Andrey (azangru) wrote,

From a thread:

So who's not being discriminated against? Let's review who's currently getting the short end of the stick.
1. Women
2. Older Americans
3. Minorities
4. Foreigners
What can be done about this? The answer is clear: anonymous screening, interviewing and hiring of candidates. All other solutions are subpar.

Just to be clear: are you advocating that all organizations be required to perform this "anonymous" form of hiring, lest they face the long arm of the law?
I think that's crazy. Talent seeking is a space where diversity makes a great deal of sense, as evinced by the fact that many very diverse companies do very well.

I'm confused -- anonymity wouldn't affect diversity, unless the organization was discriminating to begin with.
What are your arguments against anonymity, exactly?

Anonymity would not affect diversity, but it would not necessarily enforce it. Indeed until all races, genders, sexual orientation, socioeconomic strata, etc. apply in identical numbers, one must discriminate in order to guarantee diversity.


(Me: Head = explode)

  • (no subject)

    Is it ... Bill Maher? Is he, in the penetrating eyes of this insightful lady, the emblem of white supremacy now? The comments to the tweet say it…

  • (no subject)

    Also, Google's documentation style guide. With the latest trends about the correct language, obvi. This one via HN.

  • (no subject)

    Google's document on how they build Chrome dev tools with web components. And yeah, it includes a special dance for some semblance of type safety,…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.