I genuinely can’t parse that post.
I’ve been consistent in my view that being “all in” on woke just means treating people equally and I’ve never met anyone that is the right wing caricature e.g. Insisting that we recognize 37 genders
What is the inconsistency you are trying to suggest? Where is this “bailey”?
But that is not what you wrote. You wrote that being woke is just not caring what gender someone is.
When you’re arguing for equity, they claim they’re only in favor of equality. When you’re arguing for equality, they claim they’re only in favor of equity.
I have, unfortunately. Here are three of them.
To be clear, the goal of these initiatives wasn’t to elevate lesser-qualified candidates over more-qualified candidates. In two of these cases, the goal was to eliminate candidates from certain demographics from consideration before evaluating their qualifications; in the other, it was to evaluate the qualifications of candidates from certain demographics in a way that was more favorable than how other candidates were evaluated. The effect was likely to elevate lesser-qualified candidates over more-qualified candidates, but it was done in a roundabout way that wouldn’t have left definitive evidence regardless.
When I worked at Google between 2013 and 2015, diversity was a hot topic internally, and lots of programs and proposals were discussed on internal forums. One existing program that I saw discussed gave recruiters or managers the ability to send candidates back to a second hiring committee if they were rejected by the first one.
For context, the way hiring worked was that candidates would go through a series of on-site interviews, and each interviewer would write up their impressions. A hiring committee would then consider all the feedback and make the decision to hire or not. Since the decisions were somewhat subjective, they introduced some noise into the process, and there was speculation that that might be a source of bias.
In theory, this program could be invoked for any candidate that someone wanted to fight hard enough for. In practice, it was designed and promoted as a diversity tool, and primarily used for candidates from underrepresented demographics.
Defenders of the program claimed it wasn’t “lowering the bar” because the second hiring committee would use the same criteria as the first, so any candidate who passed could be said to have met the same bar. But it’s easy to see the problem: if two people playing dice are trying to roll a 6, and one of them gets to re-roll if he misses the first time, obviously that player is going to win more often.
In Wilberg v. Google, a YouTube recruiter sued the company after he was allegedly fired for opposing illegal hiring and recruiting practices. Those practices were documented in emails:
For the past several years, Google has had and implemented clear and irrefutable policies, memorialized in writing and consistently implemented in practice, of systematically discriminating in favor job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men. These policies were reflected in multiple bulletins, memorandum, charts, and other documents prepared by Google’s highest-level managers, and approved by Google’s C-level officers and directors. The stated purpose of these policies was to achieve “Diversity” in the Google workforce, to manage public relations problems arising from the underrepresentation of women and certain minority groups in the Google workforce, particularly in engineering positions.
For example, Google policy documents state that, for Q3 of 2017, YouTube recruiters, including Plaintiff, would hire only individuals who were “diverse.” The policy document states: “Beginning of Q3——we hire for 2018—all diverse.”
the manager of YouTube’s Tech Staffing Management Team […] wrote an e-mail to the staffing team in which she writes, “Hi Team: Please continue with L3 candidates in process and only accept new L3 candidates that are from historically underrepresented groups.”
In April of 2017, Google’s Technology Staffing Management team was instructed […] to immediately cancel all Level 3 (0-5 years experience) software engineering interviews with every single applicant who was not either female, Black or Hispanic, and to purge entirely any applications by non-diverse employees from the hiring pipeline. Plaintiff refused to comply with this request.
In approximately December of 2015, Plaintiffs Supervisor […] emailed the entire Youtube Tech Staffing team […] to tell the entire team that the goal for Q1 2016 was 5 SWE hires per recruiter and all of the hires had to be diverse SWE candidates which means they must be black, Hispanic or women.
See The FAA's Hiring Scandal: A Quick Overview and The Full Story of the FAA’s Hiring Scandal.
tl;dr: Among other things, the FAA’s hiring process for air traffic controllers was reworked to eliminate 90% of candidates with a “biographical assessment” quiz, including candidates who’d already passed a skill assessment. The quiz was obviously bogus, with contradictory expected answers and many unscored questions; the correct answers were provided to candidates from preferred groups.
(This has unfortunately been used as culture war fodder in the wake of a recent plane crash, even though the FAA’s process was changed years ago.)
And, you didn’t ask, but for me “woke” means the more traditional meaning of “aware” (and is a reasonable term for metaphorically not asleep). As in, aware that there are inequities in how people are treated that are rooted in culture.
And I mean the same thing; whats the inconsistency?
One of the candidates for a role in my team is a woman named Shannon? Yeah, whatever
…and she was assigned male at birth and used to be “Shane”? Yeah, whatever
I’m treating her equally and not caring about her choice of identity, all by doing nothing.
Ok then you believe even more so than me, that being “all in on woke” is not some great burden that it would be unreasonable to advocate, right?
I am baffled that you are confused about this. If “woke” means just not caring what gender someone is as you yourself said then “woke” does not include anything about race or any other factor that can be culturally-discriminated against. You in your own words claimed that “woke” is exclusively about gender issues.
Well, my definition of “woke” doesn’t include pratices at all, it is entirely about the awarness of the inequity, not about any attempts to counter it.
Right. But the perception of the anti-DEI crowd is that it does exactly that, no matter how many facts you throw at them to disprove their perception. And now the sad fact is that truly qualified people may be looked at side-wise as a “diversity hire”.
Oh FFS. It was an illustration that the boogieman of “all-in” on woke just means treating people equally. I picked the example of trans, because that’s the one that right now in the US and some other countries, is most often employed as a caricature or what the left supposedly wants.
But since you’re asking me to explicitly lay it out: yes, I believe treating people fairly and equally includes not discriminating on the basis of gender, race, religion, age etc
I mean, they’re not necessarily wrong: it does sometimes do that. Their complaint, at least the one I usually see, isn’t that DEI departments are deliberately trying to lower the quality of hires, but rather that they’re putting demographics ahead of qualifications - which is what those three programs did.
Would you consider yourself anti-DEI? Would you avoid flying in an airplane piloted by a Black man?
That just sounds like pure bigotry to me.
And “the Right” is soooo open minded and even-handed? /s
I think what a lot of people are missing is that there usually isn’t a single candidate for a job that is more qualified than the rest of the applicants.Usually there are multiple candidates that are equally qualified.
And when there are multiple candidates that are equally qualified, the final decision ends up being based on subjective criteria, such as workplace culture and being a “good fit”. In workplaces dominated by white men, this traditionally translated to “let’s pick the white guy”, even in cases where that thought process wasn’t overtly racist.
Breaking this cycle is a crucial step in assuring equality in outcome, otherwise the only minority candidates that would get hired in some workplaces is one that is clearly and objectively the best qualified candidate. Since that hardly ever happens, the result is a pervasive lack of opportunity for minority candidates.
I think it’s important to have policies to combat this mindset, especially if it alters the workplace culture and redefines what it means to be “a good fit”.
And if that results in the equally qualified white guy not getting the job, and being subject to the same challenges as equally qualified minority candidates……that’s equality of opportunity. When you’ve lived a life of privilege, equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not.
This is correct. I can’t believe we’re still doing this kind of “aha, we found their fatal flaw” kind of post in the year 2024.
Anyway, if you corner anyone on this, they will readily say that their real issue is that corporate DEI was insincere and ineffectual.
Having been through some corporate DEI trainings in the past couple of years or so, I can confirm that it was pretty much a charade and a mockery. It was like a kindergarten-level “tell us about your culture” kind of thing. Harmless and well-intentioned, and really not a big time burden at all, but kind of an insult to all parties involved. In other words, like every other top-down corporate culture training initiative, but with some triggers for certain sensitive people.
Of course that doesn’t mean DEI critics are really saying they want sincere and effectual DEI. What they want is for everyone to stop talking about it. They never want to hear the words diversity, equity, or inclusion at all. They don’t want to hear that some people need to make room for others. You are not going to trap them into this argument by making them explicate the DEI acronym.
Just give it another year.
I can’t believe I’m still writing “aha, we found their fatal flaw in the year 2024” on my checks, this far into 2025!
When I started my last job, there was an orientation class early on, where everyone went around and introduced themselves with “hi, I’m X and my pronouns are y/z”. In theory, I was exactly the kind of person who that effort was supposed to benefit. But I wasn’t out at work yet, and I sure wasn’t planning to come out that day to a bunch of strangers. Given the choice between outing myself and misgendering myself, I just gave my name and that was it.
So instead of inclusiveness, it was a room full of (presumably) cis people saying the pronoun that was already obvious from seeing their face, and me, the only trans person in the room, looking like a reactionary jerk. Ugh.
I pointed out upthread that no matter who is in charge of hiring, they’re likely to hire people like them - it’s not just “white guys” doing these abuses when the workplace is dominated by a certain group. And under the structure of some DEI programs, things can and do go awry if not implemented well. As I mentioned, the anti-DEI crowd have seized on these problems to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I meant personally but I should have been clear. One of the difficulties when speaking of employers is that we have so damned many here in the United States that we can always find a few who engaged in odd or unethical behavior. I do remember reading about Google’s problem a few years back. Those kind of diversity efforts do nobody any favors.
Usually that’s taken care of in the initial screening- only people with degrees, X amount of work experience, and so forth. The actual interviewing is basically to see if they’re a fraud, weirdo, or misanthrope.
Most of the time, one of two things happens. One or two people stand out above the rest, or they all are bad. When there are two people who stand out and are equal otherwise, it usually comes down to who the interview panel feels would fit in and be better to work with.
I think that’s the problem- a lot of people aren’t concerned with equality in outcome; they’re just on board with equality of opportunity.
That’s the most important thing, IMO. Anything else is going to get you problems in the long haul, whatever race, sexuality, or gender someone may be. And it’s shortsighted to just wave it away like it’s unimportant because someone wants a nice, neat, perfectly representative workplace.
The Left needs to bury this bullshit posthaste. Putting it like that is pretty insulting to all the white people who have struggled and strived mightily as well. They certainly don’t feel privileged, and when they’re told they live privileged lives, that just turns them off to everything else you have to say.
That’s not to say that I don’t understand the concept, but I absolutely hate the wording. It’s about as horrible and counterproductive as “Defund the Police”. There’s got to be a way to describe the phenomenon that doesn’t imply that white people have something “special” and possibly unearned, when in fact the way they’re treated should be the baseline not anything special or privileged.