YouTube Hiring For Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Men, Lawsuit Says (theverge.com)

Kirsten Grind and Douglas MacMillan report via The Wall Street Journal (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn't help the world's largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee. The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet's Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren't female, black or Hispanic, and to "purge entirely" the applications of people who didn't fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.

A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. "We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity," she said in a statement. "At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products." People familiar with YouTube's and Google's hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit's allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube's use of quotas.

Comments

Easy Solution

[alvinrod]

Here's the easy solution to this problem. Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously. If it gets the point of the interview and you've still got people being biased or discriminatory, then you've got bigger problems because at that point there's no excuse for falling back on some preconceived notions as everyone who makes it there should be qualified to work at your company or your screening process sucks.

Anything else is going to create a perception of unfairness regardless of what kind of noble intentions you might have. One thing that always astounds me is that the people who constantly bang on about white or male privilege and how that provides unfair benefits for some always seem to want to enact policy that enshrines unfairness as a fundamental concept. If you think that unfair treatment results in people being dissatisfied or outright disgruntled, then why the hell would you think that actively creating unfair conditions wouldn't result in the same conditions. To some degree I think this is partially (among a great many other things) responsible for the rise in what's been called the alt-right and has played a part in why someone like Trump was able to win the election.

Re:Easy Solution

[burtosis]

If it were race blind, and all candidates equal, then the diversity of the applicants would match the workplace. Using prejudice to fix prejudice will never work. Look at what happens when a minority is now hired, everyone will think they just got there by the color of thier skin as many really are inferior due to lowered standards or rejecting the more qualified but wrong race/gender thus reinforcing the notion that this is the extra help these people need to be on par with the superior race/gender. It undermines the credibility of the hard working who earned it on merit. It's a tool that does more harm than good, doubly so long term.

Re:Easy Solution

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It wont work.

The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.

Instead of general population as the criterion, if you use STEM graduates of the top 100 or 200 US colleges, the percentages might not look so terrible for Google. If Google could say, "our workforce reflects the talent pool we recruit from" and that argument is accepted it would be good.

Google is not making that argument, "the population of top grads from top schools differs significantly from the general population. What can we do?".

The reason is, this argument has been used in the past to actively discriminate against the minorities. So it does not carry much weight among the general public. So Google is in this no-win situation.

Re:Easy Solution

[sycodon]

The Diversity Overlords will never acquiesce to having their primary cudgel taken away from them.

Re: Easy Solution

[Dog-Cow]

Fixing a symptom of unequal education by creating more inequality doesn't actually fix anything.

Re:Easy Solution

[AmiMoJo]

The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.

No, I've never heard anyone seriously claim that. The only time it's used is as a straw man to avoid addressing the actual argument, which is that there are wide ranging systemic issues and companies should do their bit to address that.

Re:Easy Solution

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously.

It is necessary for HR and hiring personnel to be bigoted . . . otherwise diversity cannot be achieved.

Diversity is necessary for folks who cannot compete in a system based on equality.

Diversity means that some people need to be treated "more equal" than others.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

That won't happen in a country ruled by diversity policies.

Re:Easy Solution

[alvinrod]

I don't believe that even if you assume that a given labor force must match gender and racial demographics that any one business that fails to meet those criteria must be biased. If you were to assume that, you'd also have to argue that the NBA is horribly biased as they have a disproportionate number of black athletes relative to the population of the U.S. and no women at all. There are plenty of other professions where the numbers are similarly slanted such as the petroleum industry, nursing, commercial fishing, veterinary medicine, logging, and primary education instruction. No industry is likely to be balanced when there are others that are also imbalanced because you can't hire people that aren't in your field.

I suspect even the most ardent supporters of the notion that there are no biological differences between men and women that would lead them to make different career choices, wouldn't argue that physical differences don't exist that clearly lend advantages to certain vocations where physical labor is a necessary component for the job. The mere existence of those jobs and the qualifications naturally resulting in male dominance means that there is going to need to be a counter-balance in some other fields which will necessarily be female dominated.

My position is that I don't really care whether or not my dentist is male or female so long as they're the most qualified individual I can find at the price I'm willing to pay. I don't see how having or lacking a Y chromosome factors in to ability and I'm not concerned that the field is primarily made up of women. Similarly, I don't care who's writing the software I use so long as it satisfies my needs. I don't believe that companies should be concerned with it either, nor should they be forced to by government decree. Instead, what we should strive for as a society is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to pursue their individual goals and desires and express their individual freedom to the greatest extent possible. If that results in 80% female dentists and only 20% female programmers, who are we to tell women that they can't be dentists and instead must work with computers, while telling men that they need to teach first grade.

The approach I propose doesn't seek to get more women into computing or computing jobs, it merely is a way to ensure that as a company you're not discriminating against them either overtly or merely as a result of reasons that are not at all apparent. I think it also serves as a good defense against accusations of bias as it's quite hard to explain how you could actively discriminate against women, minorities, or other groups if you don't possess the information to do that. If post-use analysis shows that some group isn't making it through the resume screening stage or some other phase of the interview, it's more indicative of an earlier problem such as substandard education than of any act on the part of the company.

Re:Easy Solution

[thegarbz]

Yeah I know right! Changing the colour of your skin is trivial for the job interview.

If it gets the point of the interview

Ok you addressed it, but you don't seem to see the point. These are policies enacted by high-ups. The interview is irrelevant in the face of policy. They aren't looking for the best technical candidate in the first cut, and they aren't looking for them in the interview either.

Re:Easy Solution

[ooloorie]

Here's the easy solution to this problem. Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people

I think there is an even easier solution: encourage and even force Google and YouTube to live by the principles they advocate and support politically. Let them blacklist all white and Asian males in their hiring process and then let's see how well their business does with those kinds of policies in place.

Perhaps Eric Schmid and Sundar Pichai could even hasten the process of achieving a more balanced corporate management structure by resigning and leaving; I mean, talk about two icons of white/Asian male privilege!

Re:Easy Solution

[Jhon]

"The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating."

Actually, the numbers are more like "73% white (including Hispanic) 12% blank, Asian 5%, 5% "other" and about 3% two more more mixed race.

White non-hispanics are actually in the very low 60% range. In CA, white non-hispanics are in the mid 40% range. Births in CA of Hispanics are out pacing white non-hispanic births by almost 2:1. In a generation or so Hispanics will be the majority in CA -- and in about 3 to 5 generations they shall be the majority in the US.

I for one suggest we make good friends with our soon to be Hispanic overlords.

Re:Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasonable but "workplace diversity" will never be met. That's the point of the information you reference.

AKA "quotas".

Cultural Marxism is as bankrupt as economic Marxism.

And yes, all this "social justice" crap comes from Cultural Marxism - where people are DIVIDED by race and gender, and if the results aren't deemed "equal" it's because of the "violence, err, racism inherent in the system".

Yeah, it was a farce 43 fucking years ago, and it's still a fucking farce.

Re: Easy Solution

[ArmoredDragon]

That's fine too say and all, until the government probes and lawsuits begin.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

There are plenty of other professions where the numbers are similarly slanted

You can't say that. The acceptable term is "epicanthically endowed".

Re:Easy Solution

[blindseer]

Here's the easy solution to this problem. Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously.

Sounds easy at first but impossible in practice.

Imagine an applicant fresh from college. The resume collection system removes the name and gender of the applicant and replaces it with a numeric identifier. Instead of "Jennifer Jones" it puts, "Applicant 79876". There are still schools that accept only men or women, if the applicant attended one of these schools then how can that be hidden? Is any mention of the name of the school removed? The college that people attended is important as some schools have a reputation for higher standards than others. Only removing the names of single sex schools would raise a flag as well.

Hiring managers like to see people that had activities outside of academics, and applicants know this. If someone took up softball or volleyball then the probability is quite high the applicant is female, versus more male dominated sports like baseball or hockey. This isn't absolute but a well known trend.

What of a club like Society of Women Engineers? If an applicant chooses to put that on their resume then would it be acceptable to remove it before a hiring manager can see it? The society does accept men as members but we all know that this is dominated by women. Same goes for societies based on race like Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.

To some degree I think this is partially (among a great many other things) responsible for the rise in what's been called the alt-right and has played a part in why someone like Trump was able to win the election.

I agree. The reason we saw organizations like SWE and SHPE develop was to counteract discrimination. They advocated for fair treatment in society. If white and Asian males see themselves being denied work because of their sex and/or race then would not organizations develop to advocate for fair treatment? What we've seen are these groups that historically called for fair treatment are now asking for special treatment. It's as if "reverse discrimination" is not also a form of discrimination. Trump didn't win the election so much as Clinton lost. She ran on being a woman and that "it's time" for a woman as President. That might get a person a lot of points in an election, which is how I think Obama was able to win, but the person still has to have enough other qualifications to be considered worthy. Clinton was a mediocre senator and a terrible Secretary of State. Trump called for "making American great again", which has broad appeal. Clinton talked of how she'd fight for women and minorities but white men vote too.

Some data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Clinton did win the Latino vote, Black vote, and women, but white men voted too. When you go and campaign on how white men are keeping you down in a nation that is 74% white and 49% male then you should not be surprised that you lose. It's actually amazing she got as many votes as she did. Oh, and it doesn't help to run a campaign on getting a majority of the popular vote in an election that chooses the winner based on state allocation of electors. Trump and his campaign knew this and so campaigned on getting electors, so he won.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

Most companies don't/can't include that information.

We know HR aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer, but if they can't work it out when they see the name Winston Kodogo on the application form I suspect they'll probably pick it up at the interview.

Re:Easy Solution

[alvinrod]

If not that, then what should the number of black, female, etc. employees in software development be? You can't argue that it's too low or that the numbers are an indication of systemic issues if you don't have some expected value. One could make a similar argument with just as much support (that is to say very little) that the number of those groups employed is too high.

I also don't see how Google, Amazon, or any other company is in a position to address societal issues that are far removed from their core business. The problem with any policy that resembles affirmative action is that it assumes that a top-down approach to solving the problem will be effective, when I feel it's the exact opposite. It's a bit like trying to erect a building roof first and then wondering why it leads to all manner of instability.

Companies would be better off employing whomever allows them to make the most money and their taxes to ensure that education and infrastructure are adequately funded. However, there are some who believe that it is the failure of those public institutions which continues to perpetuate cycles of poverty in some communities, but if that's the case then those companies could do better by investing in educational institutions that they believe could help solve the problem and I suspect there's some self-interest in ensuring that the next generation is going to be ready to enter a labor market possessing the kinds of skills those companies demand.

Re:Easy Solution

[NicknameUnavailable]

The reason is, this argument has been used in the past to actively discriminate against the minorities. So it does not carry much weight among the general public. So Google is in this no-win situation.

Nope, they're just malicious. There's a very easily winnable situation: hire the best people for the job and if the liberal extremists complain just ignore them.

Re:Easy Solution

[the_povinator]

It seems to me that people implementing racially discriminatory hiring practices should avoid using words like "purge" in emails. Note to Google HR: you might also want to watch your use of words and phrases like "cleanse", "purify", "rats", "vermin", "final solution" and the like. When used in that context, people tend to take them the wrong way.

Re:Easy Solution

[BronsCon]

Asians are actually pretty prevalent in tech. Depending on location, you'll find them between 1:2 and 2:1 with whites, averaging out to a 1:1 ratio globally as you expand your sample size from a single company to the city, county, state, and country levels. In this field they are not a minority.

Re: Easy Solution

[PPH]

Nope. Having the wrong gender/race mix is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing in a civil suit.

Re:Easy Solution

[UsuallyReasonable]

If you haven't heard it, you haven't been listening. The government routinely argues discriminatory lending cases on just such a basis.

Re:Easy Solution

[UsuallyReasonable]

You're making his point.

Re:Easy Solution

[Solandri]

It's interesting to note that music schools and orchestras have regularly used blind auditions since the 1980s and 1990s. The applicant sits behind a curtain during their music audition, so the judges can only hear the music, not see the person.

One thing that always astounds me is that the people who constantly bang on about white or male privilege and how that provides unfair benefits for some always seem to want to enact policy that enshrines unfairness as a fundamental concept. If you think that unfair treatment results in people being dissatisfied or outright disgruntled, then why the hell would you think that actively creating unfair conditions wouldn't result in the same conditions. To some degree I think this is partially (among a great many other things) responsible for the rise in what's been called the alt-right and has played a part in why someone like Trump was able to win the election.

I agree. Affirmative action is supposed to help disadvantaged races and genders by providing them easier access. Instead, it's been turned into a tool to deny access to certain races and genders. Instead of eliminating discrimination, all it's done is replace one form of discrimination with another. Asians are the perfect example of the fialure. In the U.S., they were discriminated against in the past. Yet modern affirmative action polices end up punishing them as if they were the ones who were the ones who perpetrated the discrimination in the past.

The problem IMHO stems from a basic misunderstanding of science. The scientific method as taught to children (through high school) is that you make a hypothesis, think up an experiment to test it, conduct that experiment, then based on the collected data decide if the hypothesis is right or wrong.

It doesn't actually work quite like that. The real scientific method is that you must make a falsifiable hypothesis for testing. You see, you can't prove a negative. If you choose "reindeer cannot fly" as your hypothesis, you can collect a thousand reindeer and push them over a cliff. If all of them plummet to their deaths, you haven't proven that reindeer cannot fly. All you've shown is that those thousand reindeer either couldn't fly or chose not to fly. The hypothesis "reindeer cannot fly" is non-falsifiable, and therefore invalid as a scientific hypothesis.

OTOH if you choose "reindeer can fly" as your hypothesis, then all you have to do is produce a single example of a flying reindeer to prove it. Until you can prove that hypothesis, you assume it's incorrect and operate under the assumption that reindeer cannot fly.

Likewise, you cannot prove a hypothesis that there is no discrimination. The hypothesis must always be that there is discrimination, and the burden of proof must always be upon those alleging discrimination.. If your research and tests fail to show discrimination, you must fall back upon the null hypothesis - that there is no discrimination. What's happened instead is an inversion of the scientific paradigm. People simply assume discrimination is happening without evidence, which gives those arguing against them the impossible task of proving that there is no discrimination.

If you allege that employee composition (or school applicant composition) which doesn't match the composition of the general population is the result of discrimination and not other causes, then you must first prove it. Without such proof, all you're doing is practicing a different, newer form of discrimination (bias against certain groups without evidence).

Re:Easy Solution

[Darinbob]

When I started in CS in college, there was a fair representation of women. It may not have been exactly 50%, more like 30-40%, but they certainly were not rare. Fast forward a few decades and women are rare in engineering and R&D, even more so in IT. Biology did not change, this decline is absolutely due to people and sociology, not because women are not suited to the fields or that they're inherently not interested.

Anyone who thinks this is the natural way things should be today is deluded, probably an ardent supporter of the status quo.

Re:Easy Solution

[MikeMo]

What are these "wide-ranging, systemic issues" you speak of? Please enumerate. That would help solve the problem.

What do you think companies should do to address these issues, specifically. Please state how each of these suggestions will actually alleviate one of the "wide ranging systemic issues". Thanks.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

If the percentages that complete a STEM degree don't match the population as a whole, then a workforce that focuses on STEM will never match the population as a whole.

But they aren't applying for those courses because when they graduate they won't get jobs!

(Deputising for AmiMoJo, who's having a lie down after a fit of the vapours caused by someone pointing out that you can't claim under-representation for a group without stating a baseline for what the level of representation should be)

Re:Easy Solution

[BronsCon]

Not really, I'm making an entirely different point. White and asian males are the majority of the pool of qualified candidates in this field so, of course, they'll make up the majority of workforce in this field. We don't need to fix white and asian males making up the majority of this workforce; what we need to fix is the lack of interest in this field on the part of women and people of other races. And we need to do that by making the field more attractive to them, not by attempting to force them into it (no quicker way to make them lose interest) or promising them a high paying job even if they're not as qualified as other candidates they displace. The former is is just as discriminatory, in just as negative of a way, and against the same people we keep hearing are being discriminated against in the first place, which makes it a horrible solution. The latter causes the overall talent of the workforce to decline as more qualified candidates are overlooked because "diversity".

Do I want to see tech become more diverse? Of course I do! The issue, at least as I see it, is that the only applicants I even had in my last round of hiring were white and asian males, which makes it kind of hard to hire anyone else.

Forcing women and people of color into this field is no worse a solution than forcing white and asian males out of this field, and it's a pretty awful solution. That is to say, in case you missed it, both are awful solutions.

The reality is, if few women and few people of color have interest in tech work, there will be few women and few people of color in tech. Period.

We can look for ways to get them legitimately interested in the field but, much like with a horse and water, you can only lead them. We, as a society, need to be exploring why there is such a disparity in interest in certain fields and, if there is a legitimate cause other than "I'm just not interested", perhaps we can address that. That might have a chance of making the talent pool more closely match the general population in terms of race, gender, orientation, age, and background; or it may not, as a diverse group of people may simply not be interested in the work, preferring other fields for whatever reason. However, it's the only legitimate and nondiscriminatory thing we, as a society, can push for to "correct" this "problem" -- and if it doesn't correct the problem, then there wasn't one to begin with.

If I were to exclude white and asian males from my hiring process, quite simply I would not have been able to hire anyone. That's not a problem, that's just what the talent pool looks like. Bitch about diversity when someone doesn't get an interview because they're black or female or gay or 87, not when they didn't apply for the job in the first fucking place.

Re: Easy Solution

[burtosis]

Ding ding! Found the winner. You address the inequality by providing better education, pre and after school free activities, better availability of food and help for lower income families. These problems will sort themselves out far faster.

Re:Easy Solution

[burtosis]

If someone once wronged someone else, and you let it escalate tit for tat, it blows out of control in short order. Fix the problem, don't sweep it under the rug.

Re:Easy Solution

[ewibble]

People state you can't prove a negative all the time it is simply not true. Proof by contradiction is proving a negative. You assume something show that something leads to contradiction, therefore you have proved the original statement is false.

In your reindeer cannot fly the problem is not the negative but you there exists at no reindeer that can fly. In your positive example just because you showed n reindeer could fly doesn't prove all reindeer can fly. You could prove not all reindeer can fly.

Me being pedantic, you could prove no reindeer could fly by throwing every last one off a cliff. If they all fell to the deaths then you have proven it, even if they where willing to die to hide their ability, they are all dead now so the can't fly.

A scientific proof, is not the same as mathematical proof you can never be 100% certain anything about the real world is right, at the very least there could be some entity with superior knowledge manipulating your results. You have no way of disproving that because any proof could be a manipulation. The best science can do is make do experiments and make the best implications from it can.

Re: Easy Solution

[Bruha]

Have to exclude names too. Otherwise minority sounding names like Jose, Lakeshiea, or Lee will get excluded still.

Re:Easy Solution

[Darinbob]

But how do you fix it? Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't see discrimination as a problem if it's not happening to them or their group. Leaving things as they are does not solve the problem either.

One problem I see is that people are quick to condemn reverse discrimination, but they are much more quiet about the original discrimination. That is they hate the tit-for-tat but don't hate the tat.

Re:Easy Solution

[scamper_22]

Most of these anti-discrimination issues are very problematic from a policy level.

Even simple things. Remember a little while back people made a fuss about H&M using a black child for a tshirt that said 'monkey'.

Now think about it from a company perspective.
It's possible, someone was cheeky racist. It's also possible, the kid just happens to be black.

Either-way, what do you think the corporate policy could be to avoid such issues? Possibly something along the lines of.

"If an item contains 'monkey' in the description, do not cast a black child'

That is what the policy needs to be. (assuming you still want t-shirts that say monkey). But if you write that out, guess what, you are discriminating against some black child. You are holding back the career of black models.

It's the same here. People can phrase it as we need to hire more Latinos, Blacks... but how does that come down to corporate policy... don't hire White or Asian men.That's what the policy has to be as written down.

Once you get past measures to ensure 'fair' assessment of ability, this is simply how it has to be done once you get into the nitty gritty. What irks people is when the policy is actually written down and implemented.

Re:Easy Solution

[AmiMoJo]

It's not that difficult to understand. It's about equality of opportunity, and from that the numbers will reach some kind of natural equilibrium that is close to the numbers in the wider population.

You don't need the numbers to show that there are issues. You only need to identify the issues themselves.

Re:Easy Solution

[serviscope_minor]

Here's the easy solution to this problem.

For every problem, there is a solution which is easy, simple and wrong. So, let's see...

Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications

aaaand herre we go. That works as long as there is no public information about you. If you have anything relating to a public profile, like publications, presence at conferences, positions on standards bodies, patents and so on and so forth, then that information is out there.

Not only is it out there, it's a great thing to put on your CV. Come to think of it, the only reason I'm at my current job is precisely because of my public profile: people in the relevant sub-sub-sub-*field know what I have worked on and like it enough to offer me a job.

Re:Easy Solution

[AmiMoJo]

While access to education is a huge issue, I'd add that at the recruitment stage it can help to consider non-traditional backgrounds. What I mean is that not going to a prestigious school doesn't mean that person can't code.

In fact in low level embedded development where I work, a degree isn't all that relevant when interviewing. They don't teach this stuff on most courses and so we need to look at examples of work and talk to the candidate. We need to consider if we can teach them the necessary skills.

Re:Easy Solution

[burtosis]

I'll go one step deeper here. Let's say I'm white, and fairly well off, but have never discriminated, been racist, or even slightly so (in terms of new age micro aggressions etc...). Saying I'm guilty of privilege, I'm wrong, I've ruined lives by being racist simply for my color or family heritage IS racist and part of the problem. Racism and sexism are problems that can affect everyone and saying it is ok against white males because they deserve it gets you what we have today - divisiveness, broadening inequality, and worse conditions for everyone except the top 1%. Privelage is often misspelled - you spell it "the common decency everyone deserves", everyone should have it and no one should feel guilty when they had it to begin with. Let's look at it this way - say 98.7% of the racist and sexist hiring and workplace problems are coming from white males and directed toward non-white males. The SJW reaction is to say "FK you all you white males - you deserve nothing except to be ashamed of yourself and have these better people put ahead of you in society". But let's look at that - in reality only maybe 5%(or some small subset) of the workplace, managers and a few problem employees, are doing the discrimination you are frying 95% of the population of white males for something they didn't do. Further the 1.3% caused by minorities and women discriminating against out groups affect potentially millions in the workforce! Those millions will be pissed as hell they aren't being addressed when it's so goddamn trivial to include them as well in the solution. But no - fuck you white males that are being hurt by minority discrimination practices because thier minority boss hates thier kind or fuck you false sex charges male white victim. It's because they don't want a fix or equality, they want to punish and finally gain the upper hand where they can start reigning down thier own brand of injustice.

There is no simple fix that patches things up. You need to remove access barriers that cause the inequality initially. For example, improve public schools, doubly so in poor neighborhoods. Offer free or very cheap pre and post school activities, offer cheaper and better access to food at school, give more aid to low income families raising children, provide free college for all Americans. Getting these kids on the right track up front, and providing free education to young adults or adults to get better qualifications than they could otherwise afford is what will fix it. The savings to our society will make up for the cost several times over, being poor without much hope for the future is extremely expensive and guess who pays for that?

Re:Easy Solution

[Maxo-Texas]

You appear to be referring to 2010 census figures.

Population estimates, July 1, 2016, (V2016)

https://www.census.gov/quickfa...

Share of population
White*: 61.3%
Hispanic: 17.8%
African Americans: 12.7% .
Asian: 5.7%
Multi-Racial: 2.6%
American and Alaskan Native Indian: 1.3%
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander: .2%

*(non-Hispanic or Latino population)

As a side note, whites will become a minority between 2044 and 2054 depending on whose estimate you use.

Re: Easy Solution

[nasch]

Do you have a reference for that?

Re:Easy Solution

[Maxo-Texas]

You guys keep saying 74% but that's 2010 data. Today it is under 61% white and under 31% white male.

This is why it is becoming an issue. White males no longer have the power to suppress females and minorities.

If you keep living in delusion land, you are going to get hurt.

Is reverse discrimination fair? Not at all.

If you drop the 55% of white man who actively want to avoid discriminating and who don't pick people like themselves, you are probably down to 15% of the total population.

Your position shows you are living in a past that no longer exists.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zalbik]

It wont work.

The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.

Says who? I have never seen anything remotely like that used as a legal argument. Do you have evidence for this assertion?

Re: Easy Solution

[Zalbik]

Nope. Having the wrong gender/race mix is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing in a civil suit.

Reference?

Every legal precedent I can find regarding discrimination requires the prosecutor to show that equivalent candidates were systematically approved/rejected on the basis of race. I have never seen a legal argument made based on the racial characteristics of an employers workforce.

If that were a valid legal argument, I would expect to see many more lawsuits of sexism in heavily male or female dominated industries.

Re:Easy Solution

[elrous0]

Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously.

Yeah, good luck on that when you've got 1,000 SJW groups breathing down your neck for not hiring more minorities and women. You have to understand that, above all else, SJW's want reality to conform to their beliefs. And chief among those is the belief that, without discrimination, woman and minorities will always be proportionately represented to the overall population in every job (well, all the GOOD jobs, anyway--they don't give a shit about the crappy jobs). Therefore, if your workplace pays well and isn't at least 50% women and 13% black, they you *must* be discriminating--PERIOD. No defense is accepted, no matter how reasonable or convincing.

Re:Easy Solution

[LWATCDR]

And for the interview process?

Re:Easy Solution

[elrous0]

Sorry, but equality of *opportunity* doesn't guarantee that reality will to conform to your beliefs. For that, you need equality of *outcomes*.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zalbik]

If not that, then what should the number of black, female, etc. employees in software development be?

Quoting from a comment above:
"Instead of general population as the criterion, if you use STEM graduates of the top 100 or 200 US colleges, the percentages might not look so terrible for Google. If Google could say, "our workforce reflects the talent pool we recruit from" and that argument is accepted it would be good."

That's exactly the criterion that should be used. The question of whether racial minorities are being hired at an appropriate rate is different than the question of whether racial minorities are graduating with the necessary qualifications an an appropriate rate.

They are very different questions with very different solutions. Expecting companies to hire unqualified candidates because of government mandated is just another form of charity, which should not be the responsibility of private industry. This issue just gives the government an easy scapegoat and avoid the real issue: the education system in the USA has serious issues and nobody is willing to do anything about it.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zalbik]

If you haven't heard it, you haven't been listening. The government routinely argues discriminatory lending cases on just such a basis.

Then it should be trivial for you to provide evidence of this claim. I'll wait...

Re:Easy Solution

[Trogre]

The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.

Which is only true if the talent pool you are drawing from has the exact same proportions.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zalbik]

But they aren't applying for those courses because when they graduate they won't get jobs!

Fine, then use STEM-related high school marks. Or SAT scores. There are far better metrics to use than general population. If we did that, we'd have to immediately stop hiring female nurses, psychologists and teachers to address the minority population of males in those professions.

There is definitely a problem here, but given that STEM fields were almost entirely white dominated 50 years ago in NA, but now are white/asian dominated, it doesn't appear to be systemic racism that is the cause. Unfortunately it is far to easy to look at big business and say "they are they one's doing this" than to look at our own government, school systems and communities and say "we are the one's doing this"

Re:Easy Solution

[Cederic]

Well sure, if I see a white male hired, I assume it's because of a more privileged background

So just for clarity, is that your sexism or your racism kicking in?

Or are you just an all round bigot?

Re:Easy Solution

[Cederic]

The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.

Of course, this is made even more comical because only 60% of the people working for Google are white.

So they're not only discriminating against white people, but the very justification for doing so merely further demonstrates their racism.

Re:Easy Solution

[geoskd]

People don't want fairness. People want blatant unfairness in their favor. Given the opportunity, they will create exactly that situation.

People will accept fairness as a far distant second option to systemic bias in their favor, but only when it is 100% apparent that they will never be able to swing the unfairness in their own favor.

This is economic Darwinism at its finest; brought to you by every economic model ever attempted.

Re:Easy Solution

[Cederic]

You guys keep saying 74% but that's 2010 data. Today it is under 61% white and under 31% white male.

You're saying that people identified as 'white' have dropped from 74% to 61% of the population in 8 years?

I can't believe that's true. If it were there really would be a race war.

Re:Easy Solution

[Cederic]

Are you a fucking moron?

Nobody was being excluded, but people were up in arms because women were choosing different careers and people from poor backgrounds couldn't meet the educational requirements.

They had no actual grounds to be up in arms, and their response is sexist and racist, but hey, you appear to think that calling this out is wrong.

Well, fuck you and fuck the racist sexist cunts that want to discriminate on gender or race.

Re:Easy Solution

[Darinbob]

There is not explicit exclusion often, but it does happen. It's unwritten and unofficial but it happens. Most of the time though, women are encouraged to work elsewhere, brought up by parents who tell them to do girl's stuff, by professors telling them it's not a good profession for women (I knew one professor who was very public about his disdain for women in math and CS), and the frat boy bro culture that occurs in some companies.

I don't want discrimination of any sort, but if you only get angry when white males are discriminated against and look the other way when it's women or minorities, then are you really against all discrimination too?

Re:Easy Solution

[Maxo-Texas]

It is true according to the u.s. government.

How can there be a race war when I (an old white man) helps push a hispanic lady who's car stalled out of traffic into a church parking lot with the assistance of a young tattooed black man yesterday.

And we both smiled at each other and fist bumped before heading on our way. And this is in the deep south.

Be excellent to one another. That's all we need to make it.

Re:Easy Solution

[AmiMoJo]

That's why I carefully avoided saying anything about guaranteeing numbers.

It doesn't matter how hard you want me to conform to your straw man, it won't change reality.

Re:Easy Solution

[Cederic]

I don't tolerate sexism or racism in the workplace, no matter who it's by or against. I speak up against it, I act against it and I've put my job on the line for it in the past.

So yeah, I'm against discrimination. Even against white people, and men.

Re:Easy Solution

[lgw]

So, explain Scandinavia? That group of countries has done more than anywhere else in the world to eliminate any sort of gender-based discrimination in career choice, at every level from the earliest age. The result? Tech is ~95% male, nursing is ~95% female.

People want different things. Good for them! What a boring world it would be if we were all the same.

Re:Easy Solution

[lgw]

I think you're just arguing with a trolling account.

Re: Easy Solution

[PPH]

legal precedent ... prosecutor

We're talking about civil suits here, not criminal. Different rules apply.

Re:Easy Solution

[russotto]

The 74% is counting all whites; the 61% non-Hispanic whites.

Re:Easy Solution

[Darinbob]

Ya, I didn't understand that. In Finland there's an air about being a center-socialist leaning government, but it really felt like a strong undercurrent of "redneck" mixed into the general populace. For a people that don't like to talk much, I heard more gay jokes in a month there than I ever heard in all of high school. And yes, I saw an entire floor of tech where the only females were admins, which I had not seen in the US up to that point (a decade later though and I did). I think the stereotype of scandinavia as ultra liberal touchy-feelie is inaccurate, except maybe in some cities.

On the other hand, being from California, I was surprised seeing the blonde, blue-eyed twenty something woman, could be a super-model, doing building maintenance with a tool belt and all.

Re:Easy Solution

[Cederic]

Which makes much more sense; it's a change in definition, rather than a massive swing in demographics.

Re:Easy Solution

[argStyopa]

Google doesn't WANT to make that assertion.

Google is full of righteous SJWs desperate to fix whatever they deem is wrong with the world.

Re:Easy Solution

[helpfulcorn]

Even with names alone you can often tell who at least is likely to be white, hispanic, asian, or black. This used to be less true with white/black, but now it's exceptionally true with black people due to attempts to be unique often nonsensical names are used and claimed to be Swahili or whatever. Though if you jump back a bit they were more likely to have Arabic first names and typical Anglo-Saxon/British or French last names.

Re: Easy Solution

[JDAustin]

I suggest you look up Disparate Impact and see how it was a hammer used by the Obama DOJ.

Re:Easy Solution

[Spamalope]

They're looking for animal farm equality.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zontar The Mindless]

... groups from Slovacs [sic] to 'White Hispanics"...

Fun fact: Slavs, Italians, and Irishmen were all at one time or another considered 'non-White' in the US.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zontar The Mindless]

The only place 'Cultural Marxism' exists is in the fevered imaginations of racists who imagine themselves to be 'White'.

Re: Easy Solution

[Reverend Green]

Yo silverspoon broham - your privilege is not my privilege.

I notice something whenever I hear some fake progressive scumbag ranting. It's always some inherited wealth private school twat, lecturing working people about their "checking your privilege". The whole "social justice" hypocrisy is just another tactic used by the bourgeoisie to divide and oppress the masses.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zontar The Mindless]

Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a whole book dedicated to the premise that girls do better in school these days only because the Evil Liberals have conspired to hold boys back. She is nothing more than an agent provocateur for the anti-feminist right wing.

Re:Easy Solution

[Zontar The Mindless]

Be excellent to one another. That's all we need to make it.

That's the *only* way we'll make it, brother.

Re:Easy Solution

[darth.hunterix]

I've heard about Irish, but I didn't know about others. Got any citation at hand?

Also, as a Slav myself I would very much like to know how did they come to this conclusion. I mean... You don't really get any whiter than a Slav. What if someone lied? You know something like:

Some dude: "Ethnicity?"
Slav: "Slav"
Some dude: "Then you are not white!"
Slav: "I mean German..."
Some dude: "Yeah, I thought you look kinda white..."

Really, how did it work?

Re: Easy Solution

[serviscope_minor]

Making your argument in Latin might make you sound smart, but it doesn't make you correct.

Re:Easy Solution

[serviscope_minor]

SJW's want reality to conform to their beliefs.

Well, reality is certainly conforming to my belief that anyone who uses the phrase "SJW[*]" is an idiot.

[*] you know in seriousness. Excluding quoting, irony, humour etc.

Therefore, if your workplace pays well and isn't at least 50% women and 13% black, they you *must* be discriminating--PERIOD. No defense is accepted, no matter how reasonable or convincing.

That is you inventing stuff because you want reality to conform to your beliefs. That makes you an SJW! Eeeeewww SJW!!! Get out of here evil person!

Re: Easy Solution

[invalid_user]

It's because of the competition. The subject became much more competitive in the course of the last 20 years.

No hard feelings. If you want to make the subject less competitive... well, I won't let you.

 

Re: Easy Solution

[edtice1559]

And what about the whole generation of people who experienced this inequality their whole life? They should just suck it up? You're right, that this is the ideal long-term solution but we still have to manage the world as it is today. And right now there's no progress being made on the inequality you describe. So we are at 0 for 2 as a society and it's no surprise that companies are reaching for whatever solutions are feasible even if sub-optimal

Re:Easy Solution

[Chelloveck]

If it gets the point of the interview and you've still got people being biased or discriminatory, then you've got bigger problems because at that point there's no excuse for falling back on some preconceived notions as everyone who makes it there should be qualified to work at your company or your screening process sucks.

Sounds good, but it fails to account for the fact that resumes often lie or at least exaggerate. "Experience with Foo, Bar, and Baz" could mean anything from "I work with these all the time" to "I read an article about it once, five years ago." You never know until you actually ask them questions about it, and at that point you can usually tell gender and nationality by their voice. Maybe you can give them a written quiz or come up with an objective set of questions administered by some person who has no say in the hiring process. No matter how good your screening process is though, it's *really hard* to weed out all unqualified applicants before the actual interview. (It's also hard to weed out all unqualified applicants during the interview, but that's a separate issue...)

Re:Easy Solution

[Archangel Michael]

Equity of outcomes necessarily harms people who are better qualified. There is a huge problem for Asians who over represent their race in a number of areas, but the most well known one is College Admissions. It is well known that Asians have to score higher on entrance exams to qualify. And it isn't even close.

http://asianamericanforeducati...

While I applaud efforts to increase participation, the reality is that Asians work harder than others to succeed. They have to for two reasons, one is cultural (family values education above just about anything) and now, because they have to to gain admission.

IF the main story is true, then the whole "White and Asian Males Need Not Apply" is equally bigoted AND stupid. You're not getting the best workers for PC reasons.

Re: Easy Solution

[mr.mctibbs]

I can't tell if you're a troll or a retard. There are no criminal anti-discrimination statutes, and under no statutory scheme has statistical evidence ever been successfully used to prove discrimination. See, eg, the recent sex discrimination case against walmart, which the US Supreme Court shot down hard because a prima facie case for discrimination requires showing *intent*.

Re: Easy Solution

[liquid_schwartz]

Nope. Having the wrong gender/race mix is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing in a civil suit.

The elephant in the room is that different groups tend to favor different professions. As an example, did you know that speech pathologists are over 90% women? They must either hate the hell out of men or for whatever reason women are more likely to go into that profession. Unsurprisingly I don't see anyone claiming that there needs to be equality in that profession. The whole SJW movement is not based on equality it's based on tearing down men and white people with a focus on white men.

Re:Easy Solution

[liquid_schwartz]

When you go and campaign on how white men are keeping you down in a nation that is 74% white and 49% male then you should not be surprised that you lose. It's actually amazing she got as many votes as she did. Oh, and it doesn't help to run a campaign on getting a majority of the popular vote in an election that chooses the winner based on state allocation of electors. Trump and his campaign knew this and so campaigned on getting electors, so he won.

You and your common sense. I have been clearly told by CNN and other media that Trump only won because of sexism and racism. That's the only possible reason why one wouldn't vote for the most qualified candidate ever.

Re:Easy Solution

[Archangel Michael]

You are correct. Let me know where race and gender fall in evaluating candidates for ability.

Re:Easy Solution

[CanHasDIY]

The only time it's used is as a straw man to avoid addressing the actual argument, which is that there are wide ranging systemic issues and companies should do their bit to address that.

That's not really an argument so much as a vague generalization.

Re:Easy Solution

[Maxo-Texas]

They do this with musicians. The musician comes in behind a screen. You can only hear their music.

It helps.

To do this for interviewing you would need a voice masker.

It would also help with age discrimination (rampant and currently under lawsuit at some of these companies), lookism (i.e. you are not attractive), sexism (in both directions).

However, extreme measures are needed when the population is 50/50 and a company is at 90/10. or at 88/12 and the company is at 98/2.

It's unfortunately needed to correct for past abuse in the other direction.

Re:Easy Solution

[burtosis]

I also have a multiracial family. I lean progressive in voting but it's funny how some of the "far left" progressives and most all of the right want actual equality, while far to much of the left thinks it's OK to punish based on race and gender without a fair case by case basis.

Re: Easy Solution

[PPH]

See, eg, the recent sex discrimination case against walmart

No.

That overturned the district court's decision to certify a class for the purpose of a suit. Nothing more. Suits may continue on an individual basis.

Re: Easy Solution

[mr.mctibbs]

And if you actually read the case, the reason they refused to certify is that statistical evidence of disproportionate hiring and advancement is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore FRCP 23(b)(2) doesn't apply.

Re: Easy Solution

[mr.mctibbs]

Also apologies for original snark; I misread your post to include GP's mention of "prosecutor" in this context.

Re:Easy Solution

[MoralCharacter]

I'm mostly pulling from the novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, as he wrote it to convey what it was like to be an immigrant at that time (early 1900's) - atleast while I was in school it was part of required reading in US History.

As different waves of immigrants came to America - the Germans, Irish, Slavs - those who came before discriminated against them based on the culture, language, and existing stereotypes they brought with them. They were the "other" to those previous immigrants who, granted, went through the same thing; now it was their chance to be the one holding the big stick.

Issues mostly boiled down to being different from those who came before, and the fact that they were willing to work for incredibly cheap wages threatened the job security of those who had come to grips on the value of their work, had joined unions and so on.

Re: Easy Solution

[poity]

Oh they don't say that explicitly, as people would immediately call it out. They go weasel mode with "representation" and saying that there isn't enough of it. Of course, rational arguments of "not enough" requires indicating a base level for what IS enough, which they never ever say because they're not trying tke make a rational argument here. They're actually relying on ambiguity to rile up the emotional people while holding the rationals ones at bay.

Look at it this way: In terms of representing the recent graduation rates in CS, women employees are exactly represented, and black/hispanic employees are actually overrepresented. When the activists say that in this situation there is still not enough representation, there is only one conclusion to draw. They're talking about representation of the ratios found in the general population.

Re:Easy Solution

[ChoosyBeggar]

I'm sure you're both kind & intelligent, AmiMojo, yet the contradiction in your thinking is plain to see. You claim that the flaws others have highlighted in your ideology is a strawman, when, in truth, they are simply stating the flaws in your reasoning.

Re: Easy Solution

[burtosis]

Your attitude is part of the problem. By not fixing the root issues, and touting this "solution" as the fix, it perpetuates the problem. In fact by saying all white males are guilty when it's only a small minority, it is just going to cause another civil war. Provide more aid to poor schools, offer better cheaper food at school, and give all Americans free college. Then you won't have to hire less qualified minorities and you won't be able to point to inferior skilled workers as proof racism is justified, and as a bonus educated people don't vote republican and are far less racist.

Re:Easy Solution

[darth.hunterix]

Symbolic +1 Informative

Re: Easy Solution

[Bert64]

And *WHY* are these levels unequal?
In most western countries, everyone has access to the same education in the same government run schools. If you waste your opportunities by not bothering to study in school, why should you then be able to walk into a job ahead of someone who worked hard to study?

Re:Easy Solution

[Bert64]

Blind recruitment is a good test to see if those recruiting are allowing race of gender to affect their decisions...

And based on the outcome of the above study, it seems that people *ARE* discriminating based on gender, they are favoring females but this bias has not resulted in a majority female workforce because their bias cannot overcome the lack of qualified candidates.

Increasing diversity should never be a goal in the workplace. Ensuring fair and non discriminatory hiring practices is a worthwhile goal.

Re: Easy Solution

[burtosis]

As an American, you are being ripped off by a system that claims to be a free market but really isn't and it's claimed to be the best system when the evidence says it clearly isn't. For example, Americans pay double the health care cost of any other nation per capita yet we have much worse outcomes. That's why America is 31st among all countries in the world for lifespan, 5 spots behind Slovenia. Cut out the waste, but still pay more than anyone else, and that's 1.5 trillion per year saved. Give healthcare to all Americans free, that would eat up about .5 trillion but still is 1 trillion less than we pay now. Feee college for all is 70 billion a year, that leaves us with 0.93 trillion left over. Spend 400 billion on improving the infrastructure in poor areas each year so places like Alabama don't have hookworm worse than the third world slums (look it up the world health organization is investigating it as a crime). Spend 5 billion on the food and at the end of the day, you would take home a massive half trillion in savings or around 1300 dollars less tax for every man woman and child in America. If the losses to the disbanded insurance companies and loss in profits to medical company ceos are too painful, they can take a giant handful of opiates and wash it down with burbon. Problem finally solved.

Re: Easy Solution

[edtice1559]

I'm not sure why you are positioning these two things as mutually exclusive. We can do both.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

What are these "wide-ranging, systemic issues" you speak of?

Find the mysterious forces, go ENE and when you get to the sinister cabal turn left for 20 paces.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

In Finland there's an air about being a center-socialist leaning government [...] I think the stereotype of scandinavia as ultra liberal touchy-feelie is inaccurate

You visited two countries then?

being from California

Thanks for narrowing it down. We'd already worked out the country.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

So basically you're in favour of quotas.

Re:Easy Solution

[AmiMoJo]

You are so obsessed with quotas that you can't comprehend any other way. Can't understand anyone who doesn't want quotas. It's like something short circuits in your brain, so you go back to your nice straw man.

We need a new name for this. It's like a straw man but not deliberate, just a consequence. Like a puppy that gives unconditional love, no matter how wrong you are.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

Ever been in a bookshop? Novels aren't in the non-fiction section, mainly because they're fiction.

While I don't dispute there was the attitude that getting off the boat five years ago makes *us* proper Americans, I think you're stretching it a bit.

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

You wrote: "the numbers will reach some kind of natural equilibrium that is close to the numbers in the wider population"

Here's a dictionary definition of quotas: "a proportional part or share of a fixed total amount or quantity. "

(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/quota)

Seriously, I'm obsessed?

Re:Easy Solution

[Hognoxious]

You don't really get any whiter than a Slav.

I take it you've never met a Scot.

They fly back from two weeks in Spain and they're like chalk. On the way out they're transparent.

Re:Easy Solution

[AmiMoJo]

Or the more common definition, from your own link:

the share or proportional part of a total that is required from, or is due or belongs to, a particular district, state, person, group, etc./quote?

It's the required bit that most people refer to when talking about quotas. And even under your less common interpretation, it's still just you obsessing over any mention of numbers while I was clearly indicating that the equilibrium will be a natural consequence, not a goal or end in itself.

See, you are obsessed. You interpret everything on the assumption any any mention of numbers implies that they are a goal or desirable.

Re:Easy Solution

[UsuallyReasonable]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... is one of the many available examples.

Racism

[TheCount22]

I think this has gone too far. Fighting for equality of opportunities is one thing but being racist to achieve it is another.

Reverse racism is simply racism it doesn't matter what group in targeted. Social justice isn't justice. Feminism is not about equality anymore it doesn't care about other genders it's only about women. People fought long hard against racism and inequality. The last thing we need is to find new victims (ie. Men, Caucasians and Asians this time around) .

Re:Racism

[AmiMoJo]

The lawsuit is quite interesting: https://www.scribd.com/documen...

It seems that Wilberg raised concerns about the hiring practices that his manager had introduced, along with other employees. For example, a black woman complained that she was only ever being asked to interview black candidates, which seems to be to make up a numerical requirement. If the claims here are to be believed then the hiring manager was incompetent and trying to cover it up with quotas.

Google's HR sanctioned the manager and put a stop to the quotas. That may well save them from the discrimination claims, because the fixed it when it was reported. However, at that point it gets weird.

Wilberg's manager was moved after HR decided that they had acted unreasonably and vindictively towards him. But the new manager apparently decided that she hated him from the moment they met, which the suit claims is because of the first manager's interference. If that is true then there could well be a wrongful dismissal claim in it.

Re:Racism

[djinn6]

Google's HR sanctioned the manager and put a stop to the quotas. That may well save them from the discrimination claims, because the fixed it when it was reported.

I wouldn't call that "fixed". They moved the manager to another role (still employed and still on the same team), and they did not stop with the quotas. Yes, they tried to delete internal references to it, but they also created a new team that only had diversity quotas. Besides, they still had the recruiter's performance review tied to the number of diversity hires and not the number of total hires.

Of course at this stage it's all allegations, but discovery should reveal whether those can be substantiated.

If they turn out to be true, the only reasonable course of action for YouTube employees is to assume women, hispanics and blacks hired within that timespan are of significantly lower skill than everyone else.

Re:Racism

[Darinbob]

People ignored the old victims. Fingers in their ears, believing racism was a thing of the past or that the way things are is the way they should be. Now suddenly when it's their group being discriminated against, they notice it and it makes front page news.

Re:Racism

[Cederic]

Yeah, I found it deeply curious that every one of his managers seemed to hate him from the outset.

"Talking too much in meetings" is an interesting reason to get fired too. It would be interesting to hear the other perspective on this one.

Re:Racism

[ewibble]

Who is saying racism is a thing of the past? It is not never has been and probably never will be it is human nature, I is definetly no limited to white males, we need to be constantly vigilant. Discrimination against minorities and women makes front page news all the time, or have you been living in a cave. What people are saying is that discrimination against anyone is wrong against anyone, there is nothing in raising that issue. If you say I don't care about discrimination against men what is wrong with men saying I don't care about discrimination against women.

All we will accomplish by this is more division and more hate, just look at the revival the right, people need to feel that they are not going to be discriminated against or we will violence and everyone will suffer.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

Re:Racism

[CanHasDIY]

Assholes who generalize are usually wrong.

Does anyone doubt it?

[Kohath]

I think we can all agree that Google and YouTube probably did this. If they didn’t do this exactly, they're basically saying they'd like to do it if they could get away with it.

All applicants to Google and YouTube should say they "identify" as a lesbian refugee from Honduras named "Sofia Espinoza". After you're hired, you can say you had an epiphany and you now "identify" as who you were born as. You can change it back to Sofia the week before performance reviews. If they doubt you, call them racist and transphobic.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Kohath]

All that and still you didn’t say that you doubt Google and YouTube did this.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[PopeRatzo]

Based on three different lawsuits (plus a class-action) in three sites in two states, each with lots of supporting documentation - I think we can all agree that Google and YouTube probably did this.

There have also been three different lawsuits against Donald Trump for sexual assault. Should we all agree that he probably committed sexual assault?

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Kohath]

You still aren't saying you doubt Google did this.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Kohath]

I think we can all agree, based on the above paragraph, that you are probably an asshole.

Actually, I’m really nice. Unlike you, I didn't say anything mean about anyone.

Sorry if I offended your religion by suggesting unworthy wrong-race, wrong-gender types pose as the correct-race, correct-gender, correct-lifestyle individuals you venerate. You're welcome to refuse to extend your worship to Sofia Espinoza because you don't think she is genuine.

Some of us don't feel the calling like you. We would rather treat all races and both genders the same rather than exalting some and degrading others.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Kohath]

You mean 50 or 100 years ago? Nope. I wasn't born then.

I'm not sure what your point is. You should definitely build a time machine and go back and fix history if you can. If you can't, best to leave ancient grievances in the past rather than continually reliving them day after day and visiting them upon new generations of people who are innocent of what their ancestors did.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[PopeRatzo]

Your fallacy is called tu quogue.

I assume you mean, "tu quoque".

And, it's only tu quoque if you're not a hypocrite.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[AmiMoJo]

The actual lawsuit says it was one bad manager doing it, and when HR found out they shut it down.

The complaint is rather long but worth reading.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Cederic]

Hmm. It didn't seem certain that it was a single manager. It looked like one manager pushing a corporate policy, which the HR team mandated had to be hidden from view (but still followed) once they realised how illegal it was.

I could be misreading it though, and we don't have all the evidence to really assess.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Zontar The Mindless]

No time machine required--I saw plenty of "Whites Only" and "Colored Entrance" signs as a child.

Re:Does anyone doubt it?

[Agent0013]

Does that make it acceptable to have "Black Only" signs at a business today? Because that is what this is about.

Click baity headline

[rsilvergun]

Lawsuit Says YouTube Hiring For Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Men.

vs

YouTube Hiring For Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Men, Lawsuit Says .

Re:remember

[Kohath]

...So the smarter choice is to shutup about it while you're at work, advocate for change as your personal hobby at home, and leave your employer out of it. There's a reason the tired old rule exists about not talking politics or religion in polite company....

You don't understand. It's not a hobby, it's a religion. It's how they know they're better than you. Without it, their shallow misanthropic lives would be seem meaningless — just an endless series of bitter score-settling and grievance dramatization that leaves them surrounded only by smug, unhappy people like themselves.

Everything Before “But” Is Bull

[bluegutang]

We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles

Similarly, everything before “At the same time” is bull.

Re:Everything Before “But” Is Bull

[Darinbob]

You should want diversity in the work place. So don't throw away resumes based on race or gender or other protected classes. Treat them the same, even if you don't like their accent or color, look at the resume. If two people are equal, why always choose the white male? But...

I know companies don't hire only on merit. When I see only the smartest women get hired but tons of mediocre or incompetent white men are in the workforce, in all departments, then hiring is not being done on merit. When a minority is rare in your company but you still have screwups and chair warmers who are white males, then hiring isn't being done on merit. You won't have to walk very far to find the Wally in your company. Sometimes it's a mistake, the person looked good on paper but turned out to be a dud, only you can't fire him because he's got a good golf game. Sometimes, the idiot is friends with someone, and being a buddy means you get the job over anyone else more qualified. Sometimes the interviewers just aren't good at evaluating people so they go with their gut feelings ("white males are like me, so it's a safer bet than that person with the accent"). Sometimes they just want a warm body.

In any case, the argument that companies are hiring on merit is false. Companies should hire on merit and the problem is that they don't.

Re: Same song, different verse..

[javaman235]

Kudos for mentioning the money angle, which is really what it's about. Programmers are too expensive, and come from an isolated demographic. By trying to expand the demographic, they're trying to increase labor supply to cut wages. People can go on PC rants all day long, but in the end it's just business.

Re:It's not surprising

[iamhassi]

You are posting as anonymous coward, but let me be on record to say that Youtube and their parent company have been taken over by the biggest racists on this planet.

This ^^^^ no one should be judged by skin color or gender. It's strange to see people who claim to not be racist say it's ok to not hire a white or Asian person because of their skin color but to not hire a black person is racist. It's all racist.

Re: But... But...

[LynnwoodRooster]

You're a fucking cisgender fucking white male.

FTFFY (Fixed That Fix For You)

good luck with that

[ooloorie]

I'm a gay immigrant. I decided long ago that I don't want to work for companies that want to discriminate against me, and I'm not going to use nondiscrimination laws to force them too. Why would I want to work for a homophobic or xenophobic company? Why would I want to help them succeed in business?

The same is also true for YouTube and Google. They might make an exception for a nominally white male if he is gay and an immigrant like me, but I am not going to make an exception for them.

Re: good luck with that

[ooloorie]

Good for you! If I'd been discriminated against, I'd probably exploit whatever I could.

Then you obviously don't value yourself very much and view a job as some kind of favor bestowed upon you. I have always viewed my contributions as being valuable to a company, and if a company is stupid enough to reject me over some non-job-related attribute, why would I want to contribute my value to them? There are plenty of other companies to choose from.

I'd get the 'foreign sounding' name, but do y'all think that there are conversations had over ( free) lunch, scribbles in the margins of a cv, with some innocuous 'gay' symbol that'd put gay applicants at the top of the pile ?

Many jobs involve recruitment through personal contacts, and if you know someone socially, they'll usually already know if you're gay. That's also how you find out whether a company is a good place to work: through friends who already work there. But if you really want to, you can simply mention it during the screening phone interview: "I'm gay, what's your policy on diversity and same-sex partner benefits?"

However, given that it is now illegal for them to discriminate based on sexual orientation, I usually hide my sexual orientation until after I have an offer. That way, they are not influenced either way by my sexual orientation; it has no relevance to my job or job performance.

Re: good luck with that

[Darinbob]

There are people who will take the undesirable job because they need a job. Maybe they'll leave later to someplace more comfortable to work. But if you have no job, that's often more uncomfortable than working for a bigot.

Re:good luck with that

[Cederic]

I'm not going to apply to work at Google because their internal culture looks horrific from multiple perspectives, and anyway their recruiting policies would appear to prevent me having a chance anyway because of my gender and/or skin colour.

I do nonetheless want to find out whether they are in fact illegally discriminating in their recruitment practices, and if so, get seriously fucked by the Government (quite apart from any civil suits).

Re:good luck with that

[ooloorie]

I do nonetheless want to find out whether they are in fact illegally discriminating in their recruitment practices,

I think it is crystal clear that they are discriminating against white and Asian males; it makes no difference to me whether that is legal or illegal.

I do nonetheless want to find out whether they are in fact illegally discriminating in their recruitment practices

Why? What does that accomplish? As far as I can tell, that just validates Google's bigotry and folly and lends credence to the false idea that Google choosing not to hire you or me somehow represents an injury to us. See, as a white male, I don't have any of the marvelous privileges progressives ascribe to me, but there is one privilege I do have: the knowledge since childhood that I would never get anything without working hard for it and that if I wanted to survived, I needed to get the skills to make it in the world on my own.

I think it's much better to give Google free reign to continue doing what they are doing, openly and freely. Let's see how well their "there is strength in diversity" mantra works and how long they will survive building a large tech company while discriminating against white and Asian males. Given their current predicaments, it seems that their attempt at making the company progressive and diverse is actually leading to massive conflicts, intolerance, and bigotry. And if they do succeed, unlikely as that seems, even better for them and their employees; their success or failure simply doesn't bother me one way or another.

Re:It's not surprising

[JaredOfEuropa]

Over here, the law forbids one to discriminate against minorities only. It's perfectly fine to state "if equally qualified, we will give preference to minorities X, Y, or Z". But if for instance you run a supermarket in an immigrant neighborhood, your work force would be predominantly from Turkish or north African descent, with very few whites. In this case you are not allowed to say "if equally qualified, we prefer white applicants in order to increase diversity in the workplace". That's discrimination against minorities even if your particular business is staffed to the gills with them already.

Must be someone else's fault

[MushMouth]

Another person born on second base blames others when he can simply walk to third

Google Made White/Asian Boys Worthless to Teachers

[theodp]

A Google-CodeCademy award program offered $1,000 bonuses to teachers who got 10 or more high school kids to take a JavaScript course, but only counted students from "groups traditionally underrepresented in computer science (girls, or boys who identify as African American, Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native)."

Re: Same song, different verse..

[mrbester]

"Programmers are too expensive"

Someone who specialises in something is going to cost more than some replaceable clone in a call center on minimum wage.

Consultant doctors cost more than an F1 does, yet there doesn't seem to be the same hand-wringing from those holding the purse strings about it.

Perhaps, instead of falling into the same lazy "programming is just typing and they still live with their parents, why should they get more money?" bullshit mindset, there should be a recognition that hiring a specialist means you have to have the budget to afford specialist rates rather than bitching about a cost the perception of which is affected by prejudice.

It's got nothing to do with ideals

[rsilvergun]

as always with a mega corp follow the money. This is all about cheaper labor. Women _are_ underrepresented in tech. The 'whys' of that aren't important to Google. What matters is there's an entire half of the population that could be trained up to work for them (thereby depressing wages and lowering costs) and isn't.

Me? I made damn sure my kid didn't go into tech. Sure, any job can be over taken, but tech is one of the cheapest to train and therefore easiest to outsource to poorer countries where wages are lower. Again, it's all about money. Ideals never factor into it. Cold hard cash does.

The usual plot

[blindax]

1) White men (and east asian men if I remember right) build something useful and successful
2) Then blue haired feminist, blacks, latinos, lgbtaddaletterforyourpreferredsexualdeviance take over because of MUH feeling (and thanks to masochist laws)

News at eleven.

Minorities, Behold! This is what success looks lik

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Minorities, Behold! This is what success looks like Asians were not allowed to become citizens till recently, 1960s. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese who came to California during the gold rush were harassed, and their better claims were usurped, they were relegated to working on less productive claims, they were paid less for their gold, and when the gold rush ended they were mostly chased out of the country.

In 1906 an Indian man named Bhagat Singh Thinde made the crazy argument that he was White, (He argued he was from a high caste, despised low caste people, had enough prejudice in him to qualify as White. No one was offended by that argument, but Judge Sutherland, SCOTUS, ruled that he was Caucasian but not white ;-)).

They worked steadily, played by the rules of the game, concentrated on getting ahead personally. No long marches demanding equality, no serious law suits alleging discrimination, ... Over the years they are punching 10 times their weight. 2% of the general population, 20% of top STEM grads, 20% of Intel scholarships and 99% of top spelling bee and 85% of top geography bee ...

Yes, they had to much better than general population to get there. Asian kids need to score 150 points more than the White kids in SAT to get into the top colleges. Yes, the average Asian kid is suffering and is in stress because the expectation is set so high by the other Asian kids. But these are the problems of success, ....

I do hear complaints of discrimination among my friends, but it is more like to be something like, "I am the senior most nephrologist with much better publication record and I should have been named the head, but they gave the post to some White Guy. Anyway chairmanship involves mostly talking to the donors and getting projects from the pharma companies, so I don't care"... sour grape syndrome?

Re:Need clarification

[djinn6]

Are they talking about asians or orientals?

Is there a word that includes Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Indian, but not Southeast Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East or Russia?

Re:Same song, different verse..

[anegg]

I know someone who works for a federally funded research and development lab in the DC area. The HR department has initiated a campaign to "diversify" the workforce by bringing in more "early career" individuals. This organization has a more or less "points-based" pay scale (you get so many points for each year of experience, for each advanced degree, etc.) that determine your pay scale regardless of your ability or fit for the job. I'm sure the fact that the "early career" folks will be paid less based on the "points-based" pay scale didn't enter into their minds at all when they decided to actively discriminate against older individuals in favor of "early career" new hires.

Re:Need clarification

[Hognoxious]

Are they talking about asians or orientals?

I'd guess the latter, since if tech firms discriminated against the Bungalowdeshi kind they'd have almost no employees.

If that upsets you, go smoke a fag

*golf clap*

Re:Need clarification

[LynnwoodRooster]

Typically the British consider Asians to be Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, etc. People from, or very close to the Indian subcontinent. Orientals would be Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thai, etc.

Re:remember

[Darinbob]

Almost every company or business cares about making the world a bit better. Maybe it's just to make the small world inside their homes better. But it's not just about money, money, money. Companies give money to charity, they try to keep the workforce happy, they may try to keep the customers happy, and so forth.

And even when you look at only the bottom line, keeping the community happy is good for business. Don't dump toxic chemicals in the river, don't use child labor, and so forth.

When you say "do work", it sounds a lot like "keep up the status quo".

Re:remember

[ChatHuant]

Google [...] tried to turn a workplace into some utopian college campus where all ideas are free to be debated on company servers.

The firing of James Damore shows that's not the case. Only pre-approved ideas appear to be allowed for debate at Google.

Re:remember

[Darinbob]

It's sad that trying to get rid of discrimination is considered politics and that there's two sides to the issue.

Well, yeah

[cascadingstylesheet]

We all know they do this. They all but admit it, that is when they aren't being sued for it.

It's a modern form of mass hysteria.

Re:It's not surprising

[bugs2squash]

Or you could make smalltalk with the counter staff and maybe learn something about humanity and shared values. The world really could become a better place by you talking about the weather. Living in the home of the brave isn't just about making the place more like ancient Sparta.

Hiding is not a problem

[Kartu]

Hiding is not a problem, there are platforms dedicated to it, but the problem is, it won't work, since thee reason for disparity is NOT biased hiring process.

Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals

It is comical we even mention HR bias in the context of the lawsuit.

Re:Minorities, Behold! This is what success looks

[Kartu]

In 1906 an Indian man named Bhagat Singh Thinde made the crazy argument that he was White, (He argued he was from a high caste, despised low caste people, had enough prejudice in him to qualify as White.

You are making stuff up. Indians belong to Caucasian race, race is not always about skin color.

Re:Google Made White/Asian Boys Worthless to Teach

[fafalone]

"Identify as"? That's great news, since you don't have to technically be a group to identify as that group anymore.

Re:remember

[Kohath]

It's sad that trying to get rid of discrimination is considered politics and that there's two sides to the issue.

They should try to "get rid of discrimination" by not discriminating.

Only the most zealous of true believers would consider that "politics".

Google is not monolithic

[bradley13]

People should remember that Google is not a single entity. it is a huge company with branches all over the place. While the corporate types may dream of unified policies, it is entirely possible that some parts of Google are run by extreme progressives (i.e., no whites or asians need apply), while other parts may be dominated by a different atmosphere.

The bottom line should be: hire people based on their capabilities, not their plumbing, eye color, or other irrelevant characteristics. If it turns out that clusters form, with some irrelevant characteristics clustering in certain areas, that's maybe a matter for sociologists to study, but it is otherwise unimportant.

Re:Google is not monolithic

[ghoul]

Youtube is the brain dead part of Google. It is not very high level work so its the perfect place to dump your affrimative hire quotas for the entire company.

Re:remember

[gigne]

That charitable donation was a tax write-down. Keeping staff happy is a cost of doing business. It's factored into the budget under "buying just enough pizza for staff to reduce hiring and training costs"

Re:remember

[Darinbob]

A tax write off is never free. Sure, you get a small fraction of the charity back on taxes, but never 100%. In the past, even in the not too distant past, it was common to keep the workers uncomfortable, it was considered ok to shout at them, not give them breaks, exploit the hell out of them. The time was when no one thought that a happy staff was important to the bottom line.

Having a diverse workplace is turning into one of those things that keeps the staff happy and keeps the customers happy.

Re:remember

[Kohath]

Discrimination exists and is still rampant. Staying with the status quo does not get rid of discrimination it just reinforces it.

Are you saying "not discriminating" doesn't help to "get rid of discrimination"?

Do you have any facts to back that up, or is it an article of faith?

Re:It's not surprising

[elrous0]

It's strange to see people who claim to not be racist say it's ok to not hire a white or Asian person because of their skin color but to not hire a black person is racist. It's all racist.

Haven't you heard? SJW's have redefined racism to mean something only white people can do. Everyone else is INCAPABLE of racism, because...umm...power dynamics or some shit. Because we all know that some dirt-poor white kid living in a trailer park in Appalachia has all the power over weak oppressed people like Barack Obama.

Re:It's not surprising

[epyT-R]

Sure, it might be legal in socjus shithole societies, but, no, it's not ok. it's still selecting for/against people based on traits which are supposed to be irrelevant.

Re:It's not surprising

[Cederic]

Someone wearing a turban? sure.
Someone wearing a hat? sure.
Someone wearing a headscarf? sure.

Someone wearing some full face covering leaving only her eyes showing? No.

I can't hear her. I lipread to supplement poor hearing. Yet, somehow, if I ask her to remove the full face covering I'm the one that will be described as an intolerant bigot, even though she's the sexist discriminating against disabled men.

Re:So now we know

[elrous0]

Hey, they had one straight white male character (who all of us with half a brain knew from day one would turn out to be a bad guy, of course).

If it's any consolation, Star Wars now is even worse. At least Discovery has one white guy who's a hero (though he's only allowed to be a hero because he's gay). Star Wars doesn't have a single white male hero anymore, period--gay or straight. The first thing the new Disney-SJW Star Wars did was kill off all the legacy white male heroes.

Re:It's not surprising

[jcr]

SJW's have redefined racism to mean something only white people can do.

Whenever they try that shit with me, I ask them to explain what happened in Rwanda.

-jcr

Re:name and voice anonymity (Re: Easy Solution

[Cederic]

The problem is that this anonymisation removes the inherent unconscious bias that leads to women getting better outcomes than men.

The Australian study basically says, "Don't use blind recruitment because it removes a disadvantage from men":
https://pmc.gov.au/resource-ce...

Another company says they found no statistically significant difference - but even though they were trying to eliminate bias against women, men did better as a result of their gender being hidden: http://blog.interviewing.io/we...

So no, Google wont anonymise. It'd give them actual equality of opportunity and they appear not to want that at all.

Just offer gender reassignment surgery.

[technosaurus]

We've already established that the majority of "tech" is currently male. If you want more women just allow some of the qualified men to become qualified women. If diversity is a goal, offer to foot the bill for gender reassignment surgery. Its not unprecedented, Alexia Massalin is a renowned computer scientist that pioneered the concept of superoptimization, invented "quajects" and developed the innovative Sythesis kernel who was formerly known as Henry Massalin.

Re:Just offer gender reassignment surgery.

[Hognoxious]

Is there any need for the knife? I thought they could just self-identify these days.

Re:It's not surprising

[Z80a]

They were pushing another word, colorism to define "discrimination of a minority over another minority" because they found out that this is a very common thing in brazil for example, and their twisted definition of racism don't cover it.

Re:It's not surprising

[lgw]

Whenever they try that shit with me, I ask them to explain what happened in Rwanda.

Sadly the answer in South Africa is "watch this".

Re: But... But...

[zugmeister]

I stand corrected. For anyone not already familiar with the (attempted) quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilCmywMin8I

Re:Minorities, Behold! This is what success looks

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Cant you take two seconds to copy and paste the name and look it up in wiki, before calling people names? Well, it is pr for the course in /. so why complain?

Citation Provided.

Re:Minorities, Behold! This is what success looks

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I don't think it's useful if a black-skinned Dravidian man from Chennai is considered to be of the same race as a Swedish man.

You dont care. But in the Chennai politics the high caste Dravidian man is denounced as an Aryan white supremacist johnny-come-lately. Not just you, no one can tell the high and low caste people apart, but with clues like names, religious markings, the sacred thread, they can tell who is Aryan and who is not.

Re:It's not surprising

[helpfulcorn]

Not to inadvertently help SJWs, but the issue in Rwanda happened because the Belgians arbitrarily decided one ethnic group was more important than another and created intolerance and domination between two groups where there was none before.

I'll say it again

[Jfetjunky]

This is what you get when the only measure of equality is a simple metric. You get people doing what they need to hit the metric. Nobody who ACTUALLY gives a damn about equality believes numbers on a page tell the whole story. But nobody wants to hear it because it's not a nice narrative that they can use to their advantage. I said it years ago. Here. And I was downvoted into the dirt.

So where do I get a fair shot?

[iamacat]

I over 40, so that's already a strike in hugely ageist Sillicon Valley. Not interested in going into management or whatever. If you like coding, you like coding regardless of age. Now I hear that promotion to the next level of individual technical expertise will depend on my chromosomal makeup or melatonin level in my skin. Never mind that I was an oppressed minority in my birth country, spent a year homeless in US before clawing my way out and so on. Are there still non-assinine employees that seek to provide friendly working environment for everyone and disparage nobody?

Re:Everything Before âoeButâ Is Bull

[serviscope_minor]

Similarly, everything before "At the same time" is bull.

No is isn't.

African

[thewebsiteboy]

What about black africans?

I feel sorry for Indians

[Chrisq]

They are treated like Whites when it comes to employment restrictions, but treated like foreigners by housing and service providers. The Hindus and Sikhs have it worse, often mistaken as Muslims by people wanting to resist Islam, but being targeted by Muslims themselves.

Re:It's not surprising

[BlueStrat]

It's strange to see people who claim to not be racist say it's ok to not hire a white or Asian person because of their skin color but to not hire a black person is racist. It's all racist.

Agreed.

What it boils down to is that the Left's desire for equal treatment under the law among all the various races and ethnicities is secondary at best to their desire for equal outcomes, which can & will never happen in a large and diverse society because human nature and the differing amounts, quality, and types of natural talents, skills, 'gifts', etc individuals are born with. It's only useful as a propaganda talking-point to persuade and incite the ignorant and clueless.

Strat

UK example - but SCARY

[Bruce66423]

A woman has sued landlords for refusing to accept DSS tenants - i.e. people whose rent will be partly paid for by the taxpayer - on the grounds that this constitutes sex discrimination because it mainly affects women! https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Dedicated to the premise?

[Bruce66423]

Surely you mean seeking to conclude!

Greetings from the house pedant...

Why identitiy politics is a long term disaster

[Bruce66423]

Please read and note:

http://babylonbee.com/news/bee...

Re:It's not surprising

[dwillden]

Freedom of Religion, one of the founding principles of the United Sates means that they don't have to lose their headscarf to adapt and join our society.

Or does the Bill of Rights only apply to people of white western European decent?

Re:remember

[Kohath]

I'm one of the loudest people condemning police misconduct and demanding changes. Police are irrelevant to the discussion of job discrimination though.

Name game

[DarthVain]

Pretty sure I've never applied for a job and specifically said I was a "White Male", nor filled out an application that had that distinction either. I don't think I've ever attached a picture either.

However I'd have to put my name on it, so they could probably figure it out if my name is William Chesterson Johnson III or Zhou Ping that I might be white or asian... If my name was Desoranta Mumbotu or Maria Sanchez I might be more what they are looking for...

Pro tip for lulz, while it might be a bit drastic, I'm pretty sure anyone can change their name to anything :)

Re:Name game

[CanHasDIY]

Pretty sure I've never applied for a job and specifically said I was a "White Male", nor filled out an application that had that distinction either.

If you've never filled out a job app that asked your gender, then separately, your race, then you've never applied for a job in the USA.

Checking the "White" box under "Race" and "Male" under "Gender" is effectively the same thing.

Pro tip for lulz, while it might be a bit drastic, I'm pretty sure anyone can change their name to anything

Almost; no profanity, no stealing celebrity names, and it all depends on if the judge decides he's OK with the name change.

Re:Name game

[DarthVain]

"If you've never filled out a job app that asked your gender, then separately, your race, then you've never applied for a job in the USA."

Really? The US is weird. I could see it for something like McDonald's standard application type forms, but for a career type job? Bizarre. Also I could see things like photos for say TV or Movie like positions...

If could be that Personal Information is so much more protected in Canada VS the US, so most companies are weary of even collecting any type of information they absolutely do not need. You would think that with the legatious nature of the US that companies would be weary of collecting this information for this exact reason of this story, as anytime someone has a beef with not getting hired you may just be setting yourself up for a lawsuit when they scream discrimination.

As for name changes, yeah it has to be within reason. However I've heard of all sorts of crazy ones, so there is an awful lot of latitude. As another example, I know of a personal one, where after 9/11 someone (probably many) changed their name from Mohammad Akbar (or whatever) to Jason Smith (also made up), as they didn't want to have to deal with all the negative fallout, and possible discrimination, etc... for both themselves in their work, or for their families in general. So in this context its not like you are trying to change your name to Optimus Prime (which I have heard of), but rather the exact opposite something as mundane and "normal" as you can think of. Which is kind of sad really, culturally speaking and everything.

Re:It's not surprising

[penandpaper]

SJW are trying to create a new term to cover what "racism" used to mean when they redefined it to "power plus prejudice". "Colorism" is the new SJW scarlet letter. See how inclusive they are?

Re:It's not surprising

[liquid_schwartz]

And those people could maybe lose the headscarf or turban when they move to the United States, a place where that isn't the norm. You can't expect only the GP to have to adapt to others. People immigrating to the US need to adapt their lives to fit in with ours too.

That's crazy talk. Next you'll start suggesting that they learn to speak English and actually assimilate.

Re: It's not surprising

[liquid_schwartz]

But at least for now, it doesn't seem like in general white dudes are less able to find jobs in tech than black women, so no need to freak out.

So we pursue bad and discriminatory policy until we have created a new underclass. What a great idea.

Re:It's not surprising

[ArylAkamov]

The interesting part is how they redefined it and defend it.
They changed the definition of racism to exclude white people, then invented their own term for being racist towards whites (reverse racism), then go on to claim this 'reverse racism' doesn't exist.
It's a giant logical fallacy. They're claiming this term they invented to discredit you doesn't exist.
Reminds me of newspeak and the dangers of letting a political group control language and, by extension, the narrative.

Re:It's not surprising

[Shotgun]

I find the headscarf mildly irritating at times, but then I ask myself, "What if the person was dressed as a nun? Would I be bothered then?" Then, I just move on and keep shutting up.

Re:It's not surprising

[laie_techie]

And those people could maybe lose the headscarf or turban when they move to the United States, a place where that isn't the norm. You can't expect only the GP to have to adapt to others. People immigrating to the US need to adapt their lives to fit in with ours too.

Immigrants should assimilate as much as is practical. They should learn our language as feasible. They should learn and respect our culture and religious beliefs, even if they don't convert. At the same time, they should maintain all that was good from the culture of their previous home. Immigrants should feel free to continue to practice their own religion as long as it's peaceable. People call America a melting pot, but it's more like a stew. You still recognize the ingredients, but they taste wonderful together. As for turbans and headscarves, aren't those religious clothing in some instances?

Re:I am an Asian...

[Rakarra]

...and Cultural Marxism just happened to my people at YouTube regarding jobs. Did you not read the fucking article?

A white guy didn't get hired and immediately says "well it's probably due to the unqualified blacks and mexicans they hired" without a shred of proof.

Re:remember

[CanHasDIY]

What's sad is that a subset of the population has chosen to make "discrimination" a bad word.

Discrimination is what keeps pedophiles out of schools, among other positive uses of the practice. It's why samurai swords made by one of the old Japanese masters are some of the sharpest, most consistent blades on the planet - not any old ore will do.

There's a huge difference between discriminating and being a bigoted asshole. The blurring of those lines, by people like yourself, is part of the problem.

Re:remember

[CanHasDIY]

Almost every company or business cares about making the world a bit better.

Holy shit, you're serious!

No, dude, almost every company or business cares about making profits - that's how capitalism works. If you happen to make the world "better" (totally subjective term, BTW) in the meantime, well, that's just a bonus.

TL;DR no potential investor is reading Alphabet's prospectus looking for the phrase "we didn't make any money, but the world is a better place!"

Re:remember

[CanHasDIY]

Google [...] tried to turn a workplace into some utopian college campus where all ideas are free to be debated on company servers.

The firing of James Damore shows that's not the case. Only pre-approved ideas appear to be allowed for debate at Google.

So.. more like a Brown Shirts meeting in Berlin, circa 1928?

Re: It's not surprising

[ebvwfbw]

That's the point. They don't want to, nor will they change. They think they can just walk in and take over. Once they get to a certain point, they'll just take over and kill those they don't like. Europe is about to be lost. Lost in the political correctness BS.

Don't mod me down, come up with why I'm wrong, or mod me up. If you have any clue about what's going on, you'll mod me up.

Re:It's not surprising

[K10W]

Over here, the law forbids one to discriminate against minorities only. It's perfectly fine to state "if equally qualified, we will give preference to minorities X, Y, or Z". But if for instance you run a supermarket in an immigrant neighborhood, your work force would be predominantly from Turkish or north African descent, with very few whites. In this case you are not allowed to say "if equally qualified, we prefer white applicants in order to increase diversity in the workplace". That's discrimination against minorities even if your particular business is staffed to the gills with them already.

problem is it is creeping in here too, not just a state side thing. In fairness it isn't the companies themselves but pressure groups who strong-arm them [companies] into hitting diversity quotas or else they'll tar and feather the company as racist/sexist/etc. One of the reasons Damore when he was fired stated he doesn't actually blame google. They're simply just trying to appease the mob; they are who we need to be standing up to since equality isn't actually what they desire.

As soon as the token group they are so called acting in favour or on behalf of become of no use to them they will throw that groups needs/rights under the bus too and latch onto another target group to further their agendas. Such groups use identity politics to further their own agenda but don't actually care for the token group. Don't get me wrong there IS race issues, sexism issues and so on in many areas from macro culture of national societal norms to micro culture of specific industry niche. Sadly these real issues will never be addressed with this current approach because they are FAR too complex for a tickbox diversity quota exercise to fix. It requires a much deeper understanding and no easy fix approach and wont necessarily be addressed by equality of outcome, or a 1 of each approach which can make it much much worse in fact.

Re:It's not surprising

[Cederic]

Most women wearing such garments are willing to remove them in the presence of women, but not men.

You'll have to ask them why they're such sexist shits.

Re:remember

[Darinbob]

Because politics makes two or more sides two an issue, it's sad that racial or ethnic discrimination has two or more sides to it.

Re:It's not surprising

[Bert64]

Only they don't retain what was good from their culture, they try to bring everything (especially the bad) and force it upon the people already there.
There was a reason most migrants left the countries they came from, and it's usually down to destructive aspects of their culture resulting in an unpleasant environment to live in. If they take all those things to a new country, pretty soon that country will become just as unpleasant and people will be wanting to leave it too.

Re: It's not surprising

[iamhassi]

You're right, they do that now in countries they're "escaping" from, only to try and make their new country the same way their old country was

Re:It's not surprising

[iamhassi]

Their freedom of religion ended when they decided to use religion as an excuse to kill people and oppress women. Yes I know all religions once murdered people but only one religion is still doing it more than all other religions combine

Re: It's not surprising

[iamhassi]

Not everyone he met was an asshole, only the Muslims were

Re: It's not surprising

[iamhassi]

But at least for now, it doesn't seem like in general white dudes are less able to find jobs in tech than black women, so no need to freak out.

So we need to wait until discrimination gets worse before we do anything about it? Isn't that like watching a fire burn until half the house is gone before trying to stop it?

Re: It's not surprising

[iamhassi]

Martin Luther King DREAMED. A world where we are âoecolor blind.â The PC, perpetually âoebutt hurtâ and âoevictimâ conscious SJWs? Obsessed with race. Intolerant. Discriminatory. Sad.

lol it's funny how many people praise MLK but don't want to follow anything he said.

Re: It's not surprising

[Hognoxious]

If someone comes to your home and throws at you their stupid culture without any regard for your own, what would you do?

I'd wonder if these sores I've started getting are due to those new blankets we got last week.

Re:It's not surprising

[Hognoxious]

the issue in Rwanda happened because the Belgians arbitrarily decided one ethnic group was more important than another

Well at least you can't accuse them of hypocrisy - it's exactly what they do among themselves back home.

Re:Trying to avoid racism == racism?

[Hognoxious]

Flip a coin.

It's not illegal to discriminate against unlucky people, is it?

Re: It's not surprising

[ebvwfbw]

So why does it seem like there are only like 5 guys in America, 5 guys in GB, 5 guys in Germany... and so on that realize this madness? It's like inviting homeless people into your home and never watching them.

Re: So how about...

[Hognoxious]

Some of us are sticking around with our wooden shoes off...

You lost me. You're Dutch? Or you're going to literally commit sabotage?

I'm OK at crosswords, but at least tell us how many letters.

Re:It's not surprising

[jcr]

The actions of someone else to instigate the racism doesn't make it not racism.

-jcr

Re:It's not surprising

[KingBenny]

The fine result of forced equality ... as a certified lollicon with a persistent lolita complex () i'm the last to sing the praises of the white man, but the fact that i feel black people can't just get away with it (i would have said shit but pc principal would come after me) i think its gone too far a long time ago. Especially for megacorp. How the fuck can you justify forced equality if you hire people by statistical diversity ?
if i were a shareholder id fire the whole alfabet of C-O's for being incompetent and not getting the best people in the best possible position DESPITE the fact that they're straight, white, or male (my lefty friends can never get this, just like my righty friends cant understand i can call one black guy nugger cos he tried to get all youtube on me and leave another one my chair in a waiting line) normal people are so bipolar fuck forced equality, it wouldnt happen in my company, i wouldnt vow to anything but honesty

Re:It's not surprising

[helpfulcorn]

I didn't say that, in fact I was pointing out how Rwanda specifically does involve white racism and can't be used as an example to sort of debunk all racism comes from white people.

Re:It's not surprising

[jcr]

Of course it can. The Hutus and Tutsis went at it after the Belgians were long gone.

-jcr

Re:It's not surprising

[helpfulcorn]

Yeah, but because of the system of social hierarchy setup by the Belgians that said one was superior to the other, just as I said. So what are you trying to have it both ways, because your first reply to me was basically that causing others to be racist is still racist, now suddenly "well it was long afterwards" just so you can be right and I can be wrong, get your story straight. I can't believe someone is modding that bullshit up.

Re:It's not surprising

[jcr]

system of social hierarchy setup by the Belgians

Oh, please. Tribes have been declaring themselves superior to other tribes since pre-history.

are you trying to have it both ways

I'm not the one trying to pretend that blacks can't be racists.

-jcr

Re:It's not surprising

[helpfulcorn]

I'm not the one trying to pretend that blacks can't be racists.

And I'm not either, only a fucking idiot would say that they can't be. I just pointed out that in that instance it was instigated by actions of the Belgians, it doesn't mean it's not racist but the point of me starting it with "not to inadvertently help SJWs" was to point out it's something they can easily shut down. You can find plenty of other examples though of just straight up ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity during war for ethnic reasons especially in Uganda, Congo (even outside Rwanda), Ituri, Liberia, and so-called "effacer le tableau" of Pygmies where there's yet more racist targeting, executions, and even cannibalism.

Re:It's not surprising

[Hognoxious]

So nationally whites are the majority, so the Turks get preferential treatment.

But if locally Turks are the majority, that doesn't count.

So the scope at which minority is determined is the one where it's most detrimental to whites? Has anyone considered looking at the world as a whole?