I'll bite. Let's say you do the worst and hire unqualified people and even discriminate differently than currently practiced!!! Then they somehow, by all biological efforts against them, manage to hang on for more than a year. Now your survey results have a changed demographic. Circular logic is circular. Notice how I word dropped logic!
Stackoverflow has ran these kinds of surveys for three years. Not much change across all three years, and employment at a software company is not a requisite to participate in the survey.
I didn’t know anyone had provided datasets on this topic, other than the Stackoverlow set, in order to empirically, rather than anecdotally, draw insights.
Those numbers are irrelevant. It only reports the active makeup of their employees. You should look at the diversity of the hiring numbers once this shift started. http://www.businessinsider.com/google-sued-discriminating-white-asian-men-2018-3?r=UK&IR=T Discriminating against whites and Asians because they are the majority in that field is wrong. Diversity numbers should reflect the diversity of the applicant pool. If Google wants to increase their overall diversity, they should continue with the diversity programs at the educational level to diversify the applicants instead of disqualifying new applicants based on race. This is their yearly quota.
Bless your heart. If only everyone were all about fairness and discrimination in all workplaces. They are investing in different educational levels. The BI article says the youtube numbers are from L3 hires (0-5 years of experience). That's pretty much a make or break time for any person joining the field. The funny thing about merit is that it's based upon actual experience. Undergrad IT degrees doesn't prepare you for the realities of working in tech, so a strong way to build a reliable data set is on the job experience. The internal people who are against this is likely more about the culture clashes different people bring rather than their actual qualifications. That's harder to squash, so they default to "experience" or "cultural fits", which are plausible arguments considering the amount of catching up some new hires need. It's definitely an artificial barrier of entry among the like minded workers, and it's textbook with other industries that have faced traditional discrimination lawsuits before. P.S. That quote about "slave traders" in the BI article could have been made by Google recruiters in the plaintiff's camp. I don't like defending google but there are elements in these lawsuits purposely designed to embarass google rather than stand on the actual merits of their individual cases. Something to think about.
So you're saying you're okay with discrimination policies because life isn't fair? Everything you said is basically speculation to rationalize discrimination in your mind. There is actual evidence of quotas set and to only hire underrepresented minorities. Something to think about.
I don't mind setting hiring goals if that's the publicly stated intent and vision of the company. They have a reason behind it beyond "life isn't fair". Is this a case of putting faith in the almighty Invisible Hand and "Letting the markets decide"? If Google is found guilty of only hiring underrepresented minorities, then that would be an issue. I don't think that's the case because the BI article purposely stated which type of employees were alleged to be filtered. I wouldn't call the poorly copied leaked docs slam dunk evidence either.
Not really. It's sad and disappointing that you justify discrimination only because it serves your social justice of diversity. Those white and Asian candidates who are looking to break through that difficult L3 position are not given the same opportunity at Google because of their skin color. And you're okay with Google having that vision for their company.
If that's your opinion, then you could boycott Google for being hateful racists despite comprising mostly of ethnic groups the lawsuit alleges they're discriminating against.
Oh Duncanator, you should just ignore these "racists" at Google. If it works for you in regard to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis, surely it will work for Google. It's amusing that the anti-diversity warriors scream discrimination in hiring but are willfully oblivious to the discrimination in education from pre-k through high school.
That attitude is what allows racism and discrimination to continue. Promoting diversity through discrimination. I can't believe people think that works. Who said I promote the KKK and Nazis? Please quote me where I've said that. The tactic to label anybody with dissenting opinions as racist Nazis is so juvenile. You're better than that.
I said you advocated ignoring the Klan and Nazis. Basically, don't protest them, let them do what they want, and then they'll go away. I found that amusing since the Klan is over 150 years old. Why don't you take your own advice on Google.
Gotcha. It's because those groups, while vile as they are, aren't doing anything illegal that I'm aware of. Protesting them gives them the attention and publicity they want. Seems counterproductive to protest them because you have nearly no chance of changing their opinion. Google is actually discriminating against protected classes in their hiring interviews, which the courts have ruled is illegal.
It is hard to find female and minority candidates outside of Asian in tech. But I know they are desired. Diversity is a real benefit and creates a stronger team as it increases the diversity of ideas. I have seen this throughout my career
