[btilly]

It is easy to rail against employers for showing the complained about bias against minorities and women. And doing so is clearly against the law.

However playing Devil's advocate it is justifiable by the fact that hiring decisions are naturally risk adverse. The difference between a perfect hire and a merely good one is typically not that big. The difference between a hire that works out and one that does not is huge. It does not take many wrong hires to destroy a working team.

If you've ever been burned by a hire where a person did not work out for reason X, then you're going to naturally think 2 and 3 times before making a similar hire. I personally have seen a couple of situations where a black person had credentials only because of affirmative action and did not deserve those credentials. I've also have seen multiple cases where a woman gets hired, gets pregnant, and then you lose that employee in a painful way.

Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in this situation?

(Turning it around, if everyone else is discriminating to an unfair degree against a specific group of people, a company that merely discriminates less will enjoy a competitive advantage. A while ago I ran across a fascinating study of how much better South Korean companies that were willing to hire women into management do than ones who are not. I've seen no data either way on whether the USA is past this tipping point for women in various professional careers.)

[glaak]

Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people?

Also, read the studies. Black people and women actually have a harder time getting a job. So by your logic, of people getting jobs that they may not be the most qualified for, you'd be better off hiring women or black people. They have to be more qualified into to be seen as equals.

[btilly]

Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people?

The specific situation that is burned in my mind was a black girl who was in a math PhD program at the same time that I was. The department wound up bending their rules to the breaking point to give her a Masters on her way out because nobody wanted to risk the discrimination lawsuit that she was threatening. Her actual math knowledge was not even to the level that I would expect from a BSc in math.

I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere near being similarly egregious. And I had experiences with that department which demonstrated in spades that white people were not given anywhere near as much leniency.

As for your final point, I thought I pretty much said that. I've not seen the specific studies that you're referring to.

[Volpe]

Discrimination causes a lot of problems, including that of having to 'over-correct'.

[btilly]

The assumption that past discrimination justifies reverse discrimination is a dangerous one, and gives lots of opportunities for those who want to discriminate to justify it to themselves.

The US military addressed this exact problem by making extra resources available to black recruits who were interested in becoming officers to assist them in performing to the exact same standards that were required of whites. The result? They managed to achieve their diversity goals among officers. And the expectations that you should reasonably have of an officer do not depend on race.

I like the approach that the US military took to affirmative action. By contrast I object to the way that our educational establishment routinely makes much better resources available to help white students achieve in one set of schools, while shoving black students through grades regardless of achievement in a different set of schools. Which then lets us all cry about the horrible discrimination when employers fail to treat high school diplomas equally for white and black kids.

[Volpe]

> The assumption that past discrimination justifies reverse discrimination is a dangerous one

I wasn't saying it was justified, I was saying it was a problem. One that doesn't exist if there was no discrimination.

Racial Discrimination is racial discrimination, there is no such thing as 'well justified' racial discrimination. Saying that "Well I know that Blacks' go through school easier so their degree means less" is no better than "They are black, I don't like them". It just helps people sleep better at night to think they have a 'good reason' for being racist.

[btilly]

OK, you've made the argument that only horrid racists believe that black high school graduates are less likely than white high school graduates to have basic competency at reading, writing and arithmetic.

But have you made the argument that people who believe that are WRONG?

This is not a question of opinion. This is a question of fact. For instance http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/nhsc_highschoolliterac... quotes the figure Only 16% of Black high school seniors and 20% of Hispanic high school seniors scored at or above proficient on the 2005 NAEP reading test, compared to 43% of Caucasian students (NCES, 2007).

Now what do you propose that we should do about it?

[batista]

>The assumption that past discrimination justifies reverse discrimination is a dangerous one, and gives lots of opportunities for those who want to discriminate to justify it to themselves.

The "past discrimination" was mass abductions from their countries, SLAVERY, Jim Crow laws, lynching, segregation, fewer rights and a hugely disproportionate percentage of the black population in prison.

The "reverse discrimination" is ...getting some more jobs or better grades.

Suddenly when it's for the benefit of the other side this 1/1000 less discrimination is "dangerous"?

I think white america can shut up and take it.

[hannahmitt]

Do you count the leniency in assuming white people have more legitimate credentials?

And how often are people hiring purely by the program of study? Can you affirmative action your way into top honors or great job experience? For the latter, it appears it's the opposite.

[btilly]

Can you affirmative action your way into top honors or great job experience?

In the specific case that I'm thinking of, thanks to affirmative action she had academic honors until, but not including grad school. (She did get a masters though.)

I've encountered some black people in the work place who I suspect were continuing to coast on affirmative action and willingness to accuse others of discrimination. They are a clear minority of the blacks that I've worked with. Furthermore I've never seen any of that minority manage to get good referrals from anyone I'd be interested in working with.

That said, there are some dysfunctional organizations out there where managers can find it easier to promote their problem employees to be someone else's problem than they do to fire them. Someone whose success was entirely dependent on affirmative action might do well in such an organization. My last experience with such an organization was fairly brief and was about 15 years ago. (I reached the point where I had to decide between finding a better job or filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against the man I was reporting to. Yes, that happens to men as well. I chose finding a better job.)

Update: I should clarify that my opinions about the relative competency of people in that program came from knowing them for several years, and from being in classes together.

[tsotha]

>Can you affirmative action your way into top honors or great job experience?

Well, there's Elizabeth Warren...

[antihero]

How can you possibly know all the factors involved?

[tsotha]

>Have you ever seen a white person not be good at their job? Yet you don't associate their failures with their race. Why do so with black people?

That's one of the better arguments against "affirmative action". Competent minorities and women are naturally lumped in with people working the system and pay the price in terms of reputation.

[DenisM]

>Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in this situation?

Yes. It's called "the right thing to do", not "the easy and convenient thing to do", and for a reason.

Discriminating by race is convenient, but it puts a number of people in a dead end through no fault of their own. Had everyone done the convenient thing to do, those people would be locked out forever. For employers it's a matter convenience, for recruits it's a matter of having or not having a life. The impact is disproportionate.

[gatordan]

It's strange how convenient and accepted unchecked anecdotal evidence can be around here under certain circumstances . If this was a strictly tech article I would hope more people would be saying your sample size here is two or three, that's clearly not the best predictor of the future. But you're talking about race and gender from the majority white male centered perspective so your comment is at the top.

According to you a couple black people got farther than they should have because of affirmative action and because of that you wouldn't blame an employer for considering all black people "risky" hires. Doesn't that sound a bit ridiculous? Put another way, has anyone ever said "a couple white people screwed over the team a few years back so we think twice nowadays before hiring white people". Or "we found that guys seem to slack more during work hours and now we shy away from hiring men". Of course not, because white and male are normal when it comes to jobs in tech and so they enjoy the privilege of being treated as individuals. To drive the point home your bias is obvious in your comment - "you're going to naturally think 2 and 3 times before making a similar hire" - "similar" applies to black or female because it's understandable to aggregate those individuals, their actions easy fit into a narrative that already exists in your mind. Pick two white men at your work who consistently perform poorly and I don't think you would be as comfortable attributing their behavior to their race or gender.

[btilly]

Are you familiar with the concept of playing Devil's advocate?

Also did you read the final paragraph?

[forensic]

Devil's advocate isn't an excuse to spew racist and sexist bullshit that apologizes for discrimination.

[alid]

Sorry man, I appreciate your point but the general tone of your argument comes across like you think women are more of a 'risky' hire?

[btilly]

It is not politically correct to say that women are riskier hires than men. But given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires. Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly. In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.

That said, I am sympathetic to the position that employers tend to unfairly overestimate that risk. And furthermore US law is very clear that discriminating against women based on that risk is illegal. (But, laws notwithstanding, I've seen it happen in practice. Both directly in my workplace, and indirectly in my wife's.)

[FireBeyond]

Meh to 'risk'.

I've seen employers tell my ex- that they were looking for someone to commit to multiple years, not just be fly-by-night. She agreed, and was laid off two months later due to 'change in business direction'.

It's the flip side of 'at will' employment. Unless a company is willing to put it in contract, I would recommend often showing little hesitation in not being more open about your future plans than you need to be.

If a company demands/expects loyalty, can you say that you expect they'll show the same loyalty when it's not working out for them? In the vast majority of cases (and it's not even necessarily malicious), absolutely not. You'll turn up one day, have a meeting with your manager, and, if you're (very) lucky, get some form of severance.

Quid pro quo.

[spindritf]

> Meh to 'risk'.

I bet this one has a spot in top 10 most popular last thoughts.

[FireBeyond]

Context is, as they say, everything. "Meh to 'risk' in the context of "I as an employer should consider females more risky".

But... touché.

[eevee]

Yes, I can see how giving an employee time off to perpetuate the species might be inconvenient. How dare she! I need her to work on my social networking website, not make more people.

People quit their jobs, frequently, for a wide variety of reasons. Women have a potential reason that men don't have. Cry me a river.

[columbo]

Regardless of if I agree with this statement (I don't) making a public statement like this is a very dangerous choice. You've effectively said "I wont hire women because they might go form babbies" on a public forum.

If you ever have or ever will turn down a woman for a position regardless of her abilities and this comment is found and tracked back to you that candidate (and any previous candidate you ever turned down) would have a pretty solid case against you and your company.

[btilly]

You've effectively said "I wont hire women because they might go form babbies" on a public forum.

That conclusion can only be drawn by people who perform simplistic keyword matching and fail to comprehend what I've actually said.

Did you notice that I've also pointed out several times that there is some evidence that companies who are more willing to hire women are likely to financially perform better? And that I've also pointed out repeatedly that discriminating on the basis of gender (either way) is illegal?

There is a pretty big gulf between saying, "Here is the standard argument for discrimination" and saying "I advocate discrimination" or even "I would personally discriminate."

[columbo]

> That conclusion can only be drawn by people who perform simplistic keyword matching and fail to comprehend what I've actually said.

Sure, I could have misread everything you've posted but imagine the lawyer for a potential failed hire reading your posts and slicing out exact paragraphs of your own wording:

> given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires

> Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly

> In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.

> I personally have seen a couple of situations where a black person had credentials only because of affirmative action and did not deserve those credentials.

> I've also have seen multiple cases where a woman gets hired, gets pregnant, and then you lose that employee in a painful way.

> I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere near being similarly egregious.

> white people were not given anywhere near as much leniency.

> Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in this situation?

Call me full of shit. Say I'm blowing all this out of context. Whatever you want... but realize that those quotes are pretty deadly rounds of ammo to a lawyer. Don't believe me? Forward them to your HR department and see what they think.

[btilly]

I don't deny that a lawyer could try to make hay out of those out of context. But every one of those quotes are statements of provable fact. That's the problem when you try to bring nuance to an emotionally charged issue. You wind up saying things that cause people to have a knee-jerk response, and their brains turn off.

Pondering http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html may be worthwhile.

[alid]

You're right, it's not politically correct to say that. Nor is it legal to act on it. Why? Because it engenders discrimination.

Women are different to men - culturally, biologically, etc et al. However any reference/inference/undertone to those differences as being 'risky' or 'negative' to business re-enforces negative stereotypes.

As the studies are showing, there's an opportunity cost to not achieving gender balance in business. That's the bottom line.

[btilly]

There is actually quite a bit of evidence suggesting that the reason why discrimination on gender is illegal in the USA is that the term was slipped in as a rider when the Civil Rights Act was going down to defeat, and then after JFK died in the rush to pass it they forgot to take that rider out.

See http://www.siop.org/tip/jan11/12highhouse.aspx for arguments both ways. (The one that I just presented was the conventional view back when I was being educated about women's rights some 20 years ago.)

[jexe]

I guess the consolation prize from this fairly offensive point of view is that since my company doesn't share this bias against women, we're hiring all the great engineers that you're overlooking.

Sounds like we have the competitive advantage.

[batista]

>It is not politically correct to say that women are riskier hires than men. But given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires. Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly. In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.

Then the people should make sure that such businesses are PUNISHED, and women are free to take time of for pregnancy.

The way to ruin a society is to stifle it's reproduction. As for the business risk, it should be an _assumed_ risk of all businesses if they want to operate within a society of people.

[krigath]

Depending on the country, they may in fact be more risky from a purely financial point of view. They could have children!

[zem]

"risk averse" here really means "it may be a problem for society, but let someone else bear the cost of solving it". one point of antidiscrimination laws is to spread those risks and costs out evenly so that no one is unduly affected.