Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

When you run a job advert don't ask for "recent graduates" because that discriminates against older people. Instead make clear that the job is an entry level position with little responsibility or pay.

When you run a job ad don't talk about how you all go to the beach every Wednesday and then say you're looking for a close cultural fit. This probably discriminates against people in wheelchairs (and probably several other groups).

When you run a job ad don't have a photo of your team (all male, all age 18 to 26) and then talk about cultural fit.

Mentioning "cultural fit" is sometimes a huge fucking flag that you're doing something wrong.

As an aside: "do we have to employ dumb people so our company has more black or female or disabled employees?" is a remarkably offensive thing to say. It's pretty close to what you're asking.

View on HN

You mentioned dversity. That is usually interpreted to mean "protected characteristics". While these are different in different countries they usually include:

• Sex and gender identity; sexuality

• age

• race

• religion

• disability

• parenting status

and others.

You also asked about lowering the bar to employ these people - the clear implication being that a worker with a protected characteristic is of a lower standard than a worker without a protected characteristic. You might want to add a clarification if that's not what you meant.

Let me re-iterate myself: I didn't mention any specific attribute, not to say specific gender or ethic groups. So, what you are saying here is probably not a natural interpretation to draw from my question.

I do agree with the cultural fit part though. It's subjective and easy to manipulate to what direction as convenient to the company.

Talk about "dumb", I don't think sane companies will ever hire anybody who they considered as "dumb", because it's counter-productive. However, it's possible that a certain group have a slightly lower bar. They are still good, but just not as selective as their counter part. As long as it's good for the company's public image, morale, etc, they might want to make this trade-off.

Does this policy not uncommon in the industry? -- Is essentially my question. Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean that certain group(s) are superior/inferior then the other group(s). This simply means the general public confused the population as general population, instead of number of candidates. So that companies might want to skew the graph a bit to make it composed more like general population to please general public, media, whatever.

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

Everythin you write makes me think that you're saying that diversity means a company has to lower the bar; and that they get other benefits for doing that - public image is one example you give.

The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that yu're saying people with a protected characteristic are not as "good" as the general population.

What's not to understand about what he's asking?

His question is regarding so-called "affirmative action" or quota-like initiatives in companies, where those with a protected status are given a preference in hiring purely based on their protected status. That's what he means by lowering the bar.

I don't know how many companies do this, but many people on HN (including myself) agree that such practices are unfair. I agree with sarahj's comment on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039

Creating a good environment for diversity is about noticing and eliminating biases, and trying to provide an equal playing field for all potential candidates. OP appears to be concerned that some companies will take things further than that to give "diverse" candidates an unequal advantage. That's all.

Re your last sentence: That might only reflect your personal opinion. I didn't even mention any particular gender or ethic group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com