[fn-mote]

GP mentions race and gender, so this response isn’t making an impression on me.

The point the GP makes - why was the promo/hiring committee unable to find a breadth of candidates - is a troubling but real part of many of our daily lives.

Maybe there weren’t any. That’s usually the reason/excuse given. That should still be a cause for concern.

[pc86]

Well "DEI vetos it" is obviously a problem. There's a discussion to be had around expanding candidate pools, expanding the pipeline, however you want to phrase it. These are good and noble goals but we're not talking about the pipeline we're talking about the candidates for a given role that we're hiring for right now.

No department should be vetoing any hire in a different department. Having an engineer veto a hire in the DEI department is ludicrous on its face, but no more ludicrous than having a DEI department tell the engineering team they're not "allowed" to hire a qualified applicant because of their race or gender.

[a1j9o94]

It's HR's entire job to set policies for hiring. They can say a candidate has to have a college degree. Why wouldn't they have the right to set this policy as well?

[Manuel_D]

Protected class cannot be used as a factor in hiring. Saying "we can't proceed with an offer until we've hired at least one woman and one URM" (which is what Meta's DSA entailed) is indeed using protected class as a factor in hiring.

[asdasdsddd]

You are confusing policies and qualifications, its on the engineers to decide the qualifications and HR to run policies on sourcing.

[asdasdsddd]

Why is breadth of candidates defined by race and gender instead of experience and expertise. If the DEI department improves breadth of experience and expertise, by looking into alternative hiring streams, thats great, but people who defend DEI always approach it from the race and gender first which is a tell tale sign that race and gender are the primary objectives. And in my experience, when race and gender are the goals, formal and informal quotas appear.

[9rx]

It is odd that the expected inclusion was so specific, though. What about a 14 year old white male? Do they not satisfy: "consider more candidates who might not fit your preconceived notion of what you thought a person in that role should look like."?

I get it. I don't think a 14 year old looks suitable for a senior role either, but looking past that is the point. You never know what someone can offer.

[matteotom]

well if a 14 year old has 10 years of (real) experience building software in an enterprise setting, of course they should be considered for a senior role

[9rx]

What about 10 years of experience building software translates to the director position being talked about? Would a 14 year old who has 10 years of (real) experience working on the family farm be equally suitable or is there something about software specifically that primes people for being directors?

[matteotom]

sure, replace building software with leading large teams. The general point still stands

[9rx]

So you echo that until you find a 14 year old who has managed a large team for at least 10 years you haven’t tried hard enough? I don’t want to rest on my biases, but…

[matteotom]

No, it is obvious that there are not any qualified 14 year olds, and it is also obvious that there are qualified minorities - if you can't find qualified minorities, you should look more closely at your recruitment pipelines.

[danudey]

I find it interesting that being underage and in middle school is on the same level to you as being a woman. This comment reads like "You want us to interview WOMEN now? Why not teenagers? Or plants?!"

[pests]

The request was to “consider people you normally wouldn’t for this role”

I normally wouldn’t consider a 14y/o for a senior position. I wouldn’t consider a child to run our armed forces either.

It is you who put women and other minorities into that group with this comment of yours. You are the one to compare being underage and in middle school to being on the same level of a woman.

[9rx]

Your biases applied to the comment may read that way. The comment itself doesn't say that at all. It is interesting that we are seeing the discrimination right here on HN too. I thought we were better than that?