Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmdshiftf4 | Hacker News Reader

>Honestly, even you saying this is BS.

"I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?"

You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race!

If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll.

This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.

View on HN

Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed.

If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity.

I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.

Yes - in-group bias is a real thing and is prominent across all races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities etc.

But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.

Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias.

This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias.

This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.

>Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias.

Then when will they include conservatives in the board? They are after all half the population, but there doesn't seem to be any in all of Reddit's board or company.

Are you really conflating the under representation of black people in corporate boards and management with conservatives? I mean seriously, that’s not even a serious argument.

Let’s go ahead and ignore the systematic and historical oppression of minorities and black people in particular, if anything conservatives have dominated business culture and are over represented in leadership positions of companies.

Reddit, if anything is an outlier, not some propped up example of oppression of conservative voices.

But I take your point. And I agree people should hire from across the political spectrum.

"Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed."

Except they do. In fact, you're saying it right now.

And I am getting down voted more than ever before on HN. You really expect me to believe that people question white candidates credentials anywhere near is frequently as minorities? How would you propose we identify an Ivy League candidate that benefited from a legacy boost or a large donation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com