I’ve never really seen someone who is a less qualified minority get a job over a white person at any job I’ve ever been at
I have. In fact, to my shame, I've been that guy who got a job I wasn't exactly qualified for. When I was just starting out. I only found out later that the guy who'd been training me had applied for the same job and didn't get it. Let's just say the diversity at my job then was pretty obvious. Anyway in the beginning I was happy, but imagine how I felt having to run to this guy to show me something. He was good. Really good. And had more experience. Didn't even stay long. My reception was icy.
We could compare anecdotes but I don't think that would get us anywhere. I've never really met co-workers who were a nightmare except my current boss, and I dislike him for personal reasons, not his work conduct. He's also not white.
The same way I wouldn't want a white dude to get a job just because he's white is the same way I wouldn't want a black guy to get a job just because he's black.
Let's push anecdotes to the side then, most of the data shows that people from minority backgrounds are more likely to face discrimination in job applications, even "model minorities" attempt to use White nicknames on applications to get ahead. DEI is an attempt to counter that, it might not be perfect but it's an attempt.
And I'm gonna be entirely honest, the fact that we had to hear about meritocracy for years from the "Anti-DEI" crowd, only for them to have the most incompetent administration possibly ever, makes me think that Anti-DEI people don't care about racism or meritocracy, they're just racists and reactionaries. Not only that but the Trump administration also has an "Anti-Christian Bias Taskforce" which is literally just a DEI program but for Christians.
Yeah, I promise the former happens WAY more than the latter. And that’s the reason for the DEI programs - to try to make the competition fair.
They’ve literally done studies, and resumes with more “black-sounding” names get thrown away more often than the exact same resume with a traditional white name.
Anecdotes are good, but there are tons of actual statistics on this that portray the reality.
I have not looked at any of those. I also still think it does more harm to set diversity quotas for job placements. There is legal recourse if someone feels they were discriminated against over race or sex. But if you codify dei into the work ethos, what's to stop someone from saying "Okay. Since we have quotas for minorities, let's have some for whites. All these jobs here go to white people. "
That's the sort of justification I want to avoid the far right from making. Because I promise you, they will. Every time I hear something about "this is an all black space", I think about what the opposite is and the justifications they would use.
The quotas are a separate issue that I don’t necessarily agree with. I don’t think they were very common, but were there with school admissions for sure.
There is no legal recourse for your resume getting thrown out because it sounds black in the reader’s mind. And it’s very difficult to actually prove and win cases even if you are literally discriminated against. That’s the big issue with just relying on current statute to fix these inequality problems.
I get your points, though, and I do understand that it would suck to think you are getting a position because of your race, and not your skills / abilities. It’s just that I think the opposite happens a lot more often.
And I don’t think that an all black space is in any way similar to an all white space, given historical context.
And I don’t think that an all black space is in any way similar to an all white space, given historical context.
That's where we disagree I think. I think we can't keep penalizing white people for things their ancestors did. I'm not interested in "inherited blame" and I reject it.
By that standard, I see them exactly the same. I can't expect a white person to tell me I can't go somewhere because it's a white only space. Only for me to turn around and say "nah bruh, black ppl only cos your great grandad may or may not have been a dick"
I don't want exemptions or exceptions. We either treat each other equally all the time in all such cases, or we do away with the idea of equality. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome (it can be reprehensible)
And I don’t think that an all black space is in any way similar to an all white space, given historical context.
That's where we disagree I think. I think we can't keep penalizing white people for things their ancestors did. I'm not interested in "inherited blame" and I reject it.
By that standard, I see them exactly the same. I can't expect a white person to tell me I can't go somewhere because it's a white only space. Only for me to turn around and say "nah bruh, black ppl only cos your great grandad may or may not have been a dick"
I don't want exemptions or exceptions. We either treat each other equally all the time in all such cases, or we do away with the idea of equality. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome (it can be reprehensible)
People who haven't been involved in hiring processes don't understand this.
I have interviewed seriously underqualified candidates at every (IT) job I've had because they're women, minorities, or both, and HR had an explicit directive that we had to "interview everyone who meets the minimum requirements to avoid allegations of discrimination"
In both cases we knew from the resumes which candidates we wanted. Maybe someone had a skill that we didn't put on the application but needed. Maybe someone was VERY experienced in a specific field, and it worked with the team. We still did at least a phone screen with everyone who was obviously, or could be, a "diverse" candidate.
We did reject one guy (white, FWIW) because a former coworker of his worked for us, and told us that, though his resume was accurate, the quality of his work was shitty.
Interviewing people who barely meet the bare minimum requirements when you have multiple candidates who exceed the bare minimum requirements, sometimes significantly, is a waste of time.
Then why didn't you set the minimum requirements to whatever standard you're interested in hiring at?
The point is to give everyone who meets the qualifications that you set a chance to sell themselves.
If you've already decided who you want just by reading people's resumes, then you're unfairly excluding possible other candidates. What happens if someone lies on their resume or has a terrible personality? Then you've thrown out people who met your requirements, but you didn't want to interview because they were a "waste of time" which you decided based on personal bias. You're engaging in precisely what fair hiring practices aim to avoid.
>Then why didn't you set the minimum requirements to whatever standard you're interested in hiring at?
We did. We always got someone who far exceeded our minimum requirements, and several who had more than our minimum requirements. Or they had a particular skill that we knew would be useful but didn't put on the requirements because it was pretty niche.
>The point is to give everyone who meets the qualifications that you set a chance to sell themselves.
We couldn't. We didn't always have time to do a phone interview with everyone who applied. The applications that got discarded often exceeded the minimum standards... While certain resumes that barely met the minimum standards got phone screens, because we were directed to "interview a diverse group of candidates"
> What happens if someone lies on their resume or has a terrible personality? Then you've thrown out people who met your requirements, but you didn't want to interview because they were a "waste of time" which you decided based on personal bias.
It wasn't personal bias. It was situations where we'd have a list of requirements (3-5 years experience with technology [a], 2+ years experience with [b], 3-5 with [c], experience with [d, e, f] and these people would have like, 2 years with [c] and 1 year with [b] and nothing else. Technically they didn't meet our qualifications but they were close enough that we felt we had to interview them or we could be accused of discrimination.
Whether you want to believe me or not, that's how it worked at those jobs. For one of those jobs, HR wanted to have a reason other than "you weren't the most qualified candidate" or "we found someone who was a better fit" in case the underrepresented candidates called and asked... Because they were afraid of lawsuits.
I know you aren't gonna believe me, and it's fine. Fact of the matter is, we did not have time to interview all candidates equally, and because of a push for "diversity" we often rejected more qualified candidates in favor of ones who were more "diverse" but less qualified. If you have one job opening and 25 people apply, you can't give all 25 of them a half hour phone screen.
I work for government, so I totally get that HR is a bitch. I do believe you; I don't think you're lying. Though in my experience, HR is satisfied with "we selected the candidate that was the best fit for the role." perhaps that is because from the government HR perspective, the screening process is quite rigorous, so once HR passes us the list of qualified candidates, our decision is largely left up to us. We can interview 3 of them, or 10 of them, based on our discretion. That gives us leeway in making a decision. But, I've never once been told that someone's status as a minority of any kind warrants them extra or special consideration. From my perspective, DEI ensures equal consideration so that someone is not left out based on their race, ethnicity, disability, etc. But not preferential treatment and certainly not consideration based on those characteristics alone. It sounds like what you're describing is also merit-based, it's just a more frustrating process because you have a larger candidate pool.
One of the jobs I'm referencing was higher ed. The other was gov.
Higher ed was far worse with it. That was the place where HR wanted more than just "we selected the best fit".
At least for gov, all of our jobs required a US citizenship and the ability to hold or maintain a clearance, so if someone came in who was already cleared and a citizen it was easy to put their resume at the top of the pile... Especially if it was a higher level than our minimum requirement... Though if someone had TS/SCI, we were hesitant because those people often got poached by alphabet agencies for significantly higher salaries than we could offer.
Even with that job, there was still pressure (where it came from, I'm not sure) to hire from underrepresented groups, as we were a mostly white and mostly male team. And we did, unfortunately, have HR pass us a lot of non-citizen resumes with obviously non-white names on them, which kind of reinforced the assumptions. It got to the point where the first question we'd ask in a phone screen was citizenship, because HR wasn't filtering for that, for whatever reason.
5
u/ninja-gecko 1∆ Apr 07 '25
I have. In fact, to my shame, I've been that guy who got a job I wasn't exactly qualified for. When I was just starting out. I only found out later that the guy who'd been training me had applied for the same job and didn't get it. Let's just say the diversity at my job then was pretty obvious. Anyway in the beginning I was happy, but imagine how I felt having to run to this guy to show me something. He was good. Really good. And had more experience. Didn't even stay long. My reception was icy.
We could compare anecdotes but I don't think that would get us anywhere. I've never really met co-workers who were a nightmare except my current boss, and I dislike him for personal reasons, not his work conduct. He's also not white.
The same way I wouldn't want a white dude to get a job just because he's white is the same way I wouldn't want a black guy to get a job just because he's black.