Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure what difference that makes. Yes, I was talking about players. Why shouldn't players have diversity?
Also why is there no diversity initiative in mining, drilling, farming and construction industry where the vast majority of the workers are minority men???
Because pro sports have a very very objective criteria for becoming a player. There are very few paths to get there, and well the proof is on the court.
Office jobs on the other hand? Well there are a million paths, and a million different types of people who can do the job. Most of the selection criteria is super subjective. And subjective criteria means it is easy for bias to get into the process.
I agree, but would also add it's a problem if you're not hiring the first qualified person in the door or that you actually interview because you're waiting for the first qualified person of a certain race or gender (qualified or not) to come in the door.
This isn't rocket science. If you're looking for a certain color or gender and not simply qualified people, it's racism or sexism....how difficult can this concept be to understand ?
You may justify it on any number of grounds and perhaps even have a valid argument, but it doesn't change the fact that if you're making a decision based on looking for a certain gender or race, and not just qualifications, you're either racist, sexist or potentially both.
You are assuming that the people of color or whatever are not qualified. There are qualified people from many sources, not just the top 5 universities or your employees friends. The goal is to have people look in a few more places and then make a decision.
Because pro sports have a very very objective criteria for becoming a player. There are very few paths to get there, and well the proof is on the court.
Office jobs on the other hand? Well there are a million paths, and a million different types of people who can do the job. Most of the selection criteria is super subjective. And subjective criteria means it is easy for bias to get into the process.
Yes and bias is impossible to overcome. What minority candidates need are more options when it come to employment. For the most part I think for tech at least a minority who is qualified will eventually get a job. There will be some closed doors but mathematically speaking there is no way they couldn't get hired eventually.
One can argue maybe difference in salary but in tech salaries fluctuate a lot. People will stagnate if they stay at the same company too long. But I'd they continue to move after a few years their salary generally climbs pretty high.
I just don't see forced diversity as a real solution. We really need more minority start-ups if minorities feel the job market is closed to them. Which it really isn't.
That's 3 companies. 3 companies out of thousands world wide. Microsoft, Apple, and Google are very big employers, but again that's not even a fraction of the total tech workforce. People also forget that in relative terms Apple, Microsoft, and Google aren't very big companies at all.
Majority of Apples workforce is mostly in manufacturing plants and the Apple stores. Ditto for Microsoft. And Google, not sure who all works there, but out of their numbers, I doubt majority of them are actual engineers. People forgot that business personnel greatly outnumbers actual engineers even at tech companies.
And people overlook that their are huge tech departments are non-tech companies. Healthcare, Finance (huge tech employment), telecom, government, etc. Apple and Microsoft combined aren't even 5% of the total tech workforce.
If a minority wants a tech job, they can get it without identity politicking. I am a black male, did not go to a prestigous university, and do not have insanely good credentials. But I seems to always be able to find a job regardless. And I've even worked at Apple for a stint, and could have kept working there but I wanted to move back East.
It was 4 companies, actually. Four large tech companies with thousands of employees. Other examples are easy to find. These companies provide this data not out of any obligation, but because they want to measure and improve workforce diversity. Look at the data from Microsoft and Apple and you'll see that retail and overall professional numbers are not particularly diverse, either.
I am not suggesting that candidates need to "identity politick," nor am I suggesting that qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds can't get jobs. I am simply pointing out the obvious: these companies are not diverse, and they think they need to be more diverse. You could add a whole bunch of other tech companies who have started this kind of reporting: Yahoo, Twitter, Intel, HP, etc.
You seem to be suggesting that the total tech workforce is diverse. Do you have any data to support that assertion?
Because pro sports have a very very objective criteria for becoming a player. There are very few paths to get there, and well the proof is on the court.
Office jobs on the other hand? Well there are a million paths, and a million different types of people who can do the job. Most of the selection criteria is super subjective. And subjective criteria means it is easy for bias to get into the process.
There is always a bias in hiring new employees. Those who fight "bias" are simply demanding to change one bias with another (one they like better).
You are assuming that the people of color or whatever are not qualified. There are qualified people from many sources, not just the top 5 universities or your employees friends. The goal is to have people look in a few more places and then make a decision.
What in my quotes tells you I'm assuming anyone is qualified or unqualified ? I clearly stated in my comments "qualified OR not". This means the person could be either qualified.....or not ! Pretty clear isn't it ? "Qualified or not" covers 100% of people in all situations doesn't it ? There isn't much wiggle room here!
If we were to reverse this situation, there would be civil unrest or rioting going on...yet in this situation as described and is being discussed here, nobody can see the forest for the trees.
If I want to hire someone in my accounting department, and the first 10 people in the door are people of color and totally beyond dispute qualified, but I hire the eleventh guy in the door who is white and more or less equally qualified, would that be considered a problem or not ? I'm guessing that one or two people may pick up on the fact that I'm not just interested in qualified people....but rather just white qualified people. And my guess is that might just cause some to call me racist ! Which I would definitely be guilty of in this scenario.
How anyone can't understand this seemingly rather simple concept is beyond me.
I need some help from the liberals. How is this not racism and sexism?
"Intel set a goal last year: Of all new hires, 40 percent have to be women or under-represented minorities (black, Latino, Native American). The company had never hit that level in the past. So for Intel, it was an ambitious goal. And the company reports today: It managed to exceed it, hitting 43.1 percent."
Also why is there no diversity initiative in mining, drilling, farming and construction industry where the vast majority of the workers are men??? How about athletes? NBA? NFL where most players are of a protected race. Why no diversity is acceptable?
All of that can get real messy since Hispanic ain't a race and, not all American Indians look "Indian". Too; saying someone like Soledad O'Brien is "Black" IS pushing it IMHO.
OTOH: if we're gonna go by skin color; many anglo whites ARE dark skin like most Arabs and some Italians.
It's not red herring; it is the elephant in the room.
Why is the NBA program designed to discriminate against whites, Asian and latinos and we accept it?
To be fair: the NBA IS a true "merit" based system IMHO. Either a player can play ball, especially under a LOT of stress but CAN still make the basket or, they're cut from the team. Period.
Affirmitave action and quotas are discriminatory and actually damaging for minorities. It says " you can't compete on a level playing field based on skills and competency so we are going to give you an edge". Any minorities that are hired are then viewed as less capable than non minorities.
I've also seen where black people with ethnic names have a harder time even getting in to interview. Here's an idea...stop naming your kids Shaniqua, and Taniqua, and you won't have an issue. When I see those type of names, I have a feeling that they will be someone who values their blackness more than doing a good job. I feel like they will probably be the first to file EEOC suits based on discrimination if they are fired for work related misbehavior/incompetence. I know that may not be PC to admit, but that has been my experience.
Uh; not just "Black" people with funny sounding names. I've known several pasty white people of Arab, Hungarian or Czech family get lumped in with Blacks or Hispanics because of their "wrong" kinds of names and, the employers said oh hell NO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
