[prepend]

I think the argument is that while there was suspicion and implicit lack of meritocratic procedures before the initiatives, after doubt was removed.

For example, I just started in the 90s and worked in tech but I never heard an HR person or hiring manager say “we’re only going to interview applicants of a majority race” but after initiatives, it became common to hear this toward an underrepresented race or gender.

I want a diverse workforce. But explicitly discriminating to attempt to fix the problem is a bad way that makes people angry. I think it’s better to work on systemic fixes (more graduates, more training programs, etc).

[ZeroGravitas]

You're making a case against racism happening in the 90s, but you also think that if racism was happening in the nineties then the people doing it would have announced in public "FYI everyone I'm doing the racism now" which makes you seem somewhat detached from reality.

[prepend]

That’s not what I’m saying. Racism happened in the 90s, but it wasn’t explicit discrimination. Explicitly discriminating against certain races now is something new.

Two things can be bad at the same time: implicit racism then and now; explicit racism just now.

[eli_gottlieb]

> But explicitly discriminating to attempt to fix the problem is a bad way that makes people angry.

It's also illegal under the Civil Rights Act.

[prepend]

I think so too. It surprised me how people could do things like this and not be sued under the CRA.

[squigz]

> after doubt was removed.

This really isn't quite the universal experience many in this crowd seem to make it out to be.