205
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
205 points (99.0% liked)
News
23320 readers
2279 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can someone who works in an institution that uses DEI metrics in the hiring process explain them for me? I'm a left leaning person for sure, but I can see why the Republicans would think this issue would resonate with the voters.
I know that DEI metrics are only "allowed to be used to differentiate between two, otherwise identical candidates for a position."
And while that seems reasonable on the surface, it does beg some follow-up questions. Like, "who identifies if two candidates are identical or not," and "how 'identical' do the two candidates need to be (exactly the same, 1% variance, 10%)?"
It seems like, as a system, while it should notionally only be used to distinguish between equally qualified candidates, is ill-defined enough that the actual "on the ground" outcome would be to favor less qualified candidates who belong to DEI targeted groups out of a sense of "erring on the side of caution," as it were.
I also fail to see how DEI initiatives that allow you to take race into account are better than systems that require blind interviews, where the race of the person isn't ever made clear to the interviewer? It seems like that should appeal to both sides, no? Why push to consider race as a placement criteria over just eliminating the issue all together?
I feel like some may push back against that and say that it disadvantages minorities due to systematic racial issues resulting in poorer resumes or performance on phone interviews, perpetuating systematic racism under the guise of eliminating race from the selection process. And while I'm sympathetic to that argument, it does somewhat contradict the first argument about distinguishing between "otherwise equal candidates," does it not?
But, as I say, all this is from the perspective of a left leaning layman who has absolutely no hand in implementing any of these initiatives. I'd really be very interested to hear how these issues are handled in the real world, and why blind interview processes aren't used instead.
Thanks!
Keep in mind that there have always been (and still are) people in the hiring process making decisions on biased metrics like "women can't work as hard" or "black people might steal". There is already a thumb on the scale, DEI just rebalances the scale.
But surely the correct solution is to remove bias altogether rather than replacing non-codified past bias with codified future bias, right?
Like, surely we should be trying to eliminate bias completely?
I'm sympathetic to those arguments that equality is not the same as equity, and that in some cases some form of reparation needs to be made to account for past bias. The issue is that, if that's the line you take here, then you are in fact doing what the Republicans claim, and putting less qualified people into positions that could have major impacts on the lives of other people.
And maybe your stance is that that's fine, and it's not that big a deal to hire less qualified candidates if it helps fix systematic racial issues. But I think then that what the Republicans are claiming is in fact just true, and they are probably right that most Americans will find that unpalatable.
You can't remove people's negative bias by passing laws. You can only limit the damage done by these biases.
Part of the argument here is that diversity itself has value, so that all other things equal the diverse choice is superior not just as a reparation but functionally as well.