Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjpnz | Hacker News Reader

>UC Santa Cruz publishes online to help guide prospective applicants.

>“To receive a high score under the terms set by the rubric,” the complaint alleges, “an applicant must express agreement with specific socio-political ideas, including the view that treating individuals differently based on their race or sex is desirable.”

In what universe is being patronising desirable?

View on HN

On the other hand it's much cheaper for an employer to filter candidates early, instead of firing them later for inappropriate behaviour.

who defines inappropiate? _animal farm_ novel is how old??

> Who defines inappropriate?

The boss.

who employs the boss? The Investor. Who's the biggest investors? blackrock fidelity vanguard and state street use our pensions and 401ks to influence companies to do their bidding.

The boss is always whoever controls the capital, hence why it's called capitalism.

> who defines inappropiate?

The country laws, the company leadership, the hiring manager. That are the people and mechanisms that define what is appropriate or not for a job. (More people and more levels of legality may be involved).

This is a public university in California. The UC system decides, and that's presumably someone in the UC staff responsible for generating policy for DEI initiatives.

And since this is a public uni it has to comply with state and federal rules. UC can choose whatever it wants but if the laws shift on the state level it's moot; Texas is doing something along those lines now...

Whoa this comment dunked and I don't even have an idea why - does HN actually oppose so heavily the idea of an employer establishing their own rules in the workplace, and communicating openly about those rules? And people having thus the possibility to vote with their feet right from the start?

UC Santa Cruz is a public university so they have to be in compliance with the equal protection clause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com