[spacephysics]

Why should we hire anyone based off the color of their skin/gender, versus for their level of competency?

If a company start optimizing on diversity metrics instead of on ability, then they’ll be crushed by market forces from companies who optimize on ability.

Further, isn’t it a bit patronizing hiring people because they fit in a URM group, instead of hard work to sufficiently pass an interview/test/etc?

[aahortwwy]

> hard work to sufficiently pass an interview/test/etc?

Interviews are bullshit, arbitrary, and random, as discussed at length in countless HN threads.

Then any time diversity hiring is discussed we suddenly forget that we (collectively, as an industry) don't have a reliable way of measuring competency.

[WorkLobster]

I see the misunderstanding that D&I is about priority hiring based on certain characteristics over and above merit crop up a distressing amount. Every initiative that I have taken part in has explicitly abjured such action; it's illegal in our country and in any case arguably a bad idea anywhere. What it is instead is a forum for trying to identify, discuss and address where existing pratices are unwittingly biased.

For example, do the statistics of progression and departure in our organisation show any areas in which we're failing certain subgroups? Does our publicity reach everyone we want it to and carry the message that we intend? Do our processes inadvertently cause physical or mental difficulty to anyone?

[marniewebb]

> What it is instead is a forum for trying to identify, discuss and address where existing pratices are unwittingly biased. For example, do the statistics of progression and departure in our organisation show any areas in which we're failing certain subgroups? Does our publicity reach everyone we want it to and carry the message that we intend? Do our processes inadvertently cause physical or mental difficulty to anyone?

This is a fantastic statement of what a program should be. And I'm totally going to us it to describe ours.

[Nextgrid]

> If a company start optimizing on diversity metrics instead of on ability, then they’ll be crushed by market forces from companies who optimize on ability.

This is only true if the company has a real product that customers pay for. If the company is based on "growth and engagement" then there is no real product and their survival merely depends on investor goodwill for which PR and virtue-signalling is important (this is the main reason companies boast about D&I so much).

[spacephysics]

I agree, however the companies that have a real product will survive longer on average. A real product has a better chance of enduring hardships (bear market/recession) than investor-funded growth companies. We haven’t seen how today’s tech investments will change during a real economic downturn. Last one we had was arguably over 10 years ago.

But with the top X% having far more capital, we may continue to see investments, even in bad economic times. But I think that’s unlikely.

[Nextgrid]

This is only true assuming your product costs nothing to run and doesn't rely on network effects, otherwise the other side will keep offering its product at a loss until you go out of business. They might themselves go out of business later, but at this point your company is already long gone so that doesn't matter.

[superbcarrot]

I think that I agree with your overall point but this

> If a company start optimizing on diversity metrics instead of on ability, then they’ll be crushed by market forces from companies who optimize on ability.

isn't necessarily true. A company's success is only very loosely related to the ability of its employees.

[CobraKing]

all things considered (i.e. equal performance on an interview/test/etc.) it makes better economic sense to hire more women and URMs. A cynic would say that's because it's more acceptable to pay less. But I would argue that someone who has built a successful career despite the headwinds of racism/sexism/implicit biases is going to be tougher and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges than someone, who for reasons outside their control, has gone through life on an 'easier difficulty level'.

And in fields where innovation matters, more diverse teams are more creative because they explore a larger space of ideas (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9284).

To give another reason, a team that fits into a narrow demographic is unlikely to make products that appeal broadly or to other demographics. This creates market opportunities for more diverse teams. For instance, the Spanx founder was able to create a billion dollar company BECAUSE her inventions were dismissed by male-dominated teams in the garment industry.

[CobraKing]

also, I want to share that OP's original point reflects common hiring practice at my former employer, which is a federal Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) in the South (i.e. majority of students are first-generation college, immigrants, people of color) whose faculty is overwhelmingly white and predominantly male. The diversity hires, that I was aware of, tended to favor White and "model minority" candidates over equally (or better qualified) URM candidates, even though it's obvious that the students would be better served by hiring more professors that reflect the demographics of the student body. There are plenty of highly qualified candidates these days, so to me the biggest problem is bias on the part of many hiring and tenure committees.

[spacephysics]

Well if they’re equally or better qualified then my point still stands. They get into the company based off ability.

The issue is whose determining what the bias is, where the statistical line should be, and how it’s enforced. If this creeps into legislature it’ll be one step closer in the wrong path.

[AndrewDucker]

Actually, the companies that have made sure they use people from more than one subset of the population have better financial results.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...

[mikevm]

https://medium.com/asymmetries/the-diversity-myth-junk-resea...

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/in-prin...