| Respectfully, I think you may have missed the point of the article. In the committee hiring process that Facebook uses, it would seem that every candidate was actually not being judged purely on their capabilities. So telling folks to "distinguish yourself on your capabilities," while generally good advice, doesn't actually help if the process doesn't reward that. If instead, as the recruiters in the article suggest, pedigree of college and other factors are being prioritized, then that's a problem. Criteria like this disproportionately disadvantages URM candidates in particular, which is how Facebook ends up with only 1% black and 3% latino tech workers, even after prioritizing diversity at the recruiter level. > I don't think the decision makers are racist or sexist. I recommend you read up a bit on [individual vs. systemic racism](1). An important point to note is that even if individual actors don't exhibit what you consider to be racism, the system that they make up can itself be racist. This is a really important point that often gets lost in discussions like this on HN, especially since the largely-white largely-male population here is unlikely to ever directly feel the effects of systemic racism. > Trying to make it fair for one demographic will likely end up making things unfair for another. Just to be clear, I think what you are trying to say is that adjusting for bias against URM candidates will inherently lead to bias or disadvantages to white folks. I would question any notion of "fairness" that relies on another group being treated unfairly. To borrow a common expression, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. (1): http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism |