In any situation where you're trying to combat socioeconomic problems arising primarily from systemic or past racism. For instance, if you're poor then you're given an immediate disadvantage, and...
In any situation where you're trying to combat socioeconomic problems arising primarily from systemic or past racism. For instance, if you're poor then you're given an immediate disadvantage, and POC have historically been deliberately disadvantaged so that they would remain poor. Thus there exists a difficult hurdle that our society has imposed upon them. It's therefore important you take measures to level the playing field so that POC have the opportunity to achieve similar levels of success. Once that hurdle is overcome, we can worry less about diversity efforts, but we're still working on that right now.
Not all people of colour are poor though. And the converse, not all poverty, lack of education is because of racism. If someone lacks talent at a job due to socioeconomic problems other than race,...
Not all people of colour are poor though. And the converse, not all poverty, lack of education is because of racism. If someone lacks talent at a job due to socioeconomic problems other than race, should they be hired for jobs they're bad at too? If a person of colour shows up at a job interview and is very bad at it, why do we jump to the conclusion "Oh, you must be a victim of systemic racism"? While a white person who's bad at a job has no one to blame but themselves?
In Canada anyway, where this study was done, to me this is absurd. Discrimination in hiring is pretty rare here, outside certain specific cases that I think should be dealt with individually. Specifically, there's still a lot of misogyny in some really male-dominated fields like oil well workers, pipe fitters, electricians, plumbers, etc. I think bias training could help a lot. The other one is native americans, who have been the victims of systemic racism. I'd say they're still not discriminated against in hiring, but they often have shitty living situations, inadequate access to education, etc. This one's complicated, since their reserves are technically sovereign nations, we can't exactly force their kids into more comprehensive education. The last time the Canadian government had that idea, it ended very, very badly. From the outside all Canada can do is continue to hand out reparation money to be embezzled by the tribe leaders.
This is one of those situations where I tend to disagree with extreme left positions. I'm very left wing, I'm a socialist, in favour of wealth redistribution, equality, etc. Yet, a lot of my far extreme left friends have gone so far off the deep end they think I'm an alt-righter if I bring this up.
These sorts of situations make anyone to the left of crazy really turned off by "the liberal agenda". This goes too far. The idea that businesses should be forced to hire shitty workers because of perceived white guilt is absurd. People should be hired based on their ability to work. Not the colour of their skin. If any group of people isn't getting the life skills to be a good worker, that's a different problem we should address. Increase funding to impoverished schools, provide free or subsidized college in low income areas. Address the root of the problem, lift people up out of poverty instead.
Please refer to my reply to @Leon. The short version is that merit is still important. Diversity efforts should only remove barriers to entry arising from a POC's relative lack of achievement...
Please refer to my reply to @Leon. The short version is that merit is still important. Diversity efforts should only remove barriers to entry arising from a POC's relative lack of achievement compared to their white counterparts'. If you're managing to hire shit workers in the process, then it's your specific hiring process or the legislation that sucks.
I don't think discrimination in Canada is rare, but I do believe it's much harder to spot. Of course there's still pockets of discrimination (like you've already mentioned). In my extremely...
Discrimination in hiring is pretty rare here, outside certain specific cases that I think should be dealt with individually.
I don't think discrimination in Canada is rare, but I do believe it's much harder to spot. Of course there's still pockets of discrimination (like you've already mentioned). In my extremely limited sample (tech only), I would say discrimination is based on location of origin more so than race, though the two can definitely be linked. The obvious exception, like you've also mentioned, are aboriginals.
How would one go about determining if an applicant had a poor C.V. or educational background due to socioeconomic problems arising from systemic racism, rather than simply not having the aptitude...
How would one go about determining if an applicant had a poor C.V. or educational background due to socioeconomic problems arising from systemic racism, rather than simply not having the aptitude for the position?
You don't. Furthermore, you don't hire someone who isn't qualified. But given two qualified candidates, sometimes it's necessary to consider that one person comes from a disadvantaged group and...
You don't. Furthermore, you don't hire someone who isn't qualified. But given two qualified candidates, sometimes it's necessary to consider that one person comes from a disadvantaged group and it's important to give them additional consideration if you find that your work place is fairly homogenous.
Diversity efforts are intended to impact all stages, from education to eventual hiring. If despite the efforts in the earlier stages your candidate isn't qualified at the later stages, then said candidate must return to the earlier stages and take full advantage of the assistance being offered. Diversity efforts aren't meant to accept candidates purely on the basis of racial or ethnic association, but to help avoid natural bias in the selection process where those candidates have less impressive applications than their white counterparts due to problems affecting them as a group.
In other words, the fallacy here is that you're concerning yourself with how we evaluate the individual, when diversity efforts are meant to apply blindly to the group. Merit is still essential, we just need to make sure that the systemic issues affecting POC don't result in their relative lack of achievement perpetuating those issues.
You wouldn't. A poor CV will weed a candidate straight out of the process. At that level, they'll need help beyond what a single company will offer. For example, maybe a public workshop to have...
You wouldn't. A poor CV will weed a candidate straight out of the process. At that level, they'll need help beyond what a single company will offer. For example, maybe a public workshop to have your CV reviewed and improved.
Continuing on that thought, I don't believe we can (or that we should) make exceptions based on socioeconomic issues at the hiring stage. That needs to be handled elsewhere. At the hiring level, the most we can ask for is to look at all candidates objectively and hopefully choose objectively.
Honestly that read a bit funny to me too, but I think they're specifically talking about how blind hiring is being advertised as a solution to diversity, but that it's not. I think there's two...
Honestly that read a bit funny to me too, but I think they're specifically talking about how blind hiring is being advertised as a solution to diversity, but that it's not.
I think there's two parts to this. One is merit hiring - so weeding out discrimination that may have prevented someone who's (the most) qualified being disqualified for the wrong reasons. Ideally, diversity will happen organically in this fashion. Of course, that assumes diversity leading up to it (such as same opportunities in education and previous experience). I believe this is what advocates for name-blind hiring is hoping for.
Two is diversity - in this case, when you have multiple candidates that are qualified, say for an entry level job, opportunities are handed out, hopefully without bias - so maybe draft.
Take a look at Harvard's practice of discriminating against Asian Americans, because otherwise they would be over-represented in the student body. They are currently being sued for this - (link)...
In which situations in particular is diversity more important than merit?
Take a look at Harvard's practice of discriminating against Asian Americans, because otherwise they would be over-represented in the student body. They are currently being sued for this - (link)
In Harvard's case, there are a dozen people who would be good for the student body who don't get accepted for each person that does. In Harvard's case, curating the student experience is a big part of its success, and one way that do that is through deciding who gains admission. For these reasons they might want to prioritize diversity over merit to an extent, and be a better university because of it.
Premise for anyone who hasn't clicked: Interactive game/demonstration. In a society of triangles & squares, you get to play with a variable (an individual's minimum happy percentage of same-shape...
Premise for anyone who hasn't clicked:
Interactive game/demonstration. In a society of triangles & squares, you get to play with a variable (an individual's minimum happy percentage of same-shape neighbors) to see the macroscopic outcomes.
I think the article misses the point. People see homogeneity in the workplace as a symptom of racist hiring practices or general discrimination on the part of the business. The solution to that is...
I think the article misses the point. People see homogeneity in the workplace as a symptom of racist hiring practices or general discrimination on the part of the business. The solution to that is clearly to remove the possibility of that -- hence, name blind hiring.
There are two separate goals here: fair and nondiscriminatory hiring practices and "diversity" (aka breaking up a white homogeneity.)
Name blind hiring has always been a tool to avoid discrimination, not necessarily to bring the racial quota in an office up to par.
What I got from the article was that racists practices can still exist even with name-blind hiring process, since it really only removes implicit bias. So using name-blind and still ending up with...
People see homogeneity in the workplace as a symptom of racist hiring practices or general discrimination on the part of the business.
What I got from the article was that racists practices can still exist even with name-blind hiring process, since it really only removes implicit bias. So using name-blind and still ending up with a homogeneous workforce doesn't mean there aren't other racial issues in other parts of the hiring process.
I agree with the rest of what you've written and believe it actually was the point of the article.
Basically, name-blind hiring is just a tool, not a solution, and if you don't use it right you won't actually get the results you think you're aiming for. Makes sense, there's plenty of people out...
Basically, name-blind hiring is just a tool, not a solution, and if you don't use it right you won't actually get the results you think you're aiming for.
Makes sense, there's plenty of people out there who think tools are one-stop solutions to much grander and more complex issues. I'm currently watching some other group keep taking about how they want to use "personas" but somehow have never heard the term "user testing" before and don't realize that developing personas makes no sense for their application. They've just heard of the tool as a "user experience solution" and are gunning right for it.
This is definitely true. I often see people (and sometimes myself :P) get too into tools and loose track of what we're actually trying to accomplish. And of course, even with the right tool, it...
This is definitely true. I often see people (and sometimes myself :P) get too into tools and loose track of what we're actually trying to accomplish. And of course, even with the right tool, it has to be used correctly, and it's limitations noted.
Yes, it does. There was a study on this here in Australia a few years ago (the study itself (PDF), a blog by one of the study's authors, and an article about the study). It found that there was...
Does name-blind hiring help improve diversity?
Yes, it does. There was a study on this here in Australia a few years ago (the study itself (PDF), a blog by one of the study's authors, and an article about the study). It found that there was discrimination against resumes with non-Anglo names.
If we remove names from resumes, managers and recruiters are more likely to hire on merit than on perceived ethnicity - so they're more likely to end up hiring a diverse workforce.
The article ends on an interesting question from Michael Bach, founder of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (CCDI); He's definitely right in that a name blind hiring system takes the...
The article ends on an interesting question from Michael Bach, founder of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (CCDI);
“I don’t love the idea of name-blind hiring because I think it takes away the responsibility of the issue,” he says. “If there’s bias in the system, we need to deal with the bias.”
He's definitely right in that a name blind hiring system takes the culpability away from the individuals doing the hiring itself. Should blind hiring be implemented on a broad scale or is it more important to address the biases threatening diversity in the first place? Does implementing a blind hiring system set us back in trying to make people aware of their own biases?
This really stood out to me too. For me, I can't see blind hiring being all that useful, especially because face-to-face interviews are still the norm. If there are bias, they really need to be...
This really stood out to me too. For me, I can't see blind hiring being all that useful, especially because face-to-face interviews are still the norm. If there are bias, they really need to be address in the system. People need to be made aware of their bias somehow and that addressed. Of course, easier said than done.
In which situations in particular is diversity more important than merit?
In any situation where you're trying to combat socioeconomic problems arising primarily from systemic or past racism. For instance, if you're poor then you're given an immediate disadvantage, and POC have historically been deliberately disadvantaged so that they would remain poor. Thus there exists a difficult hurdle that our society has imposed upon them. It's therefore important you take measures to level the playing field so that POC have the opportunity to achieve similar levels of success. Once that hurdle is overcome, we can worry less about diversity efforts, but we're still working on that right now.
Not all people of colour are poor though. And the converse, not all poverty, lack of education is because of racism. If someone lacks talent at a job due to socioeconomic problems other than race, should they be hired for jobs they're bad at too? If a person of colour shows up at a job interview and is very bad at it, why do we jump to the conclusion "Oh, you must be a victim of systemic racism"? While a white person who's bad at a job has no one to blame but themselves?
In Canada anyway, where this study was done, to me this is absurd. Discrimination in hiring is pretty rare here, outside certain specific cases that I think should be dealt with individually. Specifically, there's still a lot of misogyny in some really male-dominated fields like oil well workers, pipe fitters, electricians, plumbers, etc. I think bias training could help a lot. The other one is native americans, who have been the victims of systemic racism. I'd say they're still not discriminated against in hiring, but they often have shitty living situations, inadequate access to education, etc. This one's complicated, since their reserves are technically sovereign nations, we can't exactly force their kids into more comprehensive education. The last time the Canadian government had that idea, it ended very, very badly. From the outside all Canada can do is continue to hand out reparation money to be embezzled by the tribe leaders.
This is one of those situations where I tend to disagree with extreme left positions. I'm very left wing, I'm a socialist, in favour of wealth redistribution, equality, etc. Yet, a lot of my far extreme left friends have gone so far off the deep end they think I'm an alt-righter if I bring this up.
These sorts of situations make anyone to the left of crazy really turned off by "the liberal agenda". This goes too far. The idea that businesses should be forced to hire shitty workers because of perceived white guilt is absurd. People should be hired based on their ability to work. Not the colour of their skin. If any group of people isn't getting the life skills to be a good worker, that's a different problem we should address. Increase funding to impoverished schools, provide free or subsidized college in low income areas. Address the root of the problem, lift people up out of poverty instead.
Please refer to my reply to @Leon. The short version is that merit is still important. Diversity efforts should only remove barriers to entry arising from a POC's relative lack of achievement compared to their white counterparts'. If you're managing to hire shit workers in the process, then it's your specific hiring process or the legislation that sucks.
I don't think discrimination in Canada is rare, but I do believe it's much harder to spot. Of course there's still pockets of discrimination (like you've already mentioned). In my extremely limited sample (tech only), I would say discrimination is based on location of origin more so than race, though the two can definitely be linked. The obvious exception, like you've also mentioned, are aboriginals.
How would one go about determining if an applicant had a poor C.V. or educational background due to socioeconomic problems arising from systemic racism, rather than simply not having the aptitude for the position?
You don't. Furthermore, you don't hire someone who isn't qualified. But given two qualified candidates, sometimes it's necessary to consider that one person comes from a disadvantaged group and it's important to give them additional consideration if you find that your work place is fairly homogenous.
Diversity efforts are intended to impact all stages, from education to eventual hiring. If despite the efforts in the earlier stages your candidate isn't qualified at the later stages, then said candidate must return to the earlier stages and take full advantage of the assistance being offered. Diversity efforts aren't meant to accept candidates purely on the basis of racial or ethnic association, but to help avoid natural bias in the selection process where those candidates have less impressive applications than their white counterparts due to problems affecting them as a group.
In other words, the fallacy here is that you're concerning yourself with how we evaluate the individual, when diversity efforts are meant to apply blindly to the group. Merit is still essential, we just need to make sure that the systemic issues affecting POC don't result in their relative lack of achievement perpetuating those issues.
You wouldn't. A poor CV will weed a candidate straight out of the process. At that level, they'll need help beyond what a single company will offer. For example, maybe a public workshop to have your CV reviewed and improved.
Continuing on that thought, I don't believe we can (or that we should) make exceptions based on socioeconomic issues at the hiring stage. That needs to be handled elsewhere. At the hiring level, the most we can ask for is to look at all candidates objectively and hopefully choose objectively.
I get you. Thanks :)
Honestly that read a bit funny to me too, but I think they're specifically talking about how blind hiring is being advertised as a solution to diversity, but that it's not.
I think there's two parts to this. One is merit hiring - so weeding out discrimination that may have prevented someone who's (the most) qualified being disqualified for the wrong reasons. Ideally, diversity will happen organically in this fashion. Of course, that assumes diversity leading up to it (such as same opportunities in education and previous experience). I believe this is what advocates for name-blind hiring is hoping for.
Two is diversity - in this case, when you have multiple candidates that are qualified, say for an entry level job, opportunities are handed out, hopefully without bias - so maybe draft.
Take a look at Harvard's practice of discriminating against Asian Americans, because otherwise they would be over-represented in the student body. They are currently being sued for this - (link)
In Harvard's case, there are a dozen people who would be good for the student body who don't get accepted for each person that does. In Harvard's case, curating the student experience is a big part of its success, and one way that do that is through deciding who gains admission. For these reasons they might want to prioritize diversity over merit to an extent, and be a better university because of it.
I'd encourage anyone thinking about diversity to check out this charming playable parable.
That's really neat. Thanks for sharing.
Premise for anyone who hasn't clicked:
Interactive game/demonstration. In a society of triangles & squares, you get to play with a variable (an individual's minimum happy percentage of same-shape neighbors) to see the macroscopic outcomes.
Neat demonstration
I think the article misses the point. People see homogeneity in the workplace as a symptom of racist hiring practices or general discrimination on the part of the business. The solution to that is clearly to remove the possibility of that -- hence, name blind hiring.
There are two separate goals here: fair and nondiscriminatory hiring practices and "diversity" (aka breaking up a white homogeneity.)
Name blind hiring has always been a tool to avoid discrimination, not necessarily to bring the racial quota in an office up to par.
What I got from the article was that racists practices can still exist even with name-blind hiring process, since it really only removes implicit bias. So using name-blind and still ending up with a homogeneous workforce doesn't mean there aren't other racial issues in other parts of the hiring process.
I agree with the rest of what you've written and believe it actually was the point of the article.
Basically, name-blind hiring is just a tool, not a solution, and if you don't use it right you won't actually get the results you think you're aiming for.
Makes sense, there's plenty of people out there who think tools are one-stop solutions to much grander and more complex issues. I'm currently watching some other group keep taking about how they want to use "personas" but somehow have never heard the term "user testing" before and don't realize that developing personas makes no sense for their application. They've just heard of the tool as a "user experience solution" and are gunning right for it.
This is definitely true. I often see people (and sometimes myself :P) get too into tools and loose track of what we're actually trying to accomplish. And of course, even with the right tool, it has to be used correctly, and it's limitations noted.
Yes, it does. There was a study on this here in Australia a few years ago (the study itself (PDF), a blog by one of the study's authors, and an article about the study). It found that there was discrimination against resumes with non-Anglo names.
If we remove names from resumes, managers and recruiters are more likely to hire on merit than on perceived ethnicity - so they're more likely to end up hiring a diverse workforce.
The article ends on an interesting question from Michael Bach, founder of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (CCDI);
He's definitely right in that a name blind hiring system takes the culpability away from the individuals doing the hiring itself. Should blind hiring be implemented on a broad scale or is it more important to address the biases threatening diversity in the first place? Does implementing a blind hiring system set us back in trying to make people aware of their own biases?
This really stood out to me too. For me, I can't see blind hiring being all that useful, especially because face-to-face interviews are still the norm. If there are bias, they really need to be address in the system. People need to be made aware of their bias somehow and that addressed. Of course, easier said than done.