. But then you say that it is a problem, and this is where I am lost.
…Is not referring to a problem that has, at that point in the story, been revealed. It is being evocative in a sort of dog-whistle technique - before jumping into the generalisations that follow.
> All good so far. But then you say that it is a problem, and this is where I am lost.
…Is not referring to a problem that has, at that point in the story, been revealed. It is being evocative in a sort of dog-whistle technique - before jumping into the generalisations that follow.
English is an official language over there, but it is spoken differently.
Different indeed. Every sentence sounds like a question with a small delay before the last word of the sentence.
I have no idea why this is, but you can see it in literally any Indian engineering lecture recording on YouTube. It definitely does not inspire confidence they know the topic they are teaching.
I have no idea why this is, but you can see it in literally any Indian engineering lecture recording on YouTube. It definitely does not inspire confidence they know the topic they are teaching.
> It definitely does not inspire confidence they know the topic they are teaching.
Only to people who judge competence based on diction.
Only to people who judge competence based on diction.
I find this quirk quite endearing for some reason.
Hmm, this is interesting. Never realized this was a thing. Care to submit a specimen link?
Hindi in the cities is interesting, it can turn into a 50-50 blend of English and Hindi, with English used for most nouns, and sentences strung together with Hindi otherwise.
Having said that, actual conversational skills in English were lacking even in Delhi. You can throw out words and hope there's enough of a shared vocabulary to get ideas across, but the majority of people aren't fluent, or even conversational in it. I've heard the Southern part is somewhat better though, as Hindi is less pervasive, and English is used more often as a second language if you travel out of state and the likes.
Having said that, actual conversational skills in English were lacking even in Delhi. You can throw out words and hope there's enough of a shared vocabulary to get ideas across, but the majority of people aren't fluent, or even conversational in it. I've heard the Southern part is somewhat better though, as Hindi is less pervasive, and English is used more often as a second language if you travel out of state and the likes.
> Many of them just can't speak English correctly.
I’m someone who loves seeing well written and hearing well spoken English. The standards I hold myself to are quite high.
However, I have never had a problem with people- native or foreign born- with less than perfect English communication skills.
Going down that route smacks of elitism, xenophobia and a hyper-normative mindset. The way you get good at standard English is by practice, which they are doing every day at work using the skills (technology) they have mastered. Some of my family are ESL and my place of birth (in the UK, for God’s sake) was and is looked down on for the dialect.
Is it really that hard to just ask someone to repeat or restate themselves?
I’m someone who loves seeing well written and hearing well spoken English. The standards I hold myself to are quite high.
However, I have never had a problem with people- native or foreign born- with less than perfect English communication skills.
Going down that route smacks of elitism, xenophobia and a hyper-normative mindset. The way you get good at standard English is by practice, which they are doing every day at work using the skills (technology) they have mastered. Some of my family are ESL and my place of birth (in the UK, for God’s sake) was and is looked down on for the dialect.
Is it really that hard to just ask someone to repeat or restate themselves?
I'm not a native English speaker. I've been practicing English pretty much every day for decades but speaking with someone who has an unfamiliar enough accent or dialect – or sometimes culture – is really hard for me. After asking them to repeat/rephrase a few times, I feel rude and/or stupid.
Me speaking with an Indian with a non-{US, British} accent means that very little information is going to get across during the conversation, because this problem shows up in both directions.
Of course, the issue essentially vanishes when the conversation is written down. Unfortunately, many native English speaker that I've been in touch with fail to understand the cognitive cost of oral communication.
Me speaking with an Indian with a non-{US, British} accent means that very little information is going to get across during the conversation, because this problem shows up in both directions.
Of course, the issue essentially vanishes when the conversation is written down. Unfortunately, many native English speaker that I've been in touch with fail to understand the cognitive cost of oral communication.
I agree, though there’s a point at which no repetition helps, which is really awkward. And honestly stresses me out going into meetings with them (not Indians in my case).
if only we could all be as enlightened as you are, you are obviously not of this earth :pray:
I don’t understand the English thing. I lived in Singapore for 10 years and have heard so many words pronounced wrong. To give an example one of my ex coworkers used to say the word swap as sw-app. Another one said return as ret-urn. I did ask them and they said they are taught phonics and so they just say the words how they are written.
English is such a turd language. We have so many rules and then all those rules get broken all the time.
(Despite the English thing which didn’t get in the way of working together, my single team are the best team I’ve ever had in my career and I’ll really miss them)
English is such a turd language. We have so many rules and then all those rules get broken all the time.
(Despite the English thing which didn’t get in the way of working together, my single team are the best team I’ve ever had in my career and I’ll really miss them)
> English is such a turd language.
I disagree, but then I would, I'm English. ;)
Tolerance of mispronunciation is one of the great strengths of English.
Even within the UK we have a plethora of different regional pronunciation. Even with the strongest accents only takes a couple of words to pick up what they're saying[1].
It's the same for those comping to English from another language. I've been lucky enough to work with people from all over the world, including India, with various standards of English. With a bit of practice on both ends it all works out.
That doesn't seem happen so much with other languages such as French. Even practicing with tolerant French or Belgian friends, my mangling of words is very hard for them to understand. They're not being difficult either, it's a case of get it exactly right or they can't understand you even with context.
1. If you're thinking Rab C Nesbit or that 19080s Nissan Sunderland advert the Japanese translator[2] you get what I'm talking about.
2. It was an advert for a new Japanese car plant in the UK. The joke being that a Japanese guy is translating a deliberately over the top English regional accent back into "English" for the audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiK5BWmKSqE
I disagree, but then I would, I'm English. ;)
Tolerance of mispronunciation is one of the great strengths of English.
Even within the UK we have a plethora of different regional pronunciation. Even with the strongest accents only takes a couple of words to pick up what they're saying[1].
It's the same for those comping to English from another language. I've been lucky enough to work with people from all over the world, including India, with various standards of English. With a bit of practice on both ends it all works out.
That doesn't seem happen so much with other languages such as French. Even practicing with tolerant French or Belgian friends, my mangling of words is very hard for them to understand. They're not being difficult either, it's a case of get it exactly right or they can't understand you even with context.
1. If you're thinking Rab C Nesbit or that 19080s Nissan Sunderland advert the Japanese translator[2] you get what I'm talking about.
2. It was an advert for a new Japanese car plant in the UK. The joke being that a Japanese guy is translating a deliberately over the top English regional accent back into "English" for the audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiK5BWmKSqE
English is a language borne out of centuries of diversity. Its turdness is its strength.
You’re giving the original poster too much credit. He’s just straight up being racist. If he heard Singaporean English m, ai lah this ang moh would also call it incomprehensible.
> He’s just straight up being racist.
I don't know if he's being racist or not. But the claim they can't speak english is not uncommon. I don't know what they are like in America or UK, but having worked with many while living in Singapore, I think they can speak english, but pronunciation is difficult.
> Singaporean English
I wasn't referring to Singaporean Indian speaking English, but can see how that it may have come across as that. The company I worked for in SG, all the devs were on EP, so their English was learnt in India.
I don't know if he's being racist or not. But the claim they can't speak english is not uncommon. I don't know what they are like in America or UK, but having worked with many while living in Singapore, I think they can speak english, but pronunciation is difficult.
> Singaporean English
I wasn't referring to Singaporean Indian speaking English, but can see how that it may have come across as that. The company I worked for in SG, all the devs were on EP, so their English was learnt in India.
English is the simplest Latin based language. This has nothing to do with pronunciation but not even knowing basic words. Or how to communicate. Only a small percentage of Indians speak English and most statistics on it are heavily inflated. The Indian English Education system is the same one the Japanese and Koreans use. And they don't know English. The reality is it's like if you learned Spanish in middle school to highschool. That's the average English proficency. Most Indians do not interact with people outside their groups as most things are written in the languages they use. It's not Singapore or even close to it in English proficency trying to claim it is, is a lie.
> English is the simplest Latin based language.
It's not a Latin-based language (French, Italian, Spanish etc are Latin-based languages).
It's not clear how you measure simplicity, but, in terms of phonetics, English is quite the nightmare as the link between the spelling and the pronunciation is often determined by the history of the word, rather than by a clear set of phonetical rules.
So, at least by that measure, English is far from being the simplest.
It's not a Latin-based language (French, Italian, Spanish etc are Latin-based languages).
It's not clear how you measure simplicity, but, in terms of phonetics, English is quite the nightmare as the link between the spelling and the pronunciation is often determined by the history of the word, rather than by a clear set of phonetical rules.
So, at least by that measure, English is far from being the simplest.
> It's not clear how you measure simplicity
Compared with other european languages the english grammar is much simpler and the number of words needed to communicate is also not so high.
Compared with other european languages the english grammar is much simpler and the number of words needed to communicate is also not so high.
Compared with German, it's complicated.
German has only "Past Perfect" and "Past simple" tenses.
English has at least 4.
English has at least 4.
Whilst it uses a lot of Latin words (mostly via French), English is actually a Germanic language.
I know it comes from the Angles of Angaland.
> English is the simplest Latin based language.
Any sources for this? The lack of certain complex features (eg. gendered words) does make it seem true, but English borrows from a lot of sources and is very inconsistent.
A comparison I like to make is that Japanese is one of the simplest to pronounce languages. If you learn the kana, you essentially learn all of the phonemes (there's a bit more nuance).
I'd like to know what the simplest languages are on each dimension : pronunciation (has to be Japanese), grammar, overall consistency, vocabulary complexity, writing, etc.
It would be awesome if we gradually evolved English to be easier to learn, such as in [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo...
Any sources for this? The lack of certain complex features (eg. gendered words) does make it seem true, but English borrows from a lot of sources and is very inconsistent.
A comparison I like to make is that Japanese is one of the simplest to pronounce languages. If you learn the kana, you essentially learn all of the phonemes (there's a bit more nuance).
I'd like to know what the simplest languages are on each dimension : pronunciation (has to be Japanese), grammar, overall consistency, vocabulary complexity, writing, etc.
It would be awesome if we gradually evolved English to be easier to learn, such as in [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_refo...
There are people who measure language difficulty. The uS state department does it from a US perspective but I’ve seen others
https://www.state.gov/foreign-language-training/
https://www.state.gov/foreign-language-training/
Well, I learned it by watching HBO, so it can't be that hard...
Congrats! That's awesome.
[deleted]
Pronunciation and orthography vary in many cases, not simple at all. Unless you already come from a germanic language, then it's relatively easy.
English grammar is very simple to learn if you come from a Germanic language, but I think English pronunciation and orthography is a mystery to all of us.
Even if you know the origins of the word, you still have to guess: facade is pronounced correctly, but the pronunciation of Uranus was apparently left up to a 5-year old to decide. Kindergarten and doppelganger are pronounced the German way, angst and flak aren't. The non-loanwords are somehow as inconsistent, after pronunciation changed but the spelling was preserved (and the other way around). For an unknown word you can come up with reasonable guesses, but they might be totally wrong. The only thing that makes us good English speakers is extensive exposure to English media.
Even if you know the origins of the word, you still have to guess: facade is pronounced correctly, but the pronunciation of Uranus was apparently left up to a 5-year old to decide. Kindergarten and doppelganger are pronounced the German way, angst and flak aren't. The non-loanwords are somehow as inconsistent, after pronunciation changed but the spelling was preserved (and the other way around). For an unknown word you can come up with reasonable guesses, but they might be totally wrong. The only thing that makes us good English speakers is extensive exposure to English media.
Coming from another Germanic language helps you deal with pronunciation and orthography varying in English?
What's the relationship?
What's the relationship?
You can just speak it in your native way and you will mostly be understood. But the "relatively easy" was to the language as a whole.
> most things are written in the languages they use
Do you know anything about India or are you merely talking out of your ass? This is patently false—nearly all documents are in three languages: English, Hindi and the state’s local language.
Do you know anything about India or are you merely talking out of your ass? This is patently false—nearly all documents are in three languages: English, Hindi and the state’s local language.
What do you mean by Latin based language?
Or what are the other "Latin based languages" that you are comparing it to?
Or what are the other "Latin based languages" that you are comparing it to?
> Most Indians do not interact with people outside their groups as most things are written in the languages they use
What? At this point I think you are troll account. You have already made wild and ridiculous statements like caste system being a form of "systemic slavery" in India. Now you are saying that only a "small percentage" of Indians speak English? Are you serious mate? English is the official language of India for literally everything. From giving exams to Government communications.
> Only a small percentage of Indians speak English and most statistics on it are heavily inflated
Where is the data for this?
> It's not Singapore or even close to it in English proficency trying to claim it is, is a lie.
And where do you get this data from?
What? At this point I think you are troll account. You have already made wild and ridiculous statements like caste system being a form of "systemic slavery" in India. Now you are saying that only a "small percentage" of Indians speak English? Are you serious mate? English is the official language of India for literally everything. From giving exams to Government communications.
> Only a small percentage of Indians speak English and most statistics on it are heavily inflated
Where is the data for this?
> It's not Singapore or even close to it in English proficency trying to claim it is, is a lie.
And where do you get this data from?
>Only a small percentage of the individuals who speak English at a proficient level of those who do, they predominately come from very wealthy upper caste families and now you have a new problem.
As a non-Indian, the caste problem seems so endemic that the only solution seems to be to not hire anyone born in India. Their American-born children will, presumably, have overcome the issue.
(Not 100% serious, but not 100% joking.)
As a non-Indian, the caste problem seems so endemic that the only solution seems to be to not hire anyone born in India. Their American-born children will, presumably, have overcome the issue.
(Not 100% serious, but not 100% joking.)
The problem here is the idea that offshore country labor arbitrage can give you ridicolous cost savings way over 50% compared to local resources. Of course this is pipe dreams and especially with remote work good people have a cost, no matter where they work. But companies like Infosys still are forced on selling with that sales pitch… so what happens? They hire mostly unqualified people. This is not a problem with Indian employees, it’s a problem of Western executives having unrealistic IT costs expectations. Want to save IT costs? Have realistic expectations on the number of digital initiatives your company can run, do less things basically, don’t try to do a lot and hire cheap labor to keep IT cost low.
My observation is that the Indians that make it to the US via companies like TCS, Infosys and others, are the product of a highly political environment where you are expected to worship your manager and tend to be political as fuck.
They are very different to Indians that have not worked in such environments, who tend to be much more trustworthy and ethical.
In America, a manager is another employee who can be wrong just as often as anyone else.
I am glad to see in recent years that the startup scene in India is empowering capable engineers to escape the fucked up reality that can be the corporate work culture over there.
They are very different to Indians that have not worked in such environments, who tend to be much more trustworthy and ethical.
In America, a manager is another employee who can be wrong just as often as anyone else.
I am glad to see in recent years that the startup scene in India is empowering capable engineers to escape the fucked up reality that can be the corporate work culture over there.
A lot of it is due to lack of resources. Even Indian grads view TCS and TCS type companies as the choice of last resort. They’re still paying the same wages as they were in the early 2000s (3.5 Lakh), while ignoring inflation (3.5 lakh would be around $10k in the 2000s but only around $5k in 2022). Lots of Indian companies and western companies pay way more than that. Heck, even farming would get you a guaranteed 3 Lakh subsidy with MSP
Main problem with hiring through these shops is you never know who exactly is working on your project. They would present us with resumes of some experienced candidates but it looked like that person is being sold to multiple companies with expectation that he would be exclusive.
They would all be committing to code repo with single "[email protected]" so you never know who the man behind the screen is. All conference calls would have the person we hired on the call but his voice would sound different everytime.
It was freaking nightmare. I will never ever work for a company that does hybrid onshore/offshore development. That evnviroment is a proxy that they treat software dev as mundane cost center that deserves no respect.
They would all be committing to code repo with single "[email protected]" so you never know who the man behind the screen is. All conference calls would have the person we hired on the call but his voice would sound different everytime.
It was freaking nightmare. I will never ever work for a company that does hybrid onshore/offshore development. That evnviroment is a proxy that they treat software dev as mundane cost center that deserves no respect.
> They would all be committing to code repo with single "[email protected]"
it really depends, what's the process of end client. In many cases, even each offshore developers have client's email and it's used as SSO with GIT/Slack/etc. Not saying that what you are describing is not possible with this but it certainly makes it difficult and almost not feasible.
it really depends, what's the process of end client. In many cases, even each offshore developers have client's email and it's used as SSO with GIT/Slack/etc. Not saying that what you are describing is not possible with this but it certainly makes it difficult and almost not feasible.
> They ghosted women systematically which was a nightmare for our project manager.
What do you mean by this? That they refuse to work with women based on their gender?
"India has more women STEM grads than US, UK or France". And I see way way more women employees in software companies in India compared to US.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-has-more-wom...
What do you mean by this? That they refuse to work with women based on their gender?
"India has more women STEM grads than US, UK or France". And I see way way more women employees in software companies in India compared to US.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-has-more-wom...
I have a relative that worked for a US medical company. There were certain people who would take women's lunches out of the microwave right in front of them just so they could cook their own. She said they were mostly from the south central area of Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangledesh). It was only a few individuals, not everyone.
Obviously this is a secondhand story, so I can't vouch for it directly. I was shocked and could barely believe what I was hearing.
Obviously this is a secondhand story, so I can't vouch for it directly. I was shocked and could barely believe what I was hearing.
Right on!
Technology firms in India have a better female to male staff ratio than the tech giants of Silicon Valley [1]. India has a much better male-to-female ratio compared with the U.S. Engineering male-female ratio in India is 1.96 as compared with 4.61 in the U.S.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2...
[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/engineering-...
What India Can Teach Silicon Valley About Its Gender Problem https://www.wired.com/2014/08/silicon-valley-sexism/
https://blog.hackerrank.com/which-countries-have-the-most-sk...
The 2015 stackoverflow survey has this interesting statement: "Developers in India are 3-times more likely to be female than developers in the United States." See https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2015 Actually it is worse than it sounds because most of the female developers in the United States are first generation immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe.
Technology firms in India have a better female to male staff ratio than the tech giants of Silicon Valley [1]. India has a much better male-to-female ratio compared with the U.S. Engineering male-female ratio in India is 1.96 as compared with 4.61 in the U.S.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2...
[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/engineering-...
What India Can Teach Silicon Valley About Its Gender Problem https://www.wired.com/2014/08/silicon-valley-sexism/
https://blog.hackerrank.com/which-countries-have-the-most-sk...
The 2015 stackoverflow survey has this interesting statement: "Developers in India are 3-times more likely to be female than developers in the United States." See https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2015 Actually it is worse than it sounds because most of the female developers in the United States are first generation immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe.
Not sure how your argument works. Because there are more women in STEM in India, Indians in the US can't ghost women?
"Indians ghost women" is an assertion made without proof. More women engineers is a provable fact.
"The sun rises each morning" is also a provable fact but has no correlation (I guess) to the alleged ghosting of women by Indian men in the US. Again I'm not understanding the argument.
Absolutely there is more gender parity, largely because the type of IT work done by the bodyshop firms like Infosys and TCS is more like a decently paid white collar McJob than anything else. You see a lot of female developers in Infosys because it’s (accurately) seen in the same universe as accounting or secretarial work.
Yes, when I was there for training a large 20+ person team, the women stood out as some of the best & the brightest doers. Unfortunately none of them were ever onshored or promoted up. They were all kept behind the scenes while the men tried to control the comms to onshore.
The pattern seems to be that as a country becomes more gender-equal, gender-specific preferences become stronger: "the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences"
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899
> Indians were by far the hardest to work with. They ghosted women systematically which was a nightmare for our project manager.
I recall that Amazon went through the trouble of paying for TV ads proudly stating that they now have in India delivery posts manned exclusively by women, and the ad is comprised of indian delivery women delivering packages to indian men who in turn are giving them all sorts of weird looks.
I recall seeing this ad and thinking to myself: are things in India so bad to the point that this sort of measure and ad passes off as something to be proud about?
I recall that Amazon went through the trouble of paying for TV ads proudly stating that they now have in India delivery posts manned exclusively by women, and the ad is comprised of indian delivery women delivering packages to indian men who in turn are giving them all sorts of weird looks.
I recall seeing this ad and thinking to myself: are things in India so bad to the point that this sort of measure and ad passes off as something to be proud about?
Eastern Europe ain’t developing countries…
Depends on who you ask. The following graphic is on the article about developing countries and includes emerging markets in the „lesser developed“ category:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IMF_advanced_economi...
Indeed. They may not be at the top when you sort countries by their metrics, but still great to live in.
Depends where. For example Ukraine (before the war) had a similar gdp per capita to my home country, Morocco, which is definitely a developing country. Belarus is richer, but not by much. I guess those two countries are more of an exception now though.
As the the opposite to? And by what metric? Maternal mortality? Human development index? Access to clean water?
> They also lied shamelessly about their qualifications which led to absurd situations.
This I have experience with. The word absurd is not an exaggeration, it might not even be enough to describe it.
>They ghosted women systematically which was a nightmare for our project manager.
I dont understand this sentence. Does Ghosted here mean something different to ghosting in hiring?
This I have experience with. The word absurd is not an exaggeration, it might not even be enough to describe it.
>They ghosted women systematically which was a nightmare for our project manager.
I dont understand this sentence. Does Ghosted here mean something different to ghosting in hiring?
I assume they didn't answer questions or requests from women, or otherwise silently refused to directly work with them.
Sigh. I would have thought people who worked in Tech would be open minded ( and sometimes too open minded ).
My next question would be if they are doing this to Indian woman or every woman?
My next question would be if they are doing this to Indian woman or every woman?
What in tech makes you open minded? I work in tech and many of my friends work in tech too and we aren’t particularly open minded. Of course we don’t tell anybody about that…
Is that why Infosys HR was directed to NOT hire Indian origin candidates? BTW what are these development countries?
Some humans suck, some don’t. I don’t think it’s accurate to say this divide is mostly split between countries. I’ve worked with multi-national companies that have great culture and diversity and multi-national companies that are much like you describe. The problem is not that “x people are by far the worst”. The problem is that culture needs to be led top down. It needs to be thought of during hiring. Intolerance needs to be addressed after hiring.
In this lawsuit, an American woman alleges that a bunch of high level (probably white) American executives in the American branch of an Indian company were very biased against women and workers of Indian origin. And while expressing their biases through their actions they created a very hostile work environment for this person.
At least read the thing for a minute before going on a tangent?
At least read the thing for a minute before going on a tangent?
One of my favourite things about HN is that a mod would never say something like this.
[deleted]
How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
>Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination.
This line of thinking seems logical but is missing out on the human experience part of the equation. It doesn’t address why things are the way they are today. Affirmative Action, for lack of a better phrase, does a lot of things:
1) It provides representation for the future. “Mom went to college so so can I!”, “Wow, if Susan Wojcicki can run Youtube, then I can do something like that too!” Seeing people you can identify with being successful affects how you view yourself.
2) One of the reasons diverse teams are more productive is it helps stamp out the “oddball” feeling. If you are the only person in your peers that looks like you, it can have a chilling effect on how you interact with the team, how your success is measured, and your mental well being. If you don’t believe this, go to a club where no one looks like you and see how much you feel like standing out even more than just existing there.
3) It normalizes it. The only reason we are talking about it is because people in these positions are extraordinary. Normalizing it reduces implicit bias, gets other, previously discriminated against people back into the conversation and is the path towards it being a nonissue. The most powerful force for gay acceptance was Will and Grace because it was primetime gay people just being there and it being normal.
4) Last, resume vs resume can be apples and oranges because it cannot account for their path to that. Was there significant harassment, discrimination and other social tribulations to earning whats on the sheet of paper? The stronger candidate may have unseen potential because of the social barriers they had to climb.
There are important reasons for these sorts of hiring decisions that have lasting consequences. And if we want to make the issue disappear we have to start at the top, not at the bottom.
This line of thinking seems logical but is missing out on the human experience part of the equation. It doesn’t address why things are the way they are today. Affirmative Action, for lack of a better phrase, does a lot of things:
1) It provides representation for the future. “Mom went to college so so can I!”, “Wow, if Susan Wojcicki can run Youtube, then I can do something like that too!” Seeing people you can identify with being successful affects how you view yourself.
2) One of the reasons diverse teams are more productive is it helps stamp out the “oddball” feeling. If you are the only person in your peers that looks like you, it can have a chilling effect on how you interact with the team, how your success is measured, and your mental well being. If you don’t believe this, go to a club where no one looks like you and see how much you feel like standing out even more than just existing there.
3) It normalizes it. The only reason we are talking about it is because people in these positions are extraordinary. Normalizing it reduces implicit bias, gets other, previously discriminated against people back into the conversation and is the path towards it being a nonissue. The most powerful force for gay acceptance was Will and Grace because it was primetime gay people just being there and it being normal.
4) Last, resume vs resume can be apples and oranges because it cannot account for their path to that. Was there significant harassment, discrimination and other social tribulations to earning whats on the sheet of paper? The stronger candidate may have unseen potential because of the social barriers they had to climb.
There are important reasons for these sorts of hiring decisions that have lasting consequences. And if we want to make the issue disappear we have to start at the top, not at the bottom.
Those are the general arguments in favor of Affirmative Action, but neither explain why we only apply them selectively when we feel like it. "Mom went to college so so can I" is relevant for people who lived in the 50-90s, but for those entering college today, the mother is more likely to have a college degree than the father. "Father went to college so so can I" should be the intention today if we want to fix gender inequality in college graduates.
The “oddball” feeling is also very real in profession where a single gender represent over 80%. It was one of the finding in a government report in Sweden why so few men chooses to enter the education profession. With a majority of people working in profession with significant gender imbalance, universal affirmative action would help to reduce the problem of people perceiving a toxic working environment. A universal problem should be solved using universal methods.
For normalizing, there is two primary strategic methods. You can treat people special as with affirmative action, or you can treat people being there as being normal by treating people as individuals. Both methods works, but they also work against each other. Treating people as special create hostility and resentment, while treating everyone as individuals has the risk being perceived as supporting statues quo.
And yes, we can start at the top. Affirmative action at college applications is not the same as affirmative action at board members. Affirmative action should be universally applied using common rules, but that is sadly not how it get applied. The few times people try to make common rules for affirmative action it get abandoned quickly because the wrong group benefited from it, or it get removed based on anti-discrimination laws.
The “oddball” feeling is also very real in profession where a single gender represent over 80%. It was one of the finding in a government report in Sweden why so few men chooses to enter the education profession. With a majority of people working in profession with significant gender imbalance, universal affirmative action would help to reduce the problem of people perceiving a toxic working environment. A universal problem should be solved using universal methods.
For normalizing, there is two primary strategic methods. You can treat people special as with affirmative action, or you can treat people being there as being normal by treating people as individuals. Both methods works, but they also work against each other. Treating people as special create hostility and resentment, while treating everyone as individuals has the risk being perceived as supporting statues quo.
And yes, we can start at the top. Affirmative action at college applications is not the same as affirmative action at board members. Affirmative action should be universally applied using common rules, but that is sadly not how it get applied. The few times people try to make common rules for affirmative action it get abandoned quickly because the wrong group benefited from it, or it get removed based on anti-discrimination laws.
I'm pretty reluctant to discriminate against people to make other people feel better, and I think there are ways to achieve the same without discriminating--specifically, promote more substantial identities besides race and gender (which is to say, undo all of the hyper-racialization that we've done over the last decade).
Moreover, while I believe that diversity is a benefit, I suspect returns diminish beyond 5-10% (beyond that, it's no longer "wow, a career woman! I've never seen that before!"--similarly, a team that is 50% black is probably not going to produce a facial recognition product that is 40% better than the team that is only 10% black, although the team that is 0-5% black may well make a product that performs poorly on black faces).
> The most powerful force for gay acceptance was Will and Grace because it was primetime gay people just being there and it being normal.
I'm not sure this is true; I think it's mostly just that "gays are harmful" was a really hard position to support, and the gay rights movement didn't try to bash their opponents over the head (they weren't trying to cancel people for questioning dubious narratives, for example).
> Last, resume vs resume can be apples and oranges because it cannot account for their path to that. Was there significant harassment, discrimination and other social tribulations to earning whats on the sheet of paper? The stronger candidate may have unseen potential because of the social barriers they had to climb.
You can't assume someone had greater social barriers based on race or gender. What is true for a large, diverse group of people (like a race or a gender) is often not true for individuals. This is just stereotyping.
Moreover, while I believe that diversity is a benefit, I suspect returns diminish beyond 5-10% (beyond that, it's no longer "wow, a career woman! I've never seen that before!"--similarly, a team that is 50% black is probably not going to produce a facial recognition product that is 40% better than the team that is only 10% black, although the team that is 0-5% black may well make a product that performs poorly on black faces).
> The most powerful force for gay acceptance was Will and Grace because it was primetime gay people just being there and it being normal.
I'm not sure this is true; I think it's mostly just that "gays are harmful" was a really hard position to support, and the gay rights movement didn't try to bash their opponents over the head (they weren't trying to cancel people for questioning dubious narratives, for example).
> Last, resume vs resume can be apples and oranges because it cannot account for their path to that. Was there significant harassment, discrimination and other social tribulations to earning whats on the sheet of paper? The stronger candidate may have unseen potential because of the social barriers they had to climb.
You can't assume someone had greater social barriers based on race or gender. What is true for a large, diverse group of people (like a race or a gender) is often not true for individuals. This is just stereotyping.
A big problem is that work is a cultural phenomenon. Most people choose career paths early in life, and do so to a great extent based on role models and general cultural attitudes. This is before adding explicit biases in such fields (in my country at least, I have heard several older professors at university claiming that female students that got better grades than their male counterparts were probably cheating, and docking them a few points for it).
If there are few women in tech, and few women professors of computer science or engineering, there will be few girls taking tech courses. This is a self-reinforcing cycle, and you need explicit action to break it. Affirmative action is one of the only known ways of doing this, as it has been at least moderately successful at integrating black people into high-status positions and jobs after the centuries of slavery. Explicit programs to encourage STEM education for girls in school are another, but less proven.
If there are few women in tech, and few women professors of computer science or engineering, there will be few girls taking tech courses. This is a self-reinforcing cycle, and you need explicit action to break it. Affirmative action is one of the only known ways of doing this, as it has been at least moderately successful at integrating black people into high-status positions and jobs after the centuries of slavery. Explicit programs to encourage STEM education for girls in school are another, but less proven.
Affirmative action wasn't necessary to open the medical, legal, etc fields to women in the 80s and 90s (in the USA) and those fields were far more misogynistic than STEM is today. Moreover, I don't see much of a difference between your professors who say "girls are probably cheating" versus our wider society who contend that "boys are only successful because of privilege". Both seem wrong. Further, it's not clear to me that affirmative action is known to be successful. I've read several reports recently that indicate that corporate DEI initiatives (which I think is roughly revamped affirmative action) may increase discrimination because people believe that minorities are benefiting from their identity rather than their qualifications. Lastly, it's not clear to me that we need exactly 50% of a given field to be female--it seems like we need enough representation to ward off sexism and so on, which shouldn't require very much considering men don't act as a class (they don't advocate for "men's rights" and so on).
Discriminating in favor or certain minorities is as close as you can get to balancing the injustice. Consider how many covert ways there is for biases to systematically screw over people, and how impossible it can be to definitively prove.
* The things you were exposed to as a child. Whether or not you know/see people who look like you in a certain career path.
* Whether or not you feel like you fit in at certain classes in school.
* The biases of your mentors and whom they choose to invest in. People favor other people who they feel are similar. This impacts who gets opportunities for further training positions. Who they write recommendations for. Who gets opportunities for internships. Each of these choices compound, as people with more opportunities look better than people with less.
* The biases of your peers and coworkers. Who gets blamed when things go poorly. Who gets credit for successes.
On the individual level, it's usually difficult to point out exactly where the injustice occurs to know how to address it in real time. As a population however, you can tell that it occurs. People within these groups get no benefit of the doubt. They will have to overachieve to get the same opportunities as others. With that in mind, it becomes much more reasonable to essentially reverse discriminate. Given two people with the same resume, with person A being from an underrepresented group and person B who is not, the best candidate is likely A who has had the additional burden of biases.
Doing this at large actually will reduce the biases. As it becomes normal to see the underrepresented group in a career path:
* More kids will see people like them in the career, leading to more trying it
* Classes will be more diverse and welcoming so more will stick to it
* Mentors are likely more diverse as well and will give opportunities to other people that look like them
* When you don't stick out, it's more likely you'll be treated fairly by peers and coworkers
* The things you were exposed to as a child. Whether or not you know/see people who look like you in a certain career path.
* Whether or not you feel like you fit in at certain classes in school.
* The biases of your mentors and whom they choose to invest in. People favor other people who they feel are similar. This impacts who gets opportunities for further training positions. Who they write recommendations for. Who gets opportunities for internships. Each of these choices compound, as people with more opportunities look better than people with less.
* The biases of your peers and coworkers. Who gets blamed when things go poorly. Who gets credit for successes.
On the individual level, it's usually difficult to point out exactly where the injustice occurs to know how to address it in real time. As a population however, you can tell that it occurs. People within these groups get no benefit of the doubt. They will have to overachieve to get the same opportunities as others. With that in mind, it becomes much more reasonable to essentially reverse discriminate. Given two people with the same resume, with person A being from an underrepresented group and person B who is not, the best candidate is likely A who has had the additional burden of biases.
Doing this at large actually will reduce the biases. As it becomes normal to see the underrepresented group in a career path:
* More kids will see people like them in the career, leading to more trying it
* Classes will be more diverse and welcoming so more will stick to it
* Mentors are likely more diverse as well and will give opportunities to other people that look like them
* When you don't stick out, it's more likely you'll be treated fairly by peers and coworkers
If a company gives one white person a job over a more qualified black person, that's unjust, and you can't make up for it by giving a different black person a job over a more qualified white person; rather, this doubles the amount of injustice.
What this does is distribute the injustice evenly between the races, but this sort of concern about races (rather than the individuals that comprise them) strikes me as the very essence of racism: it's treating individuals within a race as unimportant and treating race itself as all-important.
> As a population however, you can tell that it occurs. People within these groups get no benefit of the doubt. They will have to overachieve to get the same opportunities as others.
We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.
What this does is distribute the injustice evenly between the races, but this sort of concern about races (rather than the individuals that comprise them) strikes me as the very essence of racism: it's treating individuals within a race as unimportant and treating race itself as all-important.
> As a population however, you can tell that it occurs. People within these groups get no benefit of the doubt. They will have to overachieve to get the same opportunities as others.
We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.
Ideally everyone would only get the job that they verifiably deserve. Society does not scale to the level of the individual. We can't have an entire jury to judge whether vague criticisms like "They were good but too xyz" is actually grounded in their performance. Having injustice distributed evenly between the races is certainly better than doing nothing and having it being distributed unevenly.
> We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.
Plenty of studies have been done on this topic. I don't think it's controversial to say that disparities are due to discrimination
> We can tell that it occurs, but we can't even accurately measure the degree to which it occurs. Our discourse generally just assumes that the degree of disparity is the degree of discrimination on the really, really awful assumption that disparities can only be caused by discrimination.
Plenty of studies have been done on this topic. I don't think it's controversial to say that disparities are due to discrimination
The state I live in is 85% white and the goal is to hire much less than 85% whites. So the goal is to create a diverse community that doesn't exist.
Of course if 95% of the workforce is currently white and you aim for proportional representation the hiring goals will be to hire more non-whites for until the goal is reached.
Yes, the goal would be to hire more nonwhites than the company currently employs, but the parent is arguing that his company's goal is to exceed proportional representation.
Diversity can foster innovation.
Didn't know skin pigment contributed to innovation.
"Diversity" is empty HR speak, please specify which kind of diversity fosters innovation.
"Diversity" is empty HR speak, please specify which kind of diversity fosters innovation.
> please specify which kind of diversity fosters innovation
To keep an open mind I did a thought experiment and found a few: entertainment, fusion food, music, those things I'd imagine benefit greatly from diversity.
To keep an open mind I did a thought experiment and found a few: entertainment, fusion food, music, those things I'd imagine benefit greatly from diversity.
You told me human endeavors in which "diversity" (which again, means nothing) fosters innovation.
But that wasn't my question. I asked what kind of diversity fosters innovation, not what kind of innovation is fostered by diversity
Diversity of world view and human experience foster innovation.
If you hire all of the same socioeconomic strata even if they are different races chances are you will not get a wide depth of experience and world view
If you hire all of the same socioeconomic strata even if they are different races chances are you will not get a wide depth of experience and world view
Often it seems tech companies (and certainly many others) almost explicitly hire people with similar viewpoints--not merely accidentally arriving at homogeneity by way of socioeconomic strata, but by strongly broadcasting ideological statements.
True, but still better than the alternative.
The commonly held definition of 'diversity' needs more diversity - to mean more than skin color quotas.
Maybe they should do something geographical. Let's say hire a person per country and then start again. You know building actually distributed and diverse teams.
Well Dr.Detroit. Where I'm from in the Midwest. Black people live predominately in homelessness because the white majority just refuses to hire them for jobs. As for many of them as well, they are underemployed even when they seek employment opportunities.
I am in the midwest, live in a mid size city in the mid west. I live in a Middle Income Neighborhood in the midwest...
Demographics of this city I believe are 30% minority and 70% white. Of the 10 Homes owners closest to me (and they are all home owners no rentals) 4 of them are black.
My employer has a much larger than 30% black workforce.
Homelessness is not a large problem here, however it is primarily white men that I see homeless. probably on the order of 70% matching demographics
I am tired of the false narrative that the midwest is racist.
Demographics of this city I believe are 30% minority and 70% white. Of the 10 Homes owners closest to me (and they are all home owners no rentals) 4 of them are black.
My employer has a much larger than 30% black workforce.
Homelessness is not a large problem here, however it is primarily white men that I see homeless. probably on the order of 70% matching demographics
I am tired of the false narrative that the midwest is racist.
[deleted]
No person is a problem because of theyir sex or skin color. That is what you are insinuating.
Your remark is ambiguous, so to be perfectly clear, I'm decidedly not insinuating that anyone is a problem because of their sex or skin color.
I'm not making a pro or con judgement but it does help future women/minorities for current women/minorities to break glass ceilings and get into new industries/positions.
Just like the first black kids sent to white only schools during integration helped make things less terrible for future minorities.
Just like the first black kids sent to white only schools during integration helped make things less terrible for future minorities.
What is the glass ceiling?
In Norway years back they promoted a program for women to study engineering disciplines. They increased a lot.
So at some point they thought they could stop doing it and percentages came back to where they were before after some time I recall.
If it was a cultural thing... they would have stayed. On the way u had discrimination by sex (AFAIK men were not paid for choosing engineering and women were paid FOR choosing, a privilege under any circumstance since noone forbid them to choose that).
All in all what happened is that some ppl saw a chance (incentive) in dtudying cheaper or whatever. But was the real reason to choose those degrees bc they really liked it?
I really think promoting good stuff is nice. But distorting it via positive discrimination is not the solution.
In Norway years back they promoted a program for women to study engineering disciplines. They increased a lot.
So at some point they thought they could stop doing it and percentages came back to where they were before after some time I recall.
If it was a cultural thing... they would have stayed. On the way u had discrimination by sex (AFAIK men were not paid for choosing engineering and women were paid FOR choosing, a privilege under any circumstance since noone forbid them to choose that).
All in all what happened is that some ppl saw a chance (incentive) in dtudying cheaper or whatever. But was the real reason to choose those degrees bc they really liked it?
I really think promoting good stuff is nice. But distorting it via positive discrimination is not the solution.
i know nothing about what happened there in norway, so what i say is pure speculation.
if i understand you correctly part of the program was financial support. so once that support went away, the numbers went back.
sounds to me that, all other things being equal, the program was not able to change the culture. and that includes possible ongoing discrimination against women, only that the financial support helped some women to enter engineering despite the discrimination happening.
it is possible that this program was the wrong approach. (where it comes to discrimination, i believe it matters to teach everyone to change their attitude towards women in engineering) or that it simply wasn't active long enough. it takes time to change peoples attitudes. maybe after a few decades people get used to women in engineering. (that worked in china, they have a lot more women in engineering)
the problem with liking it is that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the field at hand. i may love programming, but i hate working in a bro-culture, and that alone would be enough to rather work in a job that i don't like where the people are nice than the reverse.
if i understand you correctly part of the program was financial support. so once that support went away, the numbers went back.
sounds to me that, all other things being equal, the program was not able to change the culture. and that includes possible ongoing discrimination against women, only that the financial support helped some women to enter engineering despite the discrimination happening.
it is possible that this program was the wrong approach. (where it comes to discrimination, i believe it matters to teach everyone to change their attitude towards women in engineering) or that it simply wasn't active long enough. it takes time to change peoples attitudes. maybe after a few decades people get used to women in engineering. (that worked in china, they have a lot more women in engineering)
the problem with liking it is that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the field at hand. i may love programming, but i hate working in a bro-culture, and that alone would be enough to rather work in a job that i don't like where the people are nice than the reverse.
> if i understand you correctly part of the program was financial support. so once that support went away, the numbers went back.
Yes, that is what happened.
> sounds to me that, all other things being equal, the program was not able to change the culture
This reminds me of "we did not try hard enough, we need more intervention". I am not a proponent of it. The culture was not changed probably because there is more than just culture underlying human choice... at least that is my belief. Of course, not all is biology, but not all is culture. It seems that in this case things tend to indicate that there is more than culture behind these choices.
> it is possible that this program was the wrong approach
why not just convince people why they should choose X or Y? Why you have to reserve money or resources actively? That, you know, means that some people that are more valuable than others, will lose their chance... is not that discrimination? Is it not that what they are fighting? You do not fight discrimination by promoting it from another side...
> i may love programming, but i hate working in a bro-culture
Oh, and in teaching it does not happen the opposite? I might not like in a sis culture, right? I mean, the problem exists... no, the problem does not. Things are the way they are and we can encourage people to change them if they want, not by shifting the cost to others. If you work somewhere, you cannot pretend the world will change immediately around you just bc we think it should be something different. We need to deal with that, and trying to force everything into our ideal just leads to frustration. Instead we should analyze real causes for things and why they happen or will keep happening instead of fighting them by transferring costs to people that have nothing to do with the problem.
Yes, that is what happened.
> sounds to me that, all other things being equal, the program was not able to change the culture
This reminds me of "we did not try hard enough, we need more intervention". I am not a proponent of it. The culture was not changed probably because there is more than just culture underlying human choice... at least that is my belief. Of course, not all is biology, but not all is culture. It seems that in this case things tend to indicate that there is more than culture behind these choices.
> it is possible that this program was the wrong approach
why not just convince people why they should choose X or Y? Why you have to reserve money or resources actively? That, you know, means that some people that are more valuable than others, will lose their chance... is not that discrimination? Is it not that what they are fighting? You do not fight discrimination by promoting it from another side...
> i may love programming, but i hate working in a bro-culture
Oh, and in teaching it does not happen the opposite? I might not like in a sis culture, right? I mean, the problem exists... no, the problem does not. Things are the way they are and we can encourage people to change them if they want, not by shifting the cost to others. If you work somewhere, you cannot pretend the world will change immediately around you just bc we think it should be something different. We need to deal with that, and trying to force everything into our ideal just leads to frustration. Instead we should analyze real causes for things and why they happen or will keep happening instead of fighting them by transferring costs to people that have nothing to do with the problem.
"we did not try hard enough, we need more intervention". I am not a proponent of it.
then why try at all? if we believe this goal should be achived then we should keep trying until we get there.
You do not fight discrimination by promoting it from another side
that is a reasonable argument, but plenty of counter arguments exist. some are being discussed on this page.
Oh, and in teaching it does not happen the opposite?
oh sure, however, teaching is an entirely different problem.
as a parent i want my children to be exposed to male and female role models (what teachers are to them) in equal measure. therefore for the sake of children i want gender parity in schools to be enforced by law.
but you could make the same argument with other professions that are dominated by one gender. nurses are probably a good example where men may not feel comfortable.
we can encourage people to change them if they want, not by shifting the cost to others
why not?
one question is, what goal do we want to achieve. the other question is, how do we achieve it?
what we want is gender equality, that is equality of opportunity (not necessarily equality of outcome)
so that means we want more opportunities for women in engineering. for that we need to understand what is keeping women out of engineering, and how can we get more women into engineering. (and then replay that for any profession and respective gender)
and if access to financial resources is a reason, then it absolutely makes sense to provide additional financial resources to women.
again, i have no idea what happened in norway. access to university is free in norway, so i don't know what they would need money for.
if discrimination by men is what keeps women out of engineering, then what we need to do is to get men to change. how do we get them to change? possibly only by exposing men to more female coworkers. but that means forcing the issue, and pushing women into engineering until men learn to treat women as equals.
i don't care about gender balance in engineering or any other profession (except teaching), but i strongly care about women and men being treated equally, and a large part of that is men learning to treat women as their equal and respect them professionally.
we should analyze real causes for things and why they happen or will keep happening instead of fighting them by transferring costs to people that have nothing to do with the problem
you are saying that as if it were a contradiction. yes of course we need to analyze the real causes.
but we also need to find an approach to solve the problem.
then why try at all? if we believe this goal should be achived then we should keep trying until we get there.
You do not fight discrimination by promoting it from another side
that is a reasonable argument, but plenty of counter arguments exist. some are being discussed on this page.
Oh, and in teaching it does not happen the opposite?
oh sure, however, teaching is an entirely different problem.
as a parent i want my children to be exposed to male and female role models (what teachers are to them) in equal measure. therefore for the sake of children i want gender parity in schools to be enforced by law.
but you could make the same argument with other professions that are dominated by one gender. nurses are probably a good example where men may not feel comfortable.
we can encourage people to change them if they want, not by shifting the cost to others
why not?
one question is, what goal do we want to achieve. the other question is, how do we achieve it?
what we want is gender equality, that is equality of opportunity (not necessarily equality of outcome)
so that means we want more opportunities for women in engineering. for that we need to understand what is keeping women out of engineering, and how can we get more women into engineering. (and then replay that for any profession and respective gender)
and if access to financial resources is a reason, then it absolutely makes sense to provide additional financial resources to women.
again, i have no idea what happened in norway. access to university is free in norway, so i don't know what they would need money for.
if discrimination by men is what keeps women out of engineering, then what we need to do is to get men to change. how do we get them to change? possibly only by exposing men to more female coworkers. but that means forcing the issue, and pushing women into engineering until men learn to treat women as equals.
i don't care about gender balance in engineering or any other profession (except teaching), but i strongly care about women and men being treated equally, and a large part of that is men learning to treat women as their equal and respect them professionally.
we should analyze real causes for things and why they happen or will keep happening instead of fighting them by transferring costs to people that have nothing to do with the problem
you are saying that as if it were a contradiction. yes of course we need to analyze the real causes.
but we also need to find an approach to solve the problem.
>then why try at all? if we believe this goal should be achived then we should keep trying until we get there.
It is good to try, but we already tried a million times. It just does not work. This is like trying to jump from the top of a building and trying to not get hurt when you smash the ground. Reality has a certain shape. Some people try to fight reality based on the fact of "things should be like in my mind" ignoring all psychology, antropology, biology and other aspects behind it saying it is just a cultural thing.
As I said before, it this was just cultural, numbers would not have come back to the starting point. This is a very clear signal that we should not be doing that, but something else. Or probably nothing! Because doing that creates side effects. I am ok with promoting women to study engineering, as my parents did with "what do you like better?", "wanna try this?", for which I and them payed the cost in time and money. But I am totally against arranging public resources systematically so that people that are valuable cannot enter a place because of a stupid quota. That should be, literally, illegal, under the premise that discrimination is forbidden for reasons of gender, race, etc.
> one question is, what goal do we want to achieve. the other question is, how do we achieve it?
The goal is that people should be happy and doing what they want. You do not need a grant to give an engineering to someone bc she is a woman. That is not true. You just need to encourage them. Yet they do this, why?
If some people are not happy by how the world looks in their mind (I think we all find things we do not like), that is not a reason to start public scholarships and stuff like that to do things that clearly do not work, or at least, have not worked before. If I try a business, or something to promote something positive to others, I am not entitled to make 3rd parties pay the economic and discrimination (they get out of the system bc of quotas). The second thing is even worse than the economic part, which is not good either, anyway, IMHO, bc it violates the right of people to their property/effort.
> if discrimination by men is what keeps women out of engineering, then what we need to do is to get men to change.
Where did you take that men discriminate women in engineering? Please show me the facts. This is so silly. I have worked with women in engineering, for me they are just my mates. This is like saying I am discriminated when I am a man and date bc girls look more at certain aspects of me than what I pay attention from them.
It is just different interests, you cannot do anything against that. And there is nothing bad in it. If it bothers someone, it is that person who has a problem accepting reality. They pretend the one who has the problem is reality. This is highly absurd...
> i don't care about gender balance in engineering or any other profession (except teaching)
Me none. I do not care almost 70% are women in Spain university, as long as there is no incentive to promote girls and leave guys out. If things are like that, there must be a reason, and the reason is not discrimination, at least in Spain. That is silly. The only discrimination I saw is the fact that they are actively bribing girls to study certain degrees, but when a degree is full of women, they do not do the opposite. That said, I am against this kind of briving in either direction. If you want to study something, it is bc you have a natural motivation in the first place: shifting the cost to third parties should be illegal, as I said.
> you are saying that as if it were a contradiction. yes of course we need to analyze the real causes.
The problem is that they do not, at least it looks like no when they run public programmes. What they do is to try to maximize the votes like when a scammer tries to sell you a broken product or service. Their interest is to maximize the benefit for them, not for us. This, unfortunately, is the nature of politics (and of humans, in general): we do what benefits us the most first, and later, yes, we are not super bad and we have a heart there. But we go first. It is like that. There is plenty of literature showing all this...
> but we also need to find an approach to solve the problem.
There is not a problem. It is not a problem that most girls are teachers or most guys are engineers. Look how easy it is: you talk to men and you tell them why they should be teaching. You talk to women and you tell them why they should do engineering (higher wages, blabla). If they do not want to choose it, there is nothing you can do, you have to respect it and not starting an artificial war that just has bad side effects: kicking out people that genuinely wanted to study something bc of a quota, creating an artificial incentive and have people with zero vocation on a job... things like that.
You just make things worse when you do this. Honest opinion: the problem does not exist. Bc "we want more men, women, black, white, whatever" in place X is just a wish of the mind that should not be a real goal just bc of our taste for symmetry. It would be nice? Probably for some. But you are making others pay the cost. Noone is entitled to shift the cost of things they do not pay for to 3rd parties. I will always be against that, and it should be illegal (in theory it is..., at least in Spain, but in practice they do it).
It is good to try, but we already tried a million times. It just does not work. This is like trying to jump from the top of a building and trying to not get hurt when you smash the ground. Reality has a certain shape. Some people try to fight reality based on the fact of "things should be like in my mind" ignoring all psychology, antropology, biology and other aspects behind it saying it is just a cultural thing.
As I said before, it this was just cultural, numbers would not have come back to the starting point. This is a very clear signal that we should not be doing that, but something else. Or probably nothing! Because doing that creates side effects. I am ok with promoting women to study engineering, as my parents did with "what do you like better?", "wanna try this?", for which I and them payed the cost in time and money. But I am totally against arranging public resources systematically so that people that are valuable cannot enter a place because of a stupid quota. That should be, literally, illegal, under the premise that discrimination is forbidden for reasons of gender, race, etc.
> one question is, what goal do we want to achieve. the other question is, how do we achieve it?
The goal is that people should be happy and doing what they want. You do not need a grant to give an engineering to someone bc she is a woman. That is not true. You just need to encourage them. Yet they do this, why?
If some people are not happy by how the world looks in their mind (I think we all find things we do not like), that is not a reason to start public scholarships and stuff like that to do things that clearly do not work, or at least, have not worked before. If I try a business, or something to promote something positive to others, I am not entitled to make 3rd parties pay the economic and discrimination (they get out of the system bc of quotas). The second thing is even worse than the economic part, which is not good either, anyway, IMHO, bc it violates the right of people to their property/effort.
> if discrimination by men is what keeps women out of engineering, then what we need to do is to get men to change.
Where did you take that men discriminate women in engineering? Please show me the facts. This is so silly. I have worked with women in engineering, for me they are just my mates. This is like saying I am discriminated when I am a man and date bc girls look more at certain aspects of me than what I pay attention from them.
It is just different interests, you cannot do anything against that. And there is nothing bad in it. If it bothers someone, it is that person who has a problem accepting reality. They pretend the one who has the problem is reality. This is highly absurd...
> i don't care about gender balance in engineering or any other profession (except teaching)
Me none. I do not care almost 70% are women in Spain university, as long as there is no incentive to promote girls and leave guys out. If things are like that, there must be a reason, and the reason is not discrimination, at least in Spain. That is silly. The only discrimination I saw is the fact that they are actively bribing girls to study certain degrees, but when a degree is full of women, they do not do the opposite. That said, I am against this kind of briving in either direction. If you want to study something, it is bc you have a natural motivation in the first place: shifting the cost to third parties should be illegal, as I said.
> you are saying that as if it were a contradiction. yes of course we need to analyze the real causes.
The problem is that they do not, at least it looks like no when they run public programmes. What they do is to try to maximize the votes like when a scammer tries to sell you a broken product or service. Their interest is to maximize the benefit for them, not for us. This, unfortunately, is the nature of politics (and of humans, in general): we do what benefits us the most first, and later, yes, we are not super bad and we have a heart there. But we go first. It is like that. There is plenty of literature showing all this...
> but we also need to find an approach to solve the problem.
There is not a problem. It is not a problem that most girls are teachers or most guys are engineers. Look how easy it is: you talk to men and you tell them why they should be teaching. You talk to women and you tell them why they should do engineering (higher wages, blabla). If they do not want to choose it, there is nothing you can do, you have to respect it and not starting an artificial war that just has bad side effects: kicking out people that genuinely wanted to study something bc of a quota, creating an artificial incentive and have people with zero vocation on a job... things like that.
You just make things worse when you do this. Honest opinion: the problem does not exist. Bc "we want more men, women, black, white, whatever" in place X is just a wish of the mind that should not be a real goal just bc of our taste for symmetry. It would be nice? Probably for some. But you are making others pay the cost. Noone is entitled to shift the cost of things they do not pay for to 3rd parties. I will always be against that, and it should be illegal (in theory it is..., at least in Spain, but in practice they do it).
>>Just like the first black kids sent to white only schools during integration helped make things less terrible for future minorities.
it is nothing like that for 3 reasons
1. first and foremost the "white only" schools was legally required segregation, it was imposed by law and the elimination of that required law to reverse. These laws have now been absent for decades
2. Primary education is where this battle should be fought, even today there are still battle that need to be fought when it come to resource alloation, school choice, etc. You do not attempt to fix a bad casting after the poor you need to fix the mold.... We do that by fixing primary education which is being used by various political factions on both the left and the right to push political agenda and not education.
3. Once we get to adulthood, using discrimination to "fix" historic discrimination will not resolve the underlying problem (see #2) and will likely create more discrimination against the very groups you are attempting to assist, it is in all cases a general net negative.
it is nothing like that for 3 reasons
1. first and foremost the "white only" schools was legally required segregation, it was imposed by law and the elimination of that required law to reverse. These laws have now been absent for decades
2. Primary education is where this battle should be fought, even today there are still battle that need to be fought when it come to resource alloation, school choice, etc. You do not attempt to fix a bad casting after the poor you need to fix the mold.... We do that by fixing primary education which is being used by various political factions on both the left and the right to push political agenda and not education.
3. Once we get to adulthood, using discrimination to "fix" historic discrimination will not resolve the underlying problem (see #2) and will likely create more discrimination against the very groups you are attempting to assist, it is in all cases a general net negative.
Regarding 1, even after whites-only schools became illegal, little changed. Previously legally whites-only schools stayed in-practice whites-only, often with explicit discrimination by racist parents and teachers to discourage any black people from sending or keeping their children in the school, but other times simply as by-product of housing inequality. It was hard for people in a black neighborhood - itself created by now-defunct discriminatory laws that had huge long-term impact - to send their children to a school in a farther away white neighborhood.
The fix was to forcibly integrate schools: explicitly mandate not just that black students be allowed, but actually that they are integrated in significant numbers, including by providing special facilities (school buses) to take them to the better schools that were farther away from their homes - the policy known as "busing" [0]; a form of (positive) discrimination.
Of course, as the article notes, this can also have negative consequences, so any such measure is far from easy to apply.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing
The fix was to forcibly integrate schools: explicitly mandate not just that black students be allowed, but actually that they are integrated in significant numbers, including by providing special facilities (school buses) to take them to the better schools that were farther away from their homes - the policy known as "busing" [0]; a form of (positive) discrimination.
Of course, as the article notes, this can also have negative consequences, so any such measure is far from easy to apply.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing
I understand that, which is why today I 100% support back pack funding of schools. I despise the idea of Regional school districts, and really the fact that most schools are funded by local very tiny regional property tax districts, making some schools VERY VERY well funded to the point where high schools are building professional sports arena's and other districts just a few miles away can not afford proper computers.
[deleted]
This falls apart because it quickly becomes a question of who are the accepted minority classes, as we see certain groups being excluded.
>quickly becomes a question of who are the accepted minority classes
This is only a dilemma if you completely ignore the history that precipitated such efforts.
This is only a dilemma if you completely ignore the history that precipitated such efforts.
You fix the issue of Women / Minorities in STEM and leadership in primary schools if you wait until adulthood to shoe horn a equity solution using discriminatory policies you end up making everything worse
I wish people would understand that.
I wish people would understand that.
I dunno what other industries are like but I've interviewed quite a few software engineers this year and only had a couple women apply. I don't have much of an opinion on hiring incentives but it seems like focusing on the education system would be more effective.
How about we acknowledge that men and women are different and that includes our interests? Maybe women in general are not as interested in stem in such numbers as men are (of course, bell curves, etc.)
I know it's monkeys, not people, but experiments have been done:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
> We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys, living within a 135 monkey troop, with human wheeled toys and plush toys. Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization.
I know it's monkeys, not people, but experiments have been done:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
> We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys, living within a 135 monkey troop, with human wheeled toys and plush toys. Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization.
Indeed, there's a million places where gender differences exist in personal interests that would naturally translate to the workplace.
You can look at who buys military history books vs romance novels on amazon (something that's a far more voluntary, personal choice than a job which has financial and local incentives). From that you wouldn't be surprised men are far more likely to want to be in the military.
It's funny what society selectively decides to deem controversial and important to change, while ignoring the million other ways that same phenomenon exists uncontroversially everywhere else in society.
I don't think people care that women aren't interested in technology, they just want to see more women with x popular good paying jobs, then blame the industry for it as if there's some giant conspiracy to not hire them.
You can look at who buys military history books vs romance novels on amazon (something that's a far more voluntary, personal choice than a job which has financial and local incentives). From that you wouldn't be surprised men are far more likely to want to be in the military.
It's funny what society selectively decides to deem controversial and important to change, while ignoring the million other ways that same phenomenon exists uncontroversially everywhere else in society.
I don't think people care that women aren't interested in technology, they just want to see more women with x popular good paying jobs, then blame the industry for it as if there's some giant conspiracy to not hire them.
When I did my BSc in CompSci (2000ish) there were around 10% women at enrollment, and down to 4% at graduation. It was kind of sad to me (male), and part of the reason I delayed joining the industry.
It seemed like a cultural issue to me, like it was just too boyish and bro-ish for women to want to enter the programme. Sausage party effect.
Judging from the department photos of graduates from past years, you could see that there were way more women in CompSci the 70s and 80s.
It seemed like a cultural issue to me, like it was just too boyish and bro-ish for women to want to enter the programme. Sausage party effect.
Judging from the department photos of graduates from past years, you could see that there were way more women in CompSci the 70s and 80s.
The classical view about violence. It is good when its done against bad people, bad when its done against good people. The world has no place for pacifists.
This makes it sound like pacifism is in itself a stable and meaningful thing but it's an opinion that can only exist with the support of the non-pacifist. You need the context of a stable territory that is maintained by force to remain a pacifist over time.
"the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways... by force!"
If that's how it is, then that's how it is.
And by most people's definition of good and bad, this can't be incorrect. Unless they don't believe in good or bad as truthful labels, which is fair but makes things more complicated.
And by most people's definition of good and bad, this can't be incorrect. Unless they don't believe in good or bad as truthful labels, which is fair but makes things more complicated.
Yeah, the motivation if this idea is honorable (if it would just work out to some degree).. but in the end it is a late workaround doomed for he issue to come back in another way (if the experience from 99.9% of issues is transferable here) and not tackling the root cause.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
Yes. Not to mince words, as others frequently do, but that's basically what's happening. The alterntive, so-called "pure meritocracy", is a farce because the implied implicit "merit" is, by the very nature of the systemic inequalities that exist, unequally distributed. And merit is transferred down the generations. Privilege begets privilege. Etc. This is the issue that we are rightfully trying to counter.
It is right to try to take systemic steps to equalize access to opportunity across the board. The best (but imho still incredibly flawed) way of doing this is to use "anti-biased" hueristics to increase representation of certain people. In school admissions, for example, this might mean prioritizing applications from poorer areas. In other places this means having minimum quotas for hiring certain genders or ethnicities.
Yes, to be utterly semantic, it is discriminatory. I don't know how this sits with me, but it is technically true. But, whether it sits well or not, it is virtually impossible to fiddle ourselves out of this quagmire of inequality without taking proactive _opposite_ steps. We need to somehow equalise the playing field, thus equalising access to merit, thus equalising the soundness of the so-hailed "pure meritocracy" that so many seem to uphold as the ideal.
It is right to try to take systemic steps to equalize access to opportunity across the board. The best (but imho still incredibly flawed) way of doing this is to use "anti-biased" hueristics to increase representation of certain people. In school admissions, for example, this might mean prioritizing applications from poorer areas. In other places this means having minimum quotas for hiring certain genders or ethnicities.
Yes, to be utterly semantic, it is discriminatory. I don't know how this sits with me, but it is technically true. But, whether it sits well or not, it is virtually impossible to fiddle ourselves out of this quagmire of inequality without taking proactive _opposite_ steps. We need to somehow equalise the playing field, thus equalising access to merit, thus equalising the soundness of the so-hailed "pure meritocracy" that so many seem to uphold as the ideal.
>And merit is transferred down the generations. Privilege begets privilege. Etc. This is the issue that we are rightfully trying to counter.
Counter that by providing less privileged people with more opportunities, not by changing the definitions of merit.
It's basically impossible for anyone to become a chess grandmaster without exposure to competitive chess when you're less than 10. This obviously favors the children of the well off, but you can't deny that these children end up being better at chess.
The same goes for education in general. If elite preparatory schools didn't offer a better education than public schools, nobody would pay for them. You shouldn't use their doing better on standardized tests as an indictment on standardized tests because they're genuinely better educated. Asians tend to have the highest SAT scores of all races, and they're the least likely to drop out. Black people tend to have the lowest SAT scores, and they're also the most likely to drop out. This is a sign that the SAT is a good metric. Yet, the far left frames this two examples of racism: that both the SAT and colleges themselves are systemically racist.
By principle, I actually am in favor of affirmative action, but I'm tired of all the anti-merit rhetoric used to justify it.
Counter that by providing less privileged people with more opportunities, not by changing the definitions of merit.
It's basically impossible for anyone to become a chess grandmaster without exposure to competitive chess when you're less than 10. This obviously favors the children of the well off, but you can't deny that these children end up being better at chess.
The same goes for education in general. If elite preparatory schools didn't offer a better education than public schools, nobody would pay for them. You shouldn't use their doing better on standardized tests as an indictment on standardized tests because they're genuinely better educated. Asians tend to have the highest SAT scores of all races, and they're the least likely to drop out. Black people tend to have the lowest SAT scores, and they're also the most likely to drop out. This is a sign that the SAT is a good metric. Yet, the far left frames this two examples of racism: that both the SAT and colleges themselves are systemically racist.
By principle, I actually am in favor of affirmative action, but I'm tired of all the anti-merit rhetoric used to justify it.
It's typically easier to go after the words and meaning than it is to do the hard work like getting kids to actually be better at school and have better home lives (aka culture wars).
Which is why this sort of slacktivist approach to everything is so popular today on social media. It's easy and lower effort to go after western culture while sitting behind a keyboard than to fix the hard problems happening IRL.
Which is why this sort of slacktivist approach to everything is so popular today on social media. It's easy and lower effort to go after western culture while sitting behind a keyboard than to fix the hard problems happening IRL.
If affirmative action was being applied with the same care as a scientific study, then you might be able to say that it's moral discrimination.
But it's not. It's being applied with the same level of knee-jerk emotional reaction and sloppiness of classic "I don't like people of skin color x" racial prejudice - which is what it is.
The theory that you're describing is quite different from what is being applied in the real world.
But it's not. It's being applied with the same level of knee-jerk emotional reaction and sloppiness of classic "I don't like people of skin color x" racial prejudice - which is what it is.
The theory that you're describing is quite different from what is being applied in the real world.
>> Yes, to be utterly semantic, it is discriminatory. I don't know how this sits with me, but it is technically true. But, whether it sits well or not, it is virtually impossible to fiddle ourselves out of this quagmire of inequality without taking proactive _opposite_ steps.
I think there are additional externalities that need to be considered. For example, some of these discriminatory policies are going to cause strife, hate, and resentment, etc. in the people who need to be discriminated against. I think there may be unintended consequences that we're only beginning to see.
Discrimination causes problems that can take a long time to emerge and a long time to address. We're STILL seeing the effects of this on many minority groups - but the solution IMO isn't to do it all over again.
It feels BAD to be discriminated against.
I think there are additional externalities that need to be considered. For example, some of these discriminatory policies are going to cause strife, hate, and resentment, etc. in the people who need to be discriminated against. I think there may be unintended consequences that we're only beginning to see.
Discrimination causes problems that can take a long time to emerge and a long time to address. We're STILL seeing the effects of this on many minority groups - but the solution IMO isn't to do it all over again.
It feels BAD to be discriminated against.
All of which is deeply immoral. Racism is bad mmkay? Hard to believe this is still controversial.
You're not wrong if you align with categorical imperative views on ethics. If however you see the scaled utilitarianist perspective (disentrenching systemic -isms and gaining more equality), then perhaps you'll conclude it is a more muddy landscape than simply "immoral". FWIW, I don't disagree with you. Consider it's not as simple as we want it to be.
I’ve learned most people tend to have different intuitions on giving vs. taking, even when arithmetically they are equivalent. It depends if the narrative is zero or positive-sum.
If people perceive that some groups are getting extra at the expense of others then that is seen as wrong, but if those in need are given communal surplus that is seen as just. In the circumstances of historical injustice you have competing claims that overlap depending upon which details are in focus.
If people perceive that some groups are getting extra at the expense of others then that is seen as wrong, but if those in need are given communal surplus that is seen as just. In the circumstances of historical injustice you have competing claims that overlap depending upon which details are in focus.
>Yes. Not to mince words, as others frequently do, but that's basically what's happening.
Any data to show this is happening? From what I have seen, the primary benefactors of diversity initiatives come from the upper crusts of society(mostly upperclass white women, white lgbt, and some asian sprinkled in).
I have yet to see a diversity report that bins by intersections instead of broad categories. There's a reason for it.
Any data to show this is happening? From what I have seen, the primary benefactors of diversity initiatives come from the upper crusts of society(mostly upperclass white women, white lgbt, and some asian sprinkled in).
I have yet to see a diversity report that bins by intersections instead of broad categories. There's a reason for it.
> And merit is transferred down the generations. Privilege begets privilege. Etc. This is the issue that we are rightfully trying to counter.
As a migrant from dirt poor family from ex-Soviet Republic, I seem to forgot to collect my generational merit, where and when can I do that? And can I add it to my own merit?
As a migrant from dirt poor family from ex-Soviet Republic, I seem to forgot to collect my generational merit, where and when can I do that? And can I add it to my own merit?
Are you going to complain when other people seize power and run the same game against your side, or will you say well played?
Rather than fight to make the system equal and fair, you favour tilting it in your direction assuming it will never tilt the other way?
Rather than fight to make the system equal and fair, you favour tilting it in your direction assuming it will never tilt the other way?
Had to scroll down too far to see this comment, HN being HN I guess.
People shit on meritocracy until the planes start falling out of the sky and we're murdering sparrows for being capitalist saboteurs.
I'm guessing that the Boeing fiasco was because they were trying to meet quotas, then /s
Like the Boeing 737 MAX?
[deleted]
It can be a bad thing and still the best option you got, a lesser of two evils. I don't think anybody should lose out on a opportunity because some minority quota needs to be filled, but I also don't think minorities and discriminated groups should live in a perpetual self-reinforcing unhirability loop either.
Is there any evidence at all that women or minorities are in "unhirability loops"? Something like 80% of the managers I've had in my career have been Indians, and the majority of them were women. Every company I've worked at has many Indian employees, and I strongly suspect the male/female ratio was at least at parity with the hiring pipeline.
Moreover, if one woman was discriminated against, you can't make up for it by hiring a different woman in some other job because humans aren't fungible.
Moreover, if one woman was discriminated against, you can't make up for it by hiring a different woman in some other job because humans aren't fungible.
Yes, for example even after decades of saying there should be more women and minority people on corporate boards, it's all still dominated by white men.
California brought in a law banning all male boards in 2018 because the problem is so endemic. Not 1988, 2018.
A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.[1]
So this is still happening now, and for decades most boards just had a token woman at best.
For me personally, when I found out about how unrepresentative corporate boardrooms were, that changed my mind about positive discrimination.
It showed me clear evidence that network effects were too strong, meritocracy is a farce and it had to be broken by forcing a cultural change, i.e. positive discrimination was the right solution.
If you go back far enough in my comment history here you'll probably find me arguing against it. But I learnt about the persistent gender and minority inequality on boards a decade or two ago and changed my mind.
You should too.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/california-requi...
California brought in a law banning all male boards in 2018 because the problem is so endemic. Not 1988, 2018.
A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.[1]
So this is still happening now, and for decades most boards just had a token woman at best.
For me personally, when I found out about how unrepresentative corporate boardrooms were, that changed my mind about positive discrimination.
It showed me clear evidence that network effects were too strong, meritocracy is a farce and it had to be broken by forcing a cultural change, i.e. positive discrimination was the right solution.
If you go back far enough in my comment history here you'll probably find me arguing against it. But I learnt about the persistent gender and minority inequality on boards a decade or two ago and changed my mind.
You should too.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/california-requi...
The average age of a corporate board member is ~60. If they joined the workforce at 22, it would have been in 1984. That makes it a very poor measure of present-day discrimination, because it has up to a 40 year lag on top of whatever delay exists between legislation and effect. Also, this:
>A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.
is an arbitrarily defined measure (I expect intentionally to make things look worse) when we care about how many women hold board seats. In 2022, 29% of board seats are held by women. In 2018 it was something like 21%. Not at all good, but nearly double the 11% you'd get for a token woman on every board (assuming the average of 8.9 seats/board from Russell 3000).
>A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.
is an arbitrarily defined measure (I expect intentionally to make things look worse) when we care about how many women hold board seats. In 2022, 29% of board seats are held by women. In 2018 it was something like 21%. Not at all good, but nearly double the 11% you'd get for a token woman on every board (assuming the average of 8.9 seats/board from Russell 3000).
Personally, I'm pretty fatigued at people pointing to disparities as though the cause of the disparity is so obviously nefarious that they needn't even articulate it (as though it's some sort of self-evident truth). I think you'll have a better time persuading people (certainly me) if you make the case that the boardroom gender disparity is caused by discrimination (rather than, for example, differing priorities between men and women in aggregate) or perhaps why (irrespective of discrimination) gender parity in the boardroom is such a significant social benefit that it justifies "positive discrimination".
What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? Doesn't that Peter-Principle them right out of the gate? Are we sure that this leads to better long term outcomes?
> What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate?
If a person making hiring decisions says that the next candidate for such-and-such role should be a person from such-and-such group (a woman, a person of color, etc.), then the criterion of being the better candidate doesn't apply. Or, rather, it gets adjusted such that belonging in the desired group is included in the list of what makes a candidate better.
If a person making hiring decisions says that the next candidate for such-and-such role should be a person from such-and-such group (a woman, a person of color, etc.), then the criterion of being the better candidate doesn't apply. Or, rather, it gets adjusted such that belonging in the desired group is included in the list of what makes a candidate better.
That is in interesting way to define "better candidate" being that it does not tie to the bottom line except unless there are explicit business incentives to discriminate.
> it does not tie to the bottom line
I completely agree with you, which is what makes all these recent trends in hiring all the more fascinating to me. If the only concern of a company were the bottom line (which I would expect it should be), then there wouldn't have been any conversation about marginalised groups etc., because, for companies, a candidate's demographics would have been irrelevant. The only thing that would have mattered is which candidate is expected to be the best fit for a given position. That it doesn't work like that suggests that companies are also political creatures, and are concerned about their public image and, possibly, about things like ESG scores. It may even be that the public image and things like ESG scores are a strong contributor to the bottom line.
I completely agree with you, which is what makes all these recent trends in hiring all the more fascinating to me. If the only concern of a company were the bottom line (which I would expect it should be), then there wouldn't have been any conversation about marginalised groups etc., because, for companies, a candidate's demographics would have been irrelevant. The only thing that would have mattered is which candidate is expected to be the best fit for a given position. That it doesn't work like that suggests that companies are also political creatures, and are concerned about their public image and, possibly, about things like ESG scores. It may even be that the public image and things like ESG scores are a strong contributor to the bottom line.
[deleted]
I am always amazed by this assumption that firms hire "the better candidate", absent DEI initiatives or such.
In reality, people often hire the one they like best - which often tends to naturally be someone who resembles themselves.
Not to mention, very very few companies and positions within those companies operate at a level where they will succeed or fail based on whether they have the best possible candidate. For the vast majority of jobs, a candidate has to be adequate, and you can easily find 10 adequate candidates for every position you want to fill.
It's just like hiring the best street sweeper in the world is not going to significantly impact your bottom line - most CRUD jobs aren't too different from that.
In reality, people often hire the one they like best - which often tends to naturally be someone who resembles themselves.
Not to mention, very very few companies and positions within those companies operate at a level where they will succeed or fail based on whether they have the best possible candidate. For the vast majority of jobs, a candidate has to be adequate, and you can easily find 10 adequate candidates for every position you want to fill.
It's just like hiring the best street sweeper in the world is not going to significantly impact your bottom line - most CRUD jobs aren't too different from that.
That really depends on the industry. If your idea of tech is web apps and mobile apps, then yeah, most candidates would do the job.
If you're working on cutting edge technology, then finding ten adequate candidates is actually pretty tricky, because by definition the applicant pool is very small. Doubly so for fields that have high demand compared to the supply.
If you're working on cutting edge technology, then finding ten adequate candidates is actually pretty tricky, because by definition the applicant pool is very small. Doubly so for fields that have high demand compared to the supply.
Sure, and I have been in both positions.
But the reality is that the vast majority of tech jobs are in the first category. There are far more people building web sites than kernel network stack hackers.
But the reality is that the vast majority of tech jobs are in the first category. There are far more people building web sites than kernel network stack hackers.
Specifically in software, hiring is still not particularly objective, despite a decade+ of trying now. We still aren’t good at making truly objective interviews - it’s really hard, I’ve been involved in hiring at many companies and it’s just not an exact science.
Ironically, the most objective hiring practices are the most hated(including by me) - lowest-common-denominator leetcode style formulaic questions with defined answers with little interpretation required by the interviewer
Some leftists support “corrective discrimination”, as they are not interested in equality of opportunity but instead equality of outcome.
Very specifically, I think they're interested in achieving parity between races, genders etc, and in their eyes, a totally valid approach is to give already privileged women, minorities etc even more privilege or to further disenfranchise already underprivileged whites, men, etc. Humans are merely fungible tokens of their identity categories. Identity groups are all-important; the individuals who comprise them are expendable. At least this is the impression one gets when looking at their rhetoric and the policies they advocate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
People that are for race based hiring generally consider Indian and Asian people to be overrepresented in tech so they’re not considered minorities.
[deleted]
Indians not getting hired by global tech companies isn’t a global problem and women not joining tech isn’t usually for lack of hiring policies. That starts way before in University or even high school.
what global problem? I think the way to fix a problem is to discriminate individuals just becaise we wish the composition of hires is different.
[deleted]
Discrimination is discrimination
Some people are running a marathon, half way through it is discovered half of them had been given weighted shoes that made them run significantly slower. The organizers and racers agree this is wrong and unfair, and so they make sure everyone has correct shoes for the rest of the race. Yet those half of the racers that had weighted shoes are several miles behind the rest. What would you suggest be done?
Imagine shoe weight is first randomized among all racers. Then, a second round of additional random weight is given to one half of the runners. Now, the problem is individualist vs collectivist.
From a collectivist view, adding a time penalty that corresponds to which half the runner was in looks good.
From an individualist view, they note some runners who didn’t receive extra weight still got a debilitating amount of weight from the first distribution. They note that some of the extra-weight runners are actually positioned well at the front. Accordingly, their mind reels at the idea of a time penalty applied based on which half the runner was in. “How is it first group runner’s fault that someone else added weight to the second group?” they wonder.
I do understand the individualist objections, but I also don’t accept that doing nothing is the most fair approach.
From a collectivist view, adding a time penalty that corresponds to which half the runner was in looks good.
From an individualist view, they note some runners who didn’t receive extra weight still got a debilitating amount of weight from the first distribution. They note that some of the extra-weight runners are actually positioned well at the front. Accordingly, their mind reels at the idea of a time penalty applied based on which half the runner was in. “How is it first group runner’s fault that someone else added weight to the second group?” they wonder.
I do understand the individualist objections, but I also don’t accept that doing nothing is the most fair approach.
Okay, let's play the silly analogies game.
Some people from group A enjoy running and can run fast, therefore join marathons and are good at it.
Some people from group B enjoy playing table tennis and have great reflexes, therefore join table tennis tournaments and are good at it.
Some other people realise that marathons have way more A people than B people, and since marathons are prestigious they force equal ratio of A/B people in marathons, effectively reducing the overall quality of marathons and keeping A people (who would thrive) out of them.
Everyone is unhappy, except the ones who forced the outcome and the ones who got into the prestigious sport without deserving it.
Some people from group A enjoy running and can run fast, therefore join marathons and are good at it.
Some people from group B enjoy playing table tennis and have great reflexes, therefore join table tennis tournaments and are good at it.
Some other people realise that marathons have way more A people than B people, and since marathons are prestigious they force equal ratio of A/B people in marathons, effectively reducing the overall quality of marathons and keeping A people (who would thrive) out of them.
Everyone is unhappy, except the ones who forced the outcome and the ones who got into the prestigious sport without deserving it.
What if some people that would usually be in the group that enjoy playing table tennis realize they actually want to run a marathon and they find out that most marathon gear is only built to help group A run better? What if there were shops that sold marathon gear but there is limited supply and since 9 out of 10 customers are group A people then those few group B that would like to buy the gear cannot because it's always sold out? What if I specifically started selling gear saying that 50% of it was reserved for group B to help them participate in marathon and that I cannot sell it to group A people? That's clearly discrimination, isn't it? And yet...
The problem is that there's so many variables in this equation that it can't simply be resolved in a simple "racism bad" or "discrimination bad" and "if they really wanted to they could but in reality they don't want to". It's a bit more complicated than that.
The problem is that there's so many variables in this equation that it can't simply be resolved in a simple "racism bad" or "discrimination bad" and "if they really wanted to they could but in reality they don't want to". It's a bit more complicated than that.
[deleted]
Getting ‘into’ the sport is not the measure of merit. It’s an imperfect filter meant to manage the finite space available and to select people who are even actually able to finish the race.
I can’t count how many Ivy League classmates I knew who thought simply being admitted was the end game that proved they were superior. Cheating was rampant. 5.0 weighted GPA perfect SAT Eagle Scouts dropped out.
People angry at the morality of an imperfect collectivist fix in favor of an imperfect collectivist filter are on grounds of curious firmness.
I can’t count how many Ivy League classmates I knew who thought simply being admitted was the end game that proved they were superior. Cheating was rampant. 5.0 weighted GPA perfect SAT Eagle Scouts dropped out.
People angry at the morality of an imperfect collectivist fix in favor of an imperfect collectivist filter are on grounds of curious firmness.
Bad analogy. That’s like suggesting we give racers in the next race an advantage because of what happened in the current race, which creates obvious unfair outcomes.
There is no next race, it’s an ongoing relay.
Different people living different lives is closer in analogy to different runners running different races, imo.
[deleted]
That's not what they are suggesting. That's what you came up with as a solution for the problem which they presented. You're arguing against your own conclusion.
The implication is obvious from the context of the discussion. Don’t be disingenuous.
The implication might be obvious because that might be the most immediate solution to an evident problem. Just because the analogy works and you don't like the (obvious) solution it doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater in the process.
The marathon is infinitely long and we rank people on their positions every 5 miles.
[deleted]
Bad analogy. It’s already established that there are innate differences between males and females even shortly after birth, and that translates to different behavioral outcomes and career preferences.
Emphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those people.
There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid, since he was born with the wrong skin color.
Hmm, this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs. A child from a rich family, of whatever race, is far more likely to be able to attend the college of their (or their parents') choice, based on a wide array of factors. This is mitigated somewhat by federal and institutional need-based and merit-based aid, but I don't think it's really supportable to say that it's exacerbated by affirmative action. If your concern really is that poor students aren't able to access as many opportunities as wealthy students, you should be some flavor of socialist, as under capitalism, wealth inherently comes with more opportunity.
In clearer words: I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
In clearer words: I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/15/asian-ameri...
https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/affirmative-action-hurts-asian...
How confident you are that you are not the ignorant one.
https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/affirmative-action-hurts-asian...
How confident you are that you are not the ignorant one.
I'm always open to being wrong, but I'm also pretty confident that you lack in reading comprehension skills. The argument GP was making was about affirmative action being a net negative for impoverished students, and this is, as far as I can tell, utterly irrelevant to that argument.
They accused the other poster of making up the situation in which asian students are unfairly disadvantaged.
drives a semi through the weasel wording of 'other factors'
One wonders if slaves had other factors too.
drives a semi through the weasel wording of 'other factors'
One wonders if slaves had other factors too.
Most of the words in the comment I replied to were dedicated to describing the economic status of the hypothetical people involved, and I think I did a good job of making it clear that that's what I was responding to.
> One wonders if slaves had other factors too.
This strikes me as deeply irrelevant and a major rhetorical escalation. My argument was that it's unreasonable to link economic discrimination and racial affirmative action.
> One wonders if slaves had other factors too.
This strikes me as deeply irrelevant and a major rhetorical escalation. My argument was that it's unreasonable to link economic discrimination and racial affirmative action.
You opened your post with the following quote:
> this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs.
I then pointed out we have statistics showing affirmative action unfairly disadvantages Asians and that the supreme court is going to hear arguments about it.
"but but ... I was talking about ECONOMIC discrimination!".
No, you're just a fan of weasel words.
What you were trying to imply with your comment about "other factors" is that these asian students have less soft skills than other ethnicities (I know because this is a common defense). Apparently citing standardized test scoring as a reason for accepting less black applicants is racist, but citing soft skills as a reason for accepting less asian students isn't.
discrimination for me, but not for thee?
> this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs.
I then pointed out we have statistics showing affirmative action unfairly disadvantages Asians and that the supreme court is going to hear arguments about it.
"but but ... I was talking about ECONOMIC discrimination!".
No, you're just a fan of weasel words.
What you were trying to imply with your comment about "other factors" is that these asian students have less soft skills than other ethnicities (I know because this is a common defense). Apparently citing standardized test scoring as a reason for accepting less black applicants is racist, but citing soft skills as a reason for accepting less asian students isn't.
discrimination for me, but not for thee?
I see your point, and I apologize for not being as clear as I could have been. I do still think that "this could make a poor, hardworking Asian kid not get a college position because of a rich Black kid" is a very bad criticism; it conflates some very emotionally resonant topics in a way that isn't justifiable. I also think that this conflation was done for ideological reasons.
I do want to respond to this, though:
> What you were trying to imply with your comment about "other factors" is that these asian students have less soft skills than other ethnicities
No, I wasn't. By other factors I meant the other things the GP brought up: economics (" born in poverty"), being 'weird' or just not fitting in (which I felt was implied by "got bullied in school"), and nationality ("a rich black American kid" implies, at least to me, that our hypothetical Asian student isn't American). All of these have significant impacts in school admissions, especially nationality, which can make prospective students ineligible for some kinds of aid.
I do want to respond to this, though:
> What you were trying to imply with your comment about "other factors" is that these asian students have less soft skills than other ethnicities
No, I wasn't. By other factors I meant the other things the GP brought up: economics (" born in poverty"), being 'weird' or just not fitting in (which I felt was implied by "got bullied in school"), and nationality ("a rich black American kid" implies, at least to me, that our hypothetical Asian student isn't American). All of these have significant impacts in school admissions, especially nationality, which can make prospective students ineligible for some kinds of aid.
> a rich black American kid" implies, at least to me, that our hypothetical Asian student isn't American
blink
blink
Well, why call that out in a hypothetical if it's not a difference? If GP had called out the hypothetical Asian student's height or weight or video game preference but not the hypothetical black student's, I would have assumed that was significantly different as well.
[deleted]
> I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
> Arcidiacono shows that, after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvar...
So we know for a fact that Asians received lower "personality" scores than blacks and hispanics, as a racial group and regardless of their financial status, and these lower "personality" scores were used as a basis to reject Asians and accept black and hispanic candidates.
TL;DR we know for a fact this exact thing is happening.
> Arcidiacono shows that, after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvar...
So we know for a fact that Asians received lower "personality" scores than blacks and hispanics, as a racial group and regardless of their financial status, and these lower "personality" scores were used as a basis to reject Asians and accept black and hispanic candidates.
TL;DR we know for a fact this exact thing is happening.
Yeah, that sounds like racial discrimination against Asian students! You'll note that I did not say there was no such thing as racial discrimination against Asian students, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.
So we know there is racial discrimination against Asians based on their race, and in favor of blacks and hispanics. Yet when I cited an example of an Asian kid getting rejected in favor of a black kid, you claimed I invented it. When you now admit we know it is happening.
At no point did I say that wasn't happening. I was responding to your comment about economic factors. Did I misunderstand your original comment? You said:
> I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid
Is this not about the interaction between economic status and race in the context of affirmative action?
> I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid
Is this not about the interaction between economic status and race in the context of affirmative action?
> In clearer words: I think you made this situation up
> At no point did I say that wasn't happening.
So it is happening, yet "I made it up"? It is both real and made up, at the same time?
> At no point did I say that wasn't happening.
So it is happening, yet "I made it up"? It is both real and made up, at the same time?
[deleted]
You made up the relationship between economic status and race in this particular situation in order to strike an emotional chord. No?
They pointed out blacks can have money and non-blacks can be poor.
> Emphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those people.
This is your personal opinion.
> There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
This rests on sharing the former assumption. Hence, not necessarily dishonest or ignorant.
Or if you want to maintain it: Want to lay out that difference for those of us who are (in your opinion) ignorant? Because I don't see it.
This is your personal opinion.
> There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
This rests on sharing the former assumption. Hence, not necessarily dishonest or ignorant.
Or if you want to maintain it: Want to lay out that difference for those of us who are (in your opinion) ignorant? Because I don't see it.
I think it's inherent. One is a countervailing force against an historical wrong, with good intentions. The other is deliberately malicious, serves no benefit (not even an imagined one), and is a direct historical connection to widespread human suffering.
To ignore all of that context and to treat them as exactly equivalent is reduction to absurdity, to the point where debate involving in any matter of subtlety is impossible, from my perspective.
Furthermore, I would encourage you to state the equivalent case on your side. Why should I ignore all context and subtlety, and treat the two scenarios as morally equivalent?
To ignore all of that context and to treat them as exactly equivalent is reduction to absurdity, to the point where debate involving in any matter of subtlety is impossible, from my perspective.
Furthermore, I would encourage you to state the equivalent case on your side. Why should I ignore all context and subtlety, and treat the two scenarios as morally equivalent?
I'm not saying you should. You are entitled to your moral framework. My point is that others can have honest and well-intentioned conclusions that differ from yours.
You are not in a position to impose it on the rest of us.
See some of the comments of human fungibility and realize that it may be a matter of perspective and that neither of you really are "wrong", "right", "good", "bad" or have an objectively higher ground.
You are not in a position to impose it on the rest of us.
See some of the comments of human fungibility and realize that it may be a matter of perspective and that neither of you really are "wrong", "right", "good", "bad" or have an objectively higher ground.
[deleted]
Because some societal imbalances are stuck in a local minimum, and it requires some artificial pressures to get out of it. The goal is to improve opportunities for groups that historically had less of them. Manually adjusting the workforce demographics is one of the tools to nudge things towards the goal, to help shift attitudes and education. It's not perfect, but it's not like market forces are going to do it.
You can’t fix racism/sexism by being racist/sexist.
Do you have sources for this? Because from what I’ve read affirmative action has been huge in giving that initial boost for creation of more generational wealth.
I mean affirmative action for white people is effectively why white people are so ahead in this country (red lining)
I mean affirmative action for white people is effectively why white people are so ahead in this country (red lining)
That’s not how citations work. Can’t prove a negative. It’s on YOU to provide proof because you’re the one making the assertion that future racial discrimination fixes past injustice (which I wholeheartedly disagree with).
Make a powerful assertion against the tide of conversation then demand academic level sources without trying to convince anyone of your own position.
There is a term for people like you and out rhymes with "scroll".
No one is obliged to engage in your attempted argument nor to do more work than you're willing to put into the conversation.
There is a term for people like you and out rhymes with "scroll".
No one is obliged to engage in your attempted argument nor to do more work than you're willing to put into the conversation.
I’m sincere. Engaging in racial discrimination does not fix racism. It perpetuates it.
It blows my mind that I have to state this in the current year. We have regressed so far.
It blows my mind that I have to state this in the current year. We have regressed so far.
It blows my mind we can enslave, murder, ostracize an entire people and culture for hundreds of years and think "alright we're good" will fix it all.
It isn't a simple problem, there is no one simple solution, but saying "never provide any extra help in education nor acknowledge systemic issues in criminal justice and housing" is pretty shallow.
Of course, being an actual social democracy would get us really far, but poor conservative white people can't imagine a better life for themselves and poor black people. Effective government is evil to them.
It isn't a simple problem, there is no one simple solution, but saying "never provide any extra help in education nor acknowledge systemic issues in criminal justice and housing" is pretty shallow.
Of course, being an actual social democracy would get us really far, but poor conservative white people can't imagine a better life for themselves and poor black people. Effective government is evil to them.
That is twisted logic to justify racist behavior.
I agree it’s twisted to think we can solve racism without addressing our history.
There is a logical argument that if you do A, and the problem is doing A, then doing more of A will not fix it. So no need to have sources.
The University of South Florida has this to say about affirmative action and how it isn’t the same as discrimination rooted in prejudice: https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-...
While 'reverse discrimination' can end up being a concern, the societal reason for it's use is to correct for past legal or defacto discrimination that may have become structural.
Discrimination can have long-lasting or multi-generational effects that can persist. Men may consciously or subconsciously prefer other men, calling it "culture fit". Today's minorities may not have the same wealth distribution, which allows for greater risk taking, due to historical redlining and discrimination for jobs.
So 'reverse discrimination', when applied correctly, can help to break those structural inequities.
Discrimination can have long-lasting or multi-generational effects that can persist. Men may consciously or subconsciously prefer other men, calling it "culture fit". Today's minorities may not have the same wealth distribution, which allows for greater risk taking, due to historical redlining and discrimination for jobs.
So 'reverse discrimination', when applied correctly, can help to break those structural inequities.
> So 'reverse discrimination', when applied correctly, can help to break those structural inequities.
Can the irish apply to get priviliges? Or is the only factor here the persons skin color?
Can the irish apply to get priviliges? Or is the only factor here the persons skin color?
Also the Jewish and Italians, because they were discriminated against similarly at the time.
Some major US schools did have affirmative action for Jews for a time to offset their prior policies that banned Jews from attending. Jewish students are now not statistically at any disadvantage compared to the average, so such programs aren't necessary.
I'm Irish and am pretty sure I'm 'BAME'. The Poles definitely are. I don't know if Italians / Spanish are 'LatinX' or not.
We Latinos don't say LatinX
Nor does the US Latino community. Doesn't stop it being used.
But translating the DEI stuff from a US perspective to a European one is difficult. So as far as I concerned the Italians and Spanish are LatinX.
But translating the DEI stuff from a US perspective to a European one is difficult. So as far as I concerned the Italians and Spanish are LatinX.
[deleted]
It doesn't, but you can't discriminate against white men.
/s
/s
Folks, this is not difficult to understand unless you're deliberately being obtuse.
There's legal and illegal discrimination.
Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people.
When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.
Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.
There's legal and illegal discrimination.
Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people.
When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.
Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.
Many don’t even acknowledge that their policies are discriminatory.
But it’s still a good argument to point out that discriminatory diversity policies are discriminatory. Because that forces those that advocate for them to lay out their justifications and also at what point the policy is no longer needed.
I’m not against affirmative action where it makes sense, but it’s a heavy handed policy and as such needs very good justification and constant re-evaluation.
But it’s still a good argument to point out that discriminatory diversity policies are discriminatory. Because that forces those that advocate for them to lay out their justifications and also at what point the policy is no longer needed.
I’m not against affirmative action where it makes sense, but it’s a heavy handed policy and as such needs very good justification and constant re-evaluation.
Affirmative action is bigotry of low expectations by another name.
Imagine if I were a minority doctor who benefited from this, my patients will always wonder if I'm less-than. Nobody wants to go to a cardiologist that was bottom of their class, so why instill that doubt and call it a leg up?
Imagine if I were a minority doctor who benefited from this, my patients will always wonder if I'm less-than. Nobody wants to go to a cardiologist that was bottom of their class, so why instill that doubt and call it a leg up?
Sure, but it’s usually not like that though. All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard.
Like I said, this can be an overall good. For example, let’s say I run a small software shop where everybody is male. Now, it’s not likely that a woman would accept a job offer because of the environment. So if I were the boss I’d hold off on hiring until I can get three people at the same time and work hard to make all of them women, to the point I wouldn’t look at male applicants. After that the workplace would hopefully be more balanced and for the next hire gender wouldn’t matter.
Is this unfair towards the men applying? It absolutely is, and that’s why I would only consider this as a one-time thing for a clear and specific goal.
This is in the context of a small private company, I believe nationwide policies need specific goals and targets infinitely more.
Like I said, this can be an overall good. For example, let’s say I run a small software shop where everybody is male. Now, it’s not likely that a woman would accept a job offer because of the environment. So if I were the boss I’d hold off on hiring until I can get three people at the same time and work hard to make all of them women, to the point I wouldn’t look at male applicants. After that the workplace would hopefully be more balanced and for the next hire gender wouldn’t matter.
Is this unfair towards the men applying? It absolutely is, and that’s why I would only consider this as a one-time thing for a clear and specific goal.
This is in the context of a small private company, I believe nationwide policies need specific goals and targets infinitely more.
> All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard
Be that as it may, a reasonable person given the choice will not want the least of the smart people working on their heart. This is a scenario where someone can be the smartest person in all racial categories but the stigma will still exist because race X is known to be favored over race Y for reasons not pertaining to skill, merit, or knowledge.
Be that as it may, a reasonable person given the choice will not want the least of the smart people working on their heart. This is a scenario where someone can be the smartest person in all racial categories but the stigma will still exist because race X is known to be favored over race Y for reasons not pertaining to skill, merit, or knowledge.
Nha I would look at the doctor and think , word for word, “good shit nigga” [Note I am black :)]
Affirmative action is heavy handed when it involves hard quotas. There's nothing wrong with an affirmative action policy that sets a goal to be more inclusive by reaching out to other groups yet does not require limits strictly on the basis of skin color.
How about just taking the best candidate, and be done with it?
I live in a former socialist state, and a combination of grades and standardized testing is calculated into a score in that score determines if you get accepted to a college or not. Colleges have no idea who you are, until you get an e-mail that you're accepted and come to sign in.
I live in a former socialist state, and a combination of grades and standardized testing is calculated into a score in that score determines if you get accepted to a college or not. Colleges have no idea who you are, until you get an e-mail that you're accepted and come to sign in.
Good idea! It's just so crazy, it might work!
“Don’t you know we moved the goal posts?” Isn’t the argument you think it is
You seem to be confused. There is zero doubt that the two parents understand that one is legal and the other illegal, hence they are quite clearly discussing the topic from a moral standpoint.
Anyway, surely you don't think legal discrimination necessarily moral discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was perfectly legal.
Anyway, surely you don't think legal discrimination necessarily moral discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was perfectly legal.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is morally acceptable. Slavery was once perfectly legal, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong.
> When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.
What I'm hearing from you, dendriti, is that slavery wasn't wrong when it was legal.
That definitely seems a hot take in 2022.
What I'm hearing from you, dendriti, is that slavery wasn't wrong when it was legal.
That definitely seems a hot take in 2022.
[deleted]
you can discrimnate against anyone and you do it every day.
When you choose your gf you discriminated another girl that liked you.
When you choose another coffee brand also.
When you hire someone also.
Ppl who pay the cost should be able to choose.
Any solution forcing the party paying to choose what you would like them to choose without you paying the cost is, IMHO , plain wrong.
When you choose your gf you discriminated another girl that liked you.
When you choose another coffee brand also.
When you hire someone also.
Ppl who pay the cost should be able to choose.
Any solution forcing the party paying to choose what you would like them to choose without you paying the cost is, IMHO , plain wrong.
Discrimination at least in this case means attributing value to a person (seemingly) belonging to a certain group. The word you're describing is called choice.
When you choose something or someone you are assessing a value to it... that is the whole point.
You do not date X bc you prefer Y (higher value). You do it with everything... we do it. It is just how things are... that you choose one over the other makes the other the not chosen side of the thing. So yes, in some way you can see that as discrimination (even if we do not give it political meaning, it is still)
You do not date X bc you prefer Y (higher value). You do it with everything... we do it. It is just how things are... that you choose one over the other makes the other the not chosen side of the thing. So yes, in some way you can see that as discrimination (even if we do not give it political meaning, it is still)
As someone who's spent time in countries where discrimination is rampant, i can tell you my personal opinion that it is not different at all.
In fact, that is a dangerous trend in liberal America that needs to be debated on its merits (or lack thereof).
You can't FORCE these things by doing the exact thing you stand against.
In fact, that is a dangerous trend in liberal America that needs to be debated on its merits (or lack thereof).
You can't FORCE these things by doing the exact thing you stand against.
You naively believe that quotas come from a desire to end discrimination, when in fact it comes from the “it’s our turn” mentality. It’s not liberal at all.
Correct. It is shifting the discrimination somewhere else.
> How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Companies like reddit haven't been sued enough for it to sink in that this is discrimination yet.
Companies like reddit haven't been sued enough for it to sink in that this is discrimination yet.
> Companies like reddit haven't been sued enough for it to sink in that this is discrimination yet.
Assuming that courts would uphold that it is discrimination. Which, in today's climate, I am not even sure would happen.
Assuming that courts would uphold that it is discrimination. Which, in today's climate, I am not even sure would happen.
You’re assuming there is only one qualified person for a given position. And that the woman/minority is not that person. In most cases there are multiple qualified people.
Agreed. And if you make that decision between multiple qualified people based on sex or race, that's a problem.
Doesn’t. Gender/minority preference is radical liberalism, which in long run causes more damage than it helps. Germany requires company boards to include females too (could be executive positions, can’t recall exactly) yet market just doesn’t have enough supply for these positions.
Quit telling women that math or toy cars ain’t for them, instead of enforcing stupid rules
Quit telling women that math or toy cars ain’t for them, instead of enforcing stupid rules
My niece told my wife dinosaurs are for boys. She likes her pink disney junk very much. It's not the kid's fault.
Of course it’s not, that was my exact point - let kids decide.
Few things make me feel as gross about reading this website than all the whining about discrimination against white men.
Could you explain why?
Do you think white men aren’t being discriminated against? Do you think white men are being discriminated against and just don’t like seeing people talk about it? Or maybe some other reason?
Do you think white men aren’t being discriminated against? Do you think white men are being discriminated against and just don’t like seeing people talk about it? Or maybe some other reason?
Because we work in an industry and are posting on a website that is predominantly male and white. Any time even the smallest measures are taken to improve the balance there's just a bunch of whining about being discriminated against. It's as silly and unfounded as complaining how "foreigners are coming to take our jobs"
It's the same attitude that makes it hard to recruit women and people of color into the industry, they can just look at one of the most well known platforms for discussing the industry and see the rampant sexism and racism
It's the same attitude that makes it hard to recruit women and people of color into the industry, they can just look at one of the most well known platforms for discussing the industry and see the rampant sexism and racism
When people are victims of discrimination based on their race or sex they are likely to complain about it. The fact that some people believe the discrimination is justified is little solace to someone who is actually subject to said discrimination.
If that makes you feel gross then you’ll just have to deal with it I guess.
If that makes you feel gross then you’ll just have to deal with it I guess.
Yes, when a privileged group begins to face a more equitable situation they often feel discriminated against, it doesn't make it true. White men still have incredible advantages in this industry and the half hearted diversity initiatives in the industry haven't changed that at all.
Treating people differently on the basis of race or sex is discrimination.
Equity is explicitly about trying to force equality of outcome between different groups by discriminating against groups that have been deemed privileged and in favor of groups that have been deemed oppressed.
Equity is explicitly about trying to force equality of outcome between different groups by discriminating against groups that have been deemed privileged and in favor of groups that have been deemed oppressed.
If I help an elderly person across the street am I discriminating against the young?
Are VA hospitals discriminating against non-veterans?
If my neighbor's house is on fire is the fire department discriminating against me when they don't spray my house with water?
We make accomodations for people in society all the time, it doesn't mean we are discriminating against people who aren't part of that group.
Hiring practices in our industry have historically, and still do, overwhelmingly benefit white men. Making accomodations for other people to reduce that disparity is not discrimination. You STILL have the overwhelming advantage in the hiring process and are crying discrimination. It's absurd
Are VA hospitals discriminating against non-veterans?
If my neighbor's house is on fire is the fire department discriminating against me when they don't spray my house with water?
We make accomodations for people in society all the time, it doesn't mean we are discriminating against people who aren't part of that group.
Hiring practices in our industry have historically, and still do, overwhelmingly benefit white men. Making accomodations for other people to reduce that disparity is not discrimination. You STILL have the overwhelming advantage in the hiring process and are crying discrimination. It's absurd
There is a big difference (I think you know this) between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
Regardless of who benefits more currently (and may benefit in the future), creating new victims of discrimination is not a good solution, unless the problem is "how do we add more discrimination to the world?".
Equating the fact that some groups have benefits over others does little to help the individuals being discriminated against.
Regardless of who benefits more currently (and may benefit in the future), creating new victims of discrimination is not a good solution, unless the problem is "how do we add more discrimination to the world?".
Equating the fact that some groups have benefits over others does little to help the individuals being discriminated against.
> Making accomodations for other people to reduce that disparity is not discrimination.
Giving people different accommodations based on race or sex is discrimination no matter how many times you claim it is not.
> Hiring practices in our industry have historically, and still do, overwhelmingly benefit white men. […] You STILL have the overwhelming advantage in the hiring process and are crying discrimination. It's absurd
“Equity” as it is currently practiced is inherently unfair because it reduces everything down to race, sex, and other group identities and assumes that all white men are privileged while all women and non-white people are oppressed.
Under the current equity framework a black person who was born into a wealthy family with loving parents, attended expensive private schools, and never wanted for anything is “oppressed” and deserves to be given special accommodations, while a white person born into extreme poverty with drug-addicted, absent parents is assumed to be a privileged oppressor. That is absurd.
Giving people different accommodations based on race or sex is discrimination no matter how many times you claim it is not.
> Hiring practices in our industry have historically, and still do, overwhelmingly benefit white men. […] You STILL have the overwhelming advantage in the hiring process and are crying discrimination. It's absurd
“Equity” as it is currently practiced is inherently unfair because it reduces everything down to race, sex, and other group identities and assumes that all white men are privileged while all women and non-white people are oppressed.
Under the current equity framework a black person who was born into a wealthy family with loving parents, attended expensive private schools, and never wanted for anything is “oppressed” and deserves to be given special accommodations, while a white person born into extreme poverty with drug-addicted, absent parents is assumed to be a privileged oppressor. That is absurd.
The vast vast majority of interviewers and hiring managers in our industry are going to be white men. They will consciously or unconsciously tend to favor people like them, other white men, regardless of other factors due to human nature. Efforts to account for that are not discriminating against the white men, the discrimination is already happening to the people who aren't white men, accounting for that existing systematic discrimination is not reverse discrimination.
svnpenn(1)
Is this a question you will bring up every time discrimination is discussed ?
And does any answer to your question bring anything to what's described in the article or are you really expecting that we condone the discrimination against indian origin and women because of affirmative action also exists ?
And does any answer to your question bring anything to what's described in the article or are you really expecting that we condone the discrimination against indian origin and women because of affirmative action also exists ?
Wow - so Indian companies hires all Indians even in American offices. CEO gets caught on a hot mike saying they don't want to hire stupid Americans which forces said CEO to change hiring policy but they blunder it and tell HR not to hire Indian candidates which back fires.
Diversity is only for white people.
Look at the diversity on the board of Mitsubishi:
https://www.mitsubishicorp.com/jp/en/about/bmembers/
Look at the diversity on the board of Mitsubishi:
https://www.mitsubishicorp.com/jp/en/about/bmembers/
A Japanese company filled with mostly Japanese people in Japan - a country with 98% Japanese people. Who would've thunk it.
Japan's population is something like 98% Japanese ethnicity.
And you think racism has nothing to do with that being the case? Meaning why do you think a country as successful as Japan is not filled with a diversity of immigrants from other races?
I think it's no secret that Japan has a reputation for racism, and that you have it harder as an immigrant.
Still, the board of Mitsubishi is perfectly reflective of the Japanese population (ignoring the gender ratio, which isn't great but in line with the global average for boards of directors)
Still, the board of Mitsubishi is perfectly reflective of the Japanese population (ignoring the gender ratio, which isn't great but in line with the global average for boards of directors)
It's a self fulfilling prophecy, you apply to Mitsubishi or any other company as an immigrant and don't get picked and you tell your friends how hard it is so they don't apply either, and you leave the country instead of starting a family there.
> I think this article goes through a lot of micro-exercizes and micro-corrections and semantics to avoid the obvious conclusion that Japan is mostly honogenous, and to a far more degree than the US or a lot of European countries.
Ah yes, thank you HN comments.
Ah yes, thank you HN comments.
I mean I’ll take a stab at this:
https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company/leadership-and-governanc...
https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company/leadership-and-governanc...
Why? The full last row consists of women and asians.
Did you read the linked article?
she was asked by the Bengaluru-headquartered IT company to avoid hiring people of Indian origin
This is a claim by a fired former VP.
she was asked by the Bengaluru-headquartered IT company to avoid hiring people of Indian origin
This is a claim by a fired former VP.
Wow you are right he did say that. Had to google it to confirm. How is that not racist? And why is racism so prevalent among indians?
Don't get ahead of yourself there. Racial preferences are very common around the world. It becomes part of self-worth to value one's cohort above those that are seen as opressive. Such as the ubiquitous western culture in media.
Anyway, the melting pot of the USA has created a dialog about race that may be missing or very small elsewhere. Witness the apparent race-tone-deaf attitudes in Japanese mainstream, where being Japanese is so obviously superior to everyone else its baked into plots and dialog without apparently even noticing.
Anyway, the melting pot of the USA has created a dialog about race that may be missing or very small elsewhere. Witness the apparent race-tone-deaf attitudes in Japanese mainstream, where being Japanese is so obviously superior to everyone else its baked into plots and dialog without apparently even noticing.
Japan is 98% ethnically homogenous, with the remaining 2% primarily consisting of Koreans and Chinese. I don't see why Japan would have any need for a discussion on 'race'.
Japan is 98% ethnically homogeneous in part because of an immigration system that keeps foreigners from immigrating for work and in part because of lots of systemic racism - different from that in, say, the US, but still systemic - in Japanese society. It's not magic or an accident of history, it's due to social factors.
>because of an immigration system that keeps foreigners from immigrating for work
Okay so let me dispel this myth. I don't know when it started, how, and where, but Japan is not that hard to immigrate into if you have a job or are a student enrolled in a Japanese school. The biggest issue is probably the language and the fact that most jobs are in Japanese, but if you speak Japanese (or can find an English-speaking job) then it's not that hard to immigrate into Japan. Work visas are pretty easy to obtain. Permanent residency is relatively easy to obtain too, and even better, citizenship is even easier to obtain (although you have to renounce your former citizenship). With that in mind, the US are objectively harder to immigrate into compared to Japan, on paper at least.
Which brings me to...
>and in part because of lots of systemic racism
I think the main issue of Japan is just cultural and the language itself. A lot of what can come across as racism is just a misunderstanding of societal expectations and behavior. Language barriers are really hard to overcome and Japanese is one of the hardest language to learn if you come from an English speaking background (or most European languages, really). The fact that most people in Japan don't speak English well, and that they are a culture that is significantly different from a lot of the west doesn't help.
And yes, there is still quite a bit of sexism and racism (although I'd argue the latter is more from a position of "unknown" rather than actual hatred/disdain). Stuff is improving fortunately, but it takes time.
This said, I don't think racism and xenophobia as a whole, or the country's own immigration policies, are what are keeping Japan so non-diverse.
source: Live and work in Japan, speak Japanese. This is obviously just my opinion.
Okay so let me dispel this myth. I don't know when it started, how, and where, but Japan is not that hard to immigrate into if you have a job or are a student enrolled in a Japanese school. The biggest issue is probably the language and the fact that most jobs are in Japanese, but if you speak Japanese (or can find an English-speaking job) then it's not that hard to immigrate into Japan. Work visas are pretty easy to obtain. Permanent residency is relatively easy to obtain too, and even better, citizenship is even easier to obtain (although you have to renounce your former citizenship). With that in mind, the US are objectively harder to immigrate into compared to Japan, on paper at least.
Which brings me to...
>and in part because of lots of systemic racism
I think the main issue of Japan is just cultural and the language itself. A lot of what can come across as racism is just a misunderstanding of societal expectations and behavior. Language barriers are really hard to overcome and Japanese is one of the hardest language to learn if you come from an English speaking background (or most European languages, really). The fact that most people in Japan don't speak English well, and that they are a culture that is significantly different from a lot of the west doesn't help.
And yes, there is still quite a bit of sexism and racism (although I'd argue the latter is more from a position of "unknown" rather than actual hatred/disdain). Stuff is improving fortunately, but it takes time.
This said, I don't think racism and xenophobia as a whole, or the country's own immigration policies, are what are keeping Japan so non-diverse.
source: Live and work in Japan, speak Japanese. This is obviously just my opinion.
That’s not an accident.
Although I don’t think any country should be obligated to take in foreigners if their situation doesn’t warrant it (such as being a small island nation).
Although I don’t think any country should be obligated to take in foreigners if their situation doesn’t warrant it (such as being a small island nation).
So they just continue with laughable racist movies and media, and get a pass? Ok, whatever.
Or do you mean, it makes sense that they are the way they are? I agree.
Or do you mean, it makes sense that they are the way they are? I agree.
I think what op meant to say is if there is little diversity then naturally there would be no debate. But indeed i agree they should at least stop making racist movies.
Boy do i hate race related debates. Why is race even relevant in this day and age? It’s all in our minds and it stems from primordial tribal thinking. Its like people from village A dislike people form village B because they will steal their women and hunt their game. Such basic instincts that we somehow havent moved beyond yet despite our tech progress.
Boy do i hate race related debates. Why is race even relevant in this day and age? It’s all in our minds and it stems from primordial tribal thinking. Its like people from village A dislike people form village B because they will steal their women and hunt their game. Such basic instincts that we somehow havent moved beyond yet despite our tech progress.
Agreed. It makes a little more sense when thought of as really a 'culture debate', but that's just kicking the can down the road.
Interesting but i dont agree with any justification for racism. Be it against americans, indians, or others. Race has no place in any debate. We are what we are and we are all equal in that regard.
Nobody is justifying racism, just explaining identity politics that unconsciously makes us biased towards someone who shares similar values with us. It's more obvious in the USA as it is a multi-cultural country made of immigrants, who generally tend to feel insecure and thus tend to turn to their own community to feel more secure. Unfortunately this insecurity is often exploited by right-wing politicians and used by them to create an us-vs-them mentality that leads to things like racism and discrimination.
“It becomes part of self-worth to value one's cohort above those that are seen as opressive.”
Meaning that its ok to be racist against the race that is perceived as oppressive. I dont subscribe to that and it proves my point. There is a sense of “racial preference” and the justification is that comment above. I think an eye for an eye will make us all blind and it needs to stop. We really need to move beyond this nonsense.
Edit: I agree with your edited comment:
“Unfortunately this insecurity is often exploited by right-wing politicians and used by them to create an us-vs-them mentality that leads to things like racism and discrimination.”
But i dont agree that people should self segregate as that is another form of racism. This vicious circle needs to end.
However your comment also seems to prove my point. There is a sense of racism but it would seem to be defensive racism. Ie we stay away from them because they have something against us.
Am i correct in my understanding? Genuine question as i genuinely want to understand the topic.
Meaning that its ok to be racist against the race that is perceived as oppressive. I dont subscribe to that and it proves my point. There is a sense of “racial preference” and the justification is that comment above. I think an eye for an eye will make us all blind and it needs to stop. We really need to move beyond this nonsense.
Edit: I agree with your edited comment:
“Unfortunately this insecurity is often exploited by right-wing politicians and used by them to create an us-vs-them mentality that leads to things like racism and discrimination.”
But i dont agree that people should self segregate as that is another form of racism. This vicious circle needs to end.
However your comment also seems to prove my point. There is a sense of racism but it would seem to be defensive racism. Ie we stay away from them because they have something against us.
Am i correct in my understanding? Genuine question as i genuinely want to understand the topic.
Misrepresenting the point that was being made, to manufacture an objection.
It was a description of identity politics, made to clarify why attitudes are different in different places/peoples. Not some kind of policy suggestion.
It was a description of identity politics, made to clarify why attitudes are different in different places/peoples. Not some kind of policy suggestion.
I think i understand where the issue stems as there are a lot of defensive insinuations here. I am not misrepresenting. I am potentially misunderstanding. I can critique germany or america and there will be nowhere near this level of tension. I never looked down upon india or indians and i never considered india as a weak country. Thus i felt at liberty to critique. To me it appears tho that my comments are taken as insults instead of just the usual debates that country or culture X has wrong Y policy or view.
Educate me as i am listening. Clarify my misunderstandings so i can make better judgment next time.
Educate me as i am listening. Clarify my misunderstandings so i can make better judgment next time.
> But i dont agree that people should self segregate as that is another form of racism. This vicious circle needs to end.
Very true. I believe we are talking about the same thing - you are absolutely right that if we aren't self-aware of our biases, we can fall victim to our own prejudice against others (especially if we are exposed to right-wing propaganda). Unfortunately this can be a difficult thing to realise unless we are secure and at peace with ourselves (which is why right-wing politics always tries to keep society in a tense state, as their politics only work when people can't think rationally). Another issue is that people generally have social anxiety when trying to mingle with other cultures, and so they often take the easy way out of avoiding meeting people and expanding their social circle due to their personal inhibitions (let's face it, even though we are supposed to be social creatures, we humans have a tough time socialising and building relationship with others!). This is ofcourse detrimental to ourselves and our society.
Very true. I believe we are talking about the same thing - you are absolutely right that if we aren't self-aware of our biases, we can fall victim to our own prejudice against others (especially if we are exposed to right-wing propaganda). Unfortunately this can be a difficult thing to realise unless we are secure and at peace with ourselves (which is why right-wing politics always tries to keep society in a tense state, as their politics only work when people can't think rationally). Another issue is that people generally have social anxiety when trying to mingle with other cultures, and so they often take the easy way out of avoiding meeting people and expanding their social circle due to their personal inhibitions (let's face it, even though we are supposed to be social creatures, we humans have a tough time socialising and building relationship with others!). This is ofcourse detrimental to ourselves and our society.
From your comments history, it looks like you have strong feelings against India, which might be leading to a negative bias. But such favoritism is prevalent in all cultures to some extent.
Huh? Thats just slanderous and not based in fact. I have nothing against india. I dont like its policies but that doesnt mean i dont like india. Quite the contrary, if i didnt, i wouldnt care. I find it appalling how any time someone raises disagreement with that country’s policies they get attacked almost instantly.
> And why is racism so prevalent among indians?
This statement almost seems ironic...
This statement almost seems ironic...
Almost but its not. I’ve observed this behaviour in the brexit debate in the uk as well. I dont know if its the stockholm syndrome but some do very well enjoy racist remarks about other nationalities or “races”.
[deleted]
As an Indian woman that studied and worked for a bit in India, this is not surprising at all. When prepping for job placements in my University, we would sometimes practice answers to questions around why they should hire a woman who might just get married and leave the company for her kids. I remember the recruiter for a multinational company asking me this very question and 22-year old me desperately trying to convince her that I was not interested in having kids. I now understand that this is more tied to the country's culture than the companies themselves. If everyone around you can discuss this without blinking, it becomes normal to ask such questions I suppose.
I've been in the US for the last 7 years now and as a woman in my thirties, it's an incredible relief that nobody ever asks me my plans for kids and the like in my interviews! I know that my child-bearing age shouldn't be a factor, but thanks to my past experiences, I'm always wondering if the decisions behind the scenes are silently taking this into account.
Edit: my personal experiences may be different even from someone of the same gender/age/origin. Please consider this with a pinch of salt :)
I've been in the US for the last 7 years now and as a woman in my thirties, it's an incredible relief that nobody ever asks me my plans for kids and the like in my interviews! I know that my child-bearing age shouldn't be a factor, but thanks to my past experiences, I'm always wondering if the decisions behind the scenes are silently taking this into account.
Edit: my personal experiences may be different even from someone of the same gender/age/origin. Please consider this with a pinch of salt :)
From wired " So unless nature is working contrarily in South Asia, something about the culture of the Indian educational system and tech industry is more hospitable to women than the American one".
Seems directly opposite to what you state. That too 8 years ago. Too many fakes stories been peddled here.
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/silicon-valley-sexism/
Seems directly opposite to what you state. That too 8 years ago. Too many fakes stories been peddled here.
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/silicon-valley-sexism/
I am a bit sad to read some of the comments in this thread.
I’ve had the privilege to work with really high-functiong engineers, from many cultures, including Japan, India, Germany, Romania, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, Poland, Ireland, China, Israel, Iran, Viet Nam, UK, Spain, Italy, France, etc. Many were women. Most folks we worked with (of any gender) were parents, because we tended to work with experienced people.
That was mostly because the corporation I worked for, had high standards. They didn’t just throw money at people that looked good. They made sure that we hired the best (but they were cheap -relying on their reputation, so hiring was a pain).
As far as I know, they never outsourced to save money (my team was actually an “outsourced” team). They hired people that could do the work necessary.
I have come to realize that this was a real aberration. I am sad to know that. There were many frustrations in that company, but it was still a signal Honor to work there.
I wish folks the best, and hope that the tech industry can get past the problems that, I suspect, have actually been caused by all the money being made.
I’ve had the privilege to work with really high-functiong engineers, from many cultures, including Japan, India, Germany, Romania, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, Poland, Ireland, China, Israel, Iran, Viet Nam, UK, Spain, Italy, France, etc. Many were women. Most folks we worked with (of any gender) were parents, because we tended to work with experienced people.
That was mostly because the corporation I worked for, had high standards. They didn’t just throw money at people that looked good. They made sure that we hired the best (but they were cheap -relying on their reputation, so hiring was a pain).
As far as I know, they never outsourced to save money (my team was actually an “outsourced” team). They hired people that could do the work necessary.
I have come to realize that this was a real aberration. I am sad to know that. There were many frustrations in that company, but it was still a signal Honor to work there.
I wish folks the best, and hope that the tech industry can get past the problems that, I suspect, have actually been caused by all the money being made.
This entire comment section seems to have gone down the drain to Reddit-tier exchanges. People giving their own false commentary on broad topics just for the sake of it without even trying to understand contexts, this is totally not expected on HN.
Agreed! I’ve complained about this before recently on HN and was flagged for this.
Also, a lot of these accounts appear to be new accounts (less than 1 year tenure on HN), so most charitably they might be users who aren’t used to the norms on HN.
On a separate note, Dang can you please moderate this entire section? The dog whistles and mean spirited comments on here are insane.
Also, a lot of these accounts appear to be new accounts (less than 1 year tenure on HN), so most charitably they might be users who aren’t used to the norms on HN.
On a separate note, Dang can you please moderate this entire section? The dog whistles and mean spirited comments on here are insane.
Ironically, "dog whistle" has become a dog whistle for censorship. At least you didn't hide the intent.
The top comments as of 10:50AM ET are openly backing and rationalizing discriminatory hiring practices.
Compare that to the reaction to IBM pushing out over-50s: empathy and compassion.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19507447
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24471903
Compare that to the reaction to IBM pushing out over-50s: empathy and compassion.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19507447
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24471903
Same was happening during the pandemic and it was much worse even.
In all my years working in software, I have only had 2 colleagues with white hair. It is clear there are many older engineers out there that are having a hard time getting a job. Whatever is going on, it's clear there's a system in place to remove the older guys.
Then, breaking news: HR fucking sucks everywhere. That's the whole idea of HR in the first place. It's a legal shield for the company, it has nothing to do with improving people's lives.
All fucking HR surveys have the objective of removing unhappy employees and are not anonymous, talking to HR about a problem is another way in which unsatisfied employees get detected and kicked out of companies. HR fucking sucks.
Then, breaking news: HR fucking sucks everywhere. That's the whole idea of HR in the first place. It's a legal shield for the company, it has nothing to do with improving people's lives.
All fucking HR surveys have the objective of removing unhappy employees and are not anonymous, talking to HR about a problem is another way in which unsatisfied employees get detected and kicked out of companies. HR fucking sucks.
The solution could be to increase stress so that employees get white hair at an earlier phase of their lives.
I've done a lot of hiring for startups and I rarely (if ever) got resumes from older people. I just assumed the JS/Ruby tech stack I worked for the last decades isn't being learned by the older demographic.
Unfortunately not hiring married women with kids or asking women about their plan to have kids, not hiring older candidates or candidates with sick family members is a common practice in India. Glad that these evil companies are being called out in other parts of the world
I don't believe this at all. I see the exact opposite happening in my Indian company. They are encouraging women leaders so much. I am right now working with one who climbed 2 grades in 2-3 years (which normally would take several years), and she has an all female team now (which is discriminatory by the way). Her male Indian bosses encourage and support her so much, while my male managers treat me (a male) like shit most of the time.
Indian companies are required to give paid maternity leave of 26 weeks by the way.
https://www.startuphrtoolkit.com/maternity-leave-in-india/
Indian companies are required to give paid maternity leave of 26 weeks by the way.
https://www.startuphrtoolkit.com/maternity-leave-in-india/
I find it hard to believe that you live and work in India and don't believe this. It's literally everywhere, I'm glad your company isn't like that but even spending 15 minutes talking to someone working at an MNC will tell you that this is unfortunately common.
And India offering maternity leave does nothing to solve the prejudice against women by hiring managers.
And India offering maternity leave does nothing to solve the prejudice against women by hiring managers.
Glad to hear your company is a good employer. This is just a guess but is it an Indian tech company? Culture is changing for sure but what’s happening at tech companies doesn’t shows the full picture (though it is also true the other way around). I know several women who were asked about their plan to start family in their job interview. I was myself asked a few years back about my family background and I decided to hide that my father was ill.
The fact that India doesn’t have strong labor laws allows all this to happen. Many existing laws were created for factories and the way they are worded they exclude many present day industries. Also, this is all when considering white collar jobs. Blue collar jobs are just another level of misery.
Again, happy for you but there are people who have suffered because of these practices.
The fact that India doesn’t have strong labor laws allows all this to happen. Many existing laws were created for factories and the way they are worded they exclude many present day industries. Also, this is all when considering white collar jobs. Blue collar jobs are just another level of misery.
Again, happy for you but there are people who have suffered because of these practices.
This is a US lawsuit, filed by a non-Indian Infosys employee, against other non-Indian executives at their US office.
I know but there’s also a thing called company culture
Infosys is based in India and so naturally they get a lot of candidates of Indian origin. That is just how referrals work. May be they wanted to hire diverse candidates but the huge issue is the ask about not hiring women with children and people over 50. I wonder how common this is in the valley, particularly not hiring people over 50
I've had Infosys and TCS reach out to me, and when pressed for salary figures said the upper end was a half of my current salary, and this is in Australia. I'm not even on a particularly high salary, could have gotten a ~30% pay rise had I joined an industry I wasn't keen on...
Not convinced it isn't some sort of legal obligation thing to bring in cheap labour, or just preying on people who need a quick job to maintain their visa obligations. Offering {minimum_wage + 30%} for a software engineer with a few years of experience seems like an exercise in futility otherwise.
Not convinced it isn't some sort of legal obligation thing to bring in cheap labour, or just preying on people who need a quick job to maintain their visa obligations. Offering {minimum_wage + 30%} for a software engineer with a few years of experience seems like an exercise in futility otherwise.
> and candidates aged 50 or above.
Ageism is so bad they didn't even bother include the complete sentence in the headline.
My main 'career goal' at the moment is find an exit path out of software development. Nothing else really matters. Its now or never.
Ageism is so bad they didn't even bother include the complete sentence in the headline.
My main 'career goal' at the moment is find an exit path out of software development. Nothing else really matters. Its now or never.
an exit path is one where you earn enough from your career to obtain passive income and retire - preferably early enough to still have mental and physical strength left to do what you are passionate about, without having to worry about finances.
While that is a good path (the one I took BTW), an exit path could also mean transitioning to a different moderately-lucrative career. Or perhaps even the same career in a different business. I know quite a few people who avoid 90% of tech-industry BS by doing fairly basic kinds of automation and web stuff for other kinds of companies, local governments, or non-profits. They don't make anywhere near unicorn money, of course, but they're still well above median and generally seem happier than other people I know who are still in The Grind. If you already have some savings from those intense years, you can let them compound while the easier job takes care of current expenses.
What about federal jobs? The pay is definitely lower but it comes with amazing health insurance, you can stay for the rest of your career, move wherever you want, & they can’t really afford to be ageist—they don’t have enough candidates.
learn COBOL, lots of old contractors over here :)
there's a really short character limit for headlines on HN
This seems like a management fuck-up. It's kind of funny because indian outsourcing companies like Infosys, TCS, etc. have often been accused of hiring a disproportionately high percentage of South Asians and Indians within the United States. In fact, this same company named here (Infosys) has also been earlier accused of favouring asians and not hiring "stupid Americans" - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/india... ... Looks like Infy management wanted to fix this problem (or at least appear to do so) and add more diversity but fell foul of US laws by explicitly communicating their desires to HR.
In this particular case, Infy wanted to hire non-Indians for executive positions so that they can sign more deals.
I don't find this surprising - I remember that one case study often discussed in indian MBA courses showed that in a European country, indian-origin salespersons often performed worse than salespersons who are local citizens.
[deleted]
So, I have only my own limited, American, anecdotal experience, but I did work for Infosys for a little while, so I suppose I should share that here. We were a team of less than a dozen developers, and we had a woman, who as I recall was a mother, as one of our devs.
Not saying this means it didn't happen elsewhere in Infosys.
Not saying this means it didn't happen elsewhere in Infosys.
...forgot to say that the woman in question was Indian.
If all companies try to hire from the same small pool say women in tech. Don't they have to compete with each other? And therefore pay them more than others?
I have been wondering about this, but always too scared to ask it as it comes a cross as an attack. I assure you it's not an attack but a genuine question.
I have been wondering about this, but always too scared to ask it as it comes a cross as an attack. I assure you it's not an attack but a genuine question.
The pool is not of a fixed size, and there's no evidence of women being paid a premium to fulfil a quota.
Conversely, there's plenty of evidence of both individual and systematic discrimination against women candidates and women "thought leaders" in tech.
Conversely, there's plenty of evidence of both individual and systematic discrimination against women candidates and women "thought leaders" in tech.
Oh wow, really?
So the women in tech is a growing pool? Enough to stop companies paying premium to fulfil quotas?
"To stop" - sounds like you are quiet sure that they are paying females more. From experience - no, there is no bonus, companies I know have flat basic rates for juniors, and raises based on company situation/personal achievements (or lack of them).
No it’s that companies aren’t paying a premium to fulfill quotas in the first place. The “quota” hire is being paid the same salary that a “non-quota” hire would.
No. Unfortunately, one of the sad truth is that companies hire women because they can pay them less than their male counterpart. It's a fact that women earn less than men in almost all industries.
Seeing as how this article didn't even link to the court filing, here you go:
https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/10/04/prejean_infosys_complaint....
Excerpt:
> 85. After approximately a month, Plaintiff had a complete partner list and began taking meetings with partners regarding their hiring needs.
> 86. Consistently in these meeting with Plaintiff, partners talked openly about their hiring prejudices and discrimination preferences. 87. These illegal criteria were more important to partners than anything else. 88. Plaintiff consistently heard from at least a dozen partners, to her shock, that they preferred not to hire additional consultants of Indian national origin, that they wanted women without children at home, and candidates not approaching 50.
> 89. These preferences were open and notorious and seemed to be the company culture.
> 90. In each of her meetings Plaintiff apprised the partners that they were advancing illegal criteria and that she would not act on them.
> 91. Among the partners who endorsed illegal criteria were Defendants Kurtz and Albright, who expressly stated them to Plaintiff.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/10/04/prejean_infosys_complaint....
Excerpt:
> 85. After approximately a month, Plaintiff had a complete partner list and began taking meetings with partners regarding their hiring needs.
> 86. Consistently in these meeting with Plaintiff, partners talked openly about their hiring prejudices and discrimination preferences. 87. These illegal criteria were more important to partners than anything else. 88. Plaintiff consistently heard from at least a dozen partners, to her shock, that they preferred not to hire additional consultants of Indian national origin, that they wanted women without children at home, and candidates not approaching 50.
> 89. These preferences were open and notorious and seemed to be the company culture.
> 90. In each of her meetings Plaintiff apprised the partners that they were advancing illegal criteria and that she would not act on them.
> 91. Among the partners who endorsed illegal criteria were Defendants Kurtz and Albright, who expressly stated them to Plaintiff.
Wow, while this has been an open secret forever that HR recruiting for senior executives is highly "picky" going to racial lines, i found this hard to read.
Lets hope for a better future where ignorant hate like this doesn't exist as much as it does today. People deserve more than being judged on the basis of the circumstances of their birth.
Lets hope for a better future where ignorant hate like this doesn't exist as much as it does today. People deserve more than being judged on the basis of the circumstances of their birth.
Infosys stopped hiring Indians in US at least 2-3 years ago, may be before President Trump moved out. Al their job ads (in Indeed) would have this line: "U.S. citizens and those authorized to work in the U.S. are encouraged to apply. We are unable to sponsor at this time."
Example: https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=b8ca8d3db6e11c9e
Majority of those who need visa sponsorship are Indians & Chinese.
And this is not just Infosys. I have seen the same wording in job ads of many American companies.
My friend who worked in Infosys told me that they were so desperate to hire Americans that they conducted a job fair and if selected, they would give offer letter on the same day.
I am pretty sure Infosys did this because of all the negative media about them preferring to hire Indians in US causing Americans to loose jobs.
Example: https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=b8ca8d3db6e11c9e
Majority of those who need visa sponsorship are Indians & Chinese.
And this is not just Infosys. I have seen the same wording in job ads of many American companies.
My friend who worked in Infosys told me that they were so desperate to hire Americans that they conducted a job fair and if selected, they would give offer letter on the same day.
I am pretty sure Infosys did this because of all the negative media about them preferring to hire Indians in US causing Americans to loose jobs.
The irony of having to do affirmative action to hire the majority in the country you are operating in.
I seen it so many times. Indian companies try to avoid hiring Indians whenever they can do otherwise (i.e. for better paying positions). There are good and bad explanations for that, but all of them politically incorrect.
I would not get the point of someone telling me what I should do wirh my investment, home, or property of any kind.
If I do NOT want to put MY money somewhere actively that is not discrimination.
In fact it is denying the freedom to choose.
I do not care they hire all indians or no indians. Same for any other combination.
Because they are incurrimg the cost of doing so.
If I do NOT want to put MY money somewhere actively that is not discrimination.
In fact it is denying the freedom to choose.
I do not care they hire all indians or no indians. Same for any other combination.
Because they are incurrimg the cost of doing so.
[flagged]
Everyone of us has such personal guidelines / biases when it comes to social interactions. We all form such conscious and unconscious biases about certain community based on whom we interact with and it is ok up to a point, if you don't take them too seriously (or these biases can become narrower and fundamentalist). Working with people of different culture always requires us to step out of our comfort zone to varying degree. Obviously this is uncomfortable. But as with any learned behaviour, avoidance only exacerbates the issue and practising it more and more makes it easier.
Infosys wants non-Indians for sales positions, but Indians for code-monkeys, scrum masters, project managers, etc.
All the talk of not hiring people of certain backgrounds, ghosting women etc. Is not restricted to Infosys. Working in many British companies I have seen this at rampant scale, the only difference is it's not officially spoken or written but often wrapped up with some other excuse like "oh they weren't the right fit"
Indians were by far the hardest to work with. They ghosted women systematically which was a nightmare for our project manager. They also lied shamelessly about their qualifications which led to absurd situations.
The problem doesn't lie in hiring Indian people though. It's in hiring cheap labour for the sake of it. If you want to get from point A to point B you either hire people who can do it or you don't. If you believe those guys have actually been delivering quality software for a decade with some technology despite being dirt cheap, you are just an idiot.