[manigandham]

Diversity based on outward appearance is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous movements ever. We cannot spend decades trying to show that appearance is absolutely meaningless to talent, skills, and motivation, and then regress right back to it to show off "diversity".

Also nobody ever seems to ask: diversity of what exactly? What's the target? Life experience? There is no qualitative score for that, nor is any single person's life more or less interesting and influential than anyone else.

The only thing we can objectively and accurately measure is merit, motivation, and results, and we should use those metrics alone for hiring and advancement, in addition to fighting subjective bias (like removing names and photos from resumes) and making sure there's equivalent opportunity for anyone to try. After that, it would be best if just let people do what they want to do and move on.

[pillowkusis]

I think many companies aren’t promoting “diversity” to support an ideology, they do it because it has specific PR and legal outcomes that help their image. Companies with high diversity metrics get praised in the press. Companies with low diversity metrics get negative attention. Diversity metrics are also a solid defense in real courts and the court of public opinion when race/gender/sexual harassment claims come up.

I don’t know to what extent this is true, or even how to measure it, but it would help explain why “diversity” initiatives seems so illogical some times, which has perplexed me too.

[manigandham]

That seems to me like an idealogy of its own, but what exactly are diversity metrics measuring then? Appearance and other unchangeable physical traits? How unfortunate since they have nothing to do with interests, abilities, or character.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes.

> Appearance and other unchangeable physical traits? How unfortunate since they have nothing to do with interests, abilities, or character.

As GP pointed out, companies aren't really after that.

When a company does not discriminate on race or gender, it generally stays silent about it, because "not actively discriminating" is just normal hiring on merit. When a company boasts about their diversity program, there's a strategy behind it. Maybe it's because the management believes increasing diversity beyond the industry distribution creates a better working environment (as you indirectly point out, the connection here is speculative). Or maybe they know it's good PR, and also a diverse workplace creates a nice CYA for the company in case of a disgruntled employee filing in a bullshit harassment lawsuit.

[justifier]

> but what exactly are diversity metrics measuring then?

Perhaps a willingness to have a dialogue

Much like how when debating the advocacy for a higher education degree I have heard people defend the effort as evidence to accept direction and a capacity to see something through to the end

I think there is merit in what of my own opinion I recognise in your commenting critically of diversity efforts

gp> Diversity based on outward appearance is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous movements ever.

Namely, that you think people should be met with openness and that contemporary diversity efforts seem to restrict that openness

But I feel that is using individual logic on systems

I think the proponents of diversity efforts would most likely support individual openness as well because they also recognise the systemic structures that currently restrict that openness

Like how a degree implies broad connotation about your ability to be a professional in a field when only representing a fraction of what real experience you will utilise in that profession

These diversity efforts seem to be implying generalised correlation to identify inequalities that are restricting universal openness and modifying their behaviour to remove the identifier

Or perhaps they are showing they are willing to use legal measures if exclusive minds refuse to recognise the data supporting "The only thing we can objectively and accurately measure"

[hypersoar]

I think you're missing the point of the "diversity movement". The point is that some classes, e.g. women and minorities face discrimination that's baked into the selection process, even when they eventual selectors are not showing a preference. You might try to hire based only on "merit, motivation, and results", but any measure of those things is going to be imperfect. If those measurements are themselves biased, then your selection will be biased, even if you didn't want it to be. The goal of diversity policies is, in part, to break through and counteract those biases.

Jon Stewart gave a post-retirement interview in which he talked about this issue in the comedy world. He initially wrote off criticism of the lack of diversity in the writer's room for The Daily Show, since he always told people that he was interested in hiring more women and minorities. He eventually realized that the channels along which people came to the job was already selecting for white males, and that more diverse hiring required rethinking those channels.

https://youtu.be/p1H7KxPlbQw?t=42m32s

[manigandham]

I didn't miss that point, it was clearly stated as fighting subjective bias and making sure there is equal opportunity. Measuring performance is pretty objective, but yes it should also constantly be improved.

That has nothing to do with diversity based on appearance nor will those policies help.

[hypersoar]

Which policies don't help? There have been a broad array of diversity policies attempted over the years. Do you have any evidence suggesting that they all fail?

Here's [1] an overview of a bunch of programs. It includes data on how they've affected employee composition and discusses why certain things fail or succeed. The first success it cites is voluntary diversity training. The sort Google has. The sort that James Damore attended and then got angry about.

[1]https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

[manigandham]

Policies to force diversity based on outward appearance and other unchangeable and meaningless physical traits do not help.

As said before: remove any selection bias, then hire those who can do the work, want to do the work, and have shown to do the work well before. Then measure performance and promote using the same objective processes. That's it.

Perhaps we can boil down the issue as the difference between making hiring as fair as possible, or making hiring ensure a certain outcome. The first option is good since it produces fair results, but the latter is actually what's happening in most places.

[hypersoar]

They don't help what? You haven't really responded to my point. And how to you plan to "remove any selection bias"? These efforts are there to counteract the selection bias that already exists. You say we should make hiring as fair as possible, but that, right there, is a big part of the goal of diversity policies.

[manigandham]

We're miscommunicating. We both agree that hiring practices should be fair and objective as possible... what I'm saying is that is the goal itself, and a racial/ethnic/skintone/appearance-based diverse group may or may not be the outcome, but the outcome will be fair if the process is.

Diversity-based policies currently are only focused on the outcome, but the outcome is not what should be designed for. The outcome should just be what it will naturally be (whether it's "diverse" or not) and we should only control for selection and opportunity. This is what diversity-based policies do not help since you cannot work backwards from the outcome, you must start with making a fair process and just let people do what they want do beyond that.

[ng12]

> diversity of what exactly is the target? Life experience?

Clearly not when every company recruits from the same 10 schools.

[manigandham]

Surely you can agree that every student is an individual and just because they go to the same college does not mean they all have the same background?

[ng12]

No, but I would argue it makes them less diverse than their physical traits. Especially considering that college is a formative time for most people.

[manigandham]

If it's not about physical traits (which is good) then why does it matter? You realize every company does in fact discriminate for talent? (which is also fine).

We all want smartest, more capable and most reliable people, not a mix of smart and average and dumb just to "represent". Picking the top schools aligns for that, as long as your competitive enough to hire them.

[ng12]

I challenge your characterization of anyone who's not from Stanford or an Ivy as dumb

However, if that's what you want to believe then more power to you. Hire whoever you want. I'm just agreeing with OP that the target of diversity programs is decidedly not to get diversity of life experience -- because there are much better ways to attain that than hiring by skin color or gender.

[atom-morgan]

No, but in-state tuition has to contribute significantly to where you go to college.

[dragonwriter]

Only if you go to a public, state school.

Otherwise, in-state tuition probably can't be a factor.

[noonesays]

> Also nobody ever seems to ask: diversity of what exactly?

https://www.bis.org/review/r160531e.pdf asks literally "Diversity of what exactly?"

[erikpukinskis]

Diversity in any non-job-related axis along which candidates have historically been excluded.

[wan23]

Diversity, even based on outward appearance, has real-world advantages for companies. Or at least, lack of it can lead to making serious errors that can lead to underserving or even insulting customers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/01/google-apolog...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/09/faceapp-spa...

https://www.rt.com/viral/400927-robots-racist-sexist-bank-lo...

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-huawei-smartphone-bea...