[civilized]

I agree that we need to take seriously the history of racism in the US and try to mitigate its impacts. From what I have seen, the consideration of race in admissions and hiring doesn't remove bias, but adds a bias in an opposite direction. I have talked to people who have been involved in hiring processes, and many can cite examples where candidates from URM groups have been given a great deal more credit than non-URM candidates were given for a similar or higher level of achievement/qualification. It's hardly a secret that in job markets with a high emphasis on racial diversity, the highly underrepresented minority is often a hot commodity who is judged by a different standard.

I think it's valid to argue that this bias is worth it. But we should not pretend that we are simply remedying bias or pushing people towards a more fair evaluation of each candidate for their individual qualities. What we're doing is adding an opposite bias in an attempt to approach closer to proportional racial representation.

There's also reasonable room to question if we should essentially equate diversity to population-proportional racial representation, as we do today. This is also a bias which may take away from seeking diversity along other lines, such as class/upbringing, age, and being outside traditional recruiting networks for the job.

[lapcat]

> This is also a bias which may take away from seeking diversity along other lines, such as class/upbringing, age, and being outside traditional recruiting networks for the job.

I'm glad you mentioned age. Age discrimination and lack of age diversity is a big problem in tech.

Whenever there's a discussion about underrepresented groups in tech, isn't it funny how older people are rarely considered?

[civilized]

> Whenever there's a discussion about underrepresented groups in tech, isn't it funny how older people are rarely considered?

IMHO, it's because organizations don't really value diversity in the ordinary sense of the term. They value proportional representation of all demographic groups that have legal standing to sue them for civil rights violations, and who have organized interest groups who stand ready to do so. DEI exists to align the organization towards this objective.

[lapcat]

> IMHO, it's because organizations don't really value diversity in the ordinary sense of the term.

It's not just about organizations though. Whenever I hear ordinary tech workers, non-managers, just talking informally about underrepresented groups, they rarely mention older people. It's a forgotten group (kind of like GenX in general LOL).

I should say, I don't want to pit underrepresented groups against each other. As far as I've seen, various forms of discrimination go hand-in-hand. I once heard a prominent businesswomen say that the most sexist workplaces she's seen were also the most ageist.