[anologwintermut]

Because if there are large systemic racial inequalities (not that I think employment at Google is worthy of the title, compared to things like education and incarceration rates), then we manifestly aren't in a post racial society.

Given the history of legal and social discrimination in the US, the impetus is on the people claiming we live in a post-racial society to back that fact up.

[rdtsc]

One then has to ask what does it mean that there are racial inequality? It is not in general, it has to be constrained to a particular domain.

Say look at customers in a store and notice there is inequality, more people of a certain race visit it. What does it mean? Should something be done about it? Then, there is like you said, prisons. There is something disturbing going on, and something has to be done there, more urgently, than say figure out why there is racial misrepresentation at that one mall or store.

Ok two extremes. What about Google? There is racial inequality at Google. What does it mean? Should something be done about it? Should Google hire based on racial profiles. Minority X gets Y slots based on some weighted criteria. Will that solve anything? Will it make things worse. Should anything be done at all at Google? Is that a big priority. Should we be looking at prisons instead...

[enneff]

Google is looking to address inequality in the tech sector, because that's where its expertise and experience lies. Its is not doing this by hiring based on racial profiles. It is doing this by trying to encourage people from diverse backgrounds to a) enter the field in the first place and b) actually apply for jobs at Google.

[rdtsc]

> It is doing this by trying to encourage people from diverse backgrounds to a) enter the field in the first place and b) actually apply for jobs at Google.

Is there anything in the data (I haven't looked too much in dept) about the application pool. Because it seems to me, b) kind of sidesteps deeper issues and kind of says (figuratively) "Minorities just don't know to apply to Google. If that is the sentiment I am not sure I agree with it.

(Unless of course Google and just then turn around and implement racial quota hiring decision and then in effect we back to that. As "just apply, we'll make sure you get in").

I have seen companies do that. One company I worked for hired a minority into upper management. Her skill set, experience and competence was not up to par. Compared to the rest of the managers. The belief was that she was there as a token "minority" person. Not necessarily disagreeing with that. Maybe those kind of steps are needed. But just saying companies do that.

Now on a) I know Google does some good work. They have good programs for Women in tech. But not familiar too much with their program geared for racial minorities. Can you point me to some?

[enneff]

My understanding is that we have analysed our hiring process and found that the diversity of candidates is ~equivalent to the diversity of hires. In other words, there isn't bias in our hiring processes. The problem is we don't have enough candidates from diverse backgrounds applying.

[Retric]

Your view of a post racial society excludes any form of ethnic identity which influences occupational choices. IMO, that's not nessisarily a good thing. It's Basicly saying no culture has any value or no culture that differs from mine has any value which is vary ethnocentric.

[anologwintermut]

No, no it doesn't. It's a perfectly valid answer (given appropriate evidence). The point is it's an answer to rebut data and it's one that it self requires data. In no way does it stand as an argument that we should not have the data in the first place.

Again, the presumption about a a post-racial society requires evidence. That evidence may be that ethnic identity issues explain discrepancies, but it can't be an argument because we live in a post racial society , data to the contrary should be ignored.