But in practice, if men, for example, are the only people hired, they tend to be the only people who get experience, making them always the most qualified for the job.
Extra Facts: For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry. Not all industries are equal so your through fits really well in some places and less so in others.
I would argue that if your goal is to fix systemic racism, a much more effective approach would be to target the pipeline problem early on by focusing on improving education systems in poor/racial minority communities. Their difficulties in competing later on in life stem directly (and I would argue most strenuously) from disadvantages they experience early on. If companies see improvements in the resumes of racial minorities, they will naturally be more likely to hire them; I would argue that their greed for having the best employees will override the racial biases of White CEOs and HR managers.
Better resumes are good, but there are plenty of studies showing bias towards the name alone on a resume and that a white-sounding name gets more bites than names more associated with a minority race.
People have biases, conscious or not. Did you know that women’s positions in orchestras increased greatly after switching to blind auditions? And I can’t find a legit source in 2 min of searching, but there’s also been indication that the sound of high heels affects hiring outcomes even in blind auditions.
Example studies on names and hiring outcomes: 2004, 2023, 2024 (even the “best” companies still showed a 3% bias towards white candidates vs 24% for the worst), 2016
So yeah, there are a fuckton of steps to addressing systemic racism and starting early in the process is a critical step. But the narrative that an equivalent resume is all that’s needed to close the gap is false and dangerous.
Oh, I agree, and I wasn’t trying to suggest what I wrote above was all that’s needed. I’m a big proponent of racially blind admissions/hiring processes. Exclude any data that could be construed as being race-identifying. The more we can force admissions/hiring to base their choices solely on performance-relative metrics alone, the better.
However, I have to admit that such a goal is a bit unrealistic. Race-identifying information will likely always find a way into admissions/hiring processes, simply because of interviews. I don’t claim to know how to create the perfect system, obviously. This is a complex problem that people a lot smarter and more educated than I have been striving to solve for decades.
But I think that raising people up from the very bottom of society is still the best approach, the most efficient way to do that is by focusing on disadvantages experienced early in life. If you can level the playing field during kindergarten, you provide a more equal launch pad for every stage of life thereafter; keep working up from there and we’ll eventually wind up with a more equal result in adulthood.
I never said addressing systemic racism was limited to addressing said issues in educational attainment alone. Clearly, it’s a multifaceted problem that requires a broad range of fixes.
Eh. Yes, if you’re looking at the data from efficacy studies alone. However, I would argue that DEI programs create political turmoil that creates harm to society that these studies don’t take into account. Addressing systemic racism is important, but DEI approaches have created understandable division about majority groups being discriminated against in the service of fixing the problem. I think focusing on wealth inequality has the overlapping effect of helping minority racial groups while sidestepping the race politics inherent to DEI programs that give fuel to racist groups in society.
Only in the same sense that most political opinions are “manufactured” by mainstream news outlets. It doesn’t really matter. DEI’s problems are valid criticisms, and you can’t simply dismiss them because they’re highlighted by right-wing outlets.
How about we hire and promote people who are correct for the job, regardless of their gender or race?
Because the people who are ‘correct’ for the job always end up being white guys who are direct relatives of someone in management
Fully agree in an ideal world.
But in practice, if men, for example, are the only people hired, they tend to be the only people who get experience, making them always the most qualified for the job.
Extra Facts: For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry. Not all industries are equal so your through fits really well in some places and less so in others.
As long as you’re on board with systemic racism, sure. DEI programs were created to address historic discrimination against minorities.
I would argue that if your goal is to fix systemic racism, a much more effective approach would be to target the pipeline problem early on by focusing on improving education systems in poor/racial minority communities. Their difficulties in competing later on in life stem directly (and I would argue most strenuously) from disadvantages they experience early on. If companies see improvements in the resumes of racial minorities, they will naturally be more likely to hire them; I would argue that their greed for having the best employees will override the racial biases of White CEOs and HR managers.
The same people removing DEI legal protections are also gutting the education system.
Yes, and I don’t support them.
Better resumes are good, but there are plenty of studies showing bias towards the name alone on a resume and that a white-sounding name gets more bites than names more associated with a minority race.
People have biases, conscious or not. Did you know that women’s positions in orchestras increased greatly after switching to blind auditions? And I can’t find a legit source in 2 min of searching, but there’s also been indication that the sound of high heels affects hiring outcomes even in blind auditions.
Example studies on names and hiring outcomes: 2004, 2023, 2024 (even the “best” companies still showed a 3% bias towards white candidates vs 24% for the worst), 2016
So yeah, there are a fuckton of steps to addressing systemic racism and starting early in the process is a critical step. But the narrative that an equivalent resume is all that’s needed to close the gap is false and dangerous.
Oh, I agree, and I wasn’t trying to suggest what I wrote above was all that’s needed. I’m a big proponent of racially blind admissions/hiring processes. Exclude any data that could be construed as being race-identifying. The more we can force admissions/hiring to base their choices solely on performance-relative metrics alone, the better.
However, I have to admit that such a goal is a bit unrealistic. Race-identifying information will likely always find a way into admissions/hiring processes, simply because of interviews. I don’t claim to know how to create the perfect system, obviously. This is a complex problem that people a lot smarter and more educated than I have been striving to solve for decades.
But I think that raising people up from the very bottom of society is still the best approach, the most efficient way to do that is by focusing on disadvantages experienced early in life. If you can level the playing field during kindergarten, you provide a more equal launch pad for every stage of life thereafter; keep working up from there and we’ll eventually wind up with a more equal result in adulthood.
Black people with good education are still more likely to be shot by police or go to jail.
I never said addressing systemic racism was limited to addressing said issues in educational attainment alone. Clearly, it’s a multifaceted problem that requires a broad range of fixes.
You really fucking implied it.
You can externalize your assumptions all you want; it doesn’t change the fact that interpersonal communication is the responsibility of all involved.
I.e., grow up and stop winging about minor details on internet forums.
You literally said that it’s “more effective” to give Black people better resumes than to stop systematic racism at the top.
Yes, but I was referring solely to DEI programs, which have nothing to do with systemic racism in police brutality or judicial prejudice areas.
That’s one factor, yes. Both is better.
Eh. Yes, if you’re looking at the data from efficacy studies alone. However, I would argue that DEI programs create political turmoil that creates harm to society that these studies don’t take into account. Addressing systemic racism is important, but DEI approaches have created understandable division about majority groups being discriminated against in the service of fixing the problem. I think focusing on wealth inequality has the overlapping effect of helping minority racial groups while sidestepping the race politics inherent to DEI programs that give fuel to racist groups in society.
The turmoil is manufactured. Nobody actually gives a shit except Fox News being livid about companies having the woke, and people who regurgitate it.
Only in the same sense that most political opinions are “manufactured” by mainstream news outlets. It doesn’t really matter. DEI’s problems are valid criticisms, and you can’t simply dismiss them because they’re highlighted by right-wing outlets.
Ok with it? I think that’s pretty much the number one goal.
yes that would be the logic behind dropping DEI programs