We do have the tools: anonymize the application process. The way to find out if you're orchestra auditions are biased is to put a veil between the musician and the judging panel. In tech, the way to find out if your interviews are biased is to mask the gender of the applicants. Some companies are already doing this: https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic...
It’s all well if we’re hiring tons of diverse juniors. But if we push them out unknowingly before they grow their careers ,we’re not really helping that much
If we're talking about the tech specifically, there's compelling evidence that poverty and lack of education attainment is a barrier for BIPOC people entering tech. But it's exceededingly hard to make that argument for women's underrepresented. Women are actually overrepresented in university. There's a strong argument to be made that women actually have more opportunity to enter tech than men. Rates of harassment in tech are actually lower than on plenty of female-dominated industries like education and administration [1]. The claim that women are being "pushed out" lacks a lot of substance.
1. https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/workplace-sexual-hara...
Instead of focusing on just women, extend it to any demographic.
The issue of attrition/inequity in minorities (whatever they may be) within a workplace is easily trackable within companies by looking at the makeup at various seniority milestones.
Again, the few companies that publish this data (Apple and Netflix come first to mind) show there’s inequity in the approaches that exist , but most importantly it also shows that you can’t just view total makeup as the metric but need to break it down into career milestones , and across corporate divisions to really understand the problem space.
Again: equality doesn’t start and end at hiring.
At my previous workplace we instituted minimum representation quotas for underrepresented demographics (we used euphemism for them, of course, "equity standards" and "inclusion targets"). The hiring rates increased, but then so did attrition rates. Similar things happened, but in reverse, when California banned racial discrimination in state universities. Admission rates for underrepresented minorities went down, but then the graduation rates rose. Perhaps increase attrition isn't solved by pursuing identical outcomes, it's solved by instituting blind hiring akin to blind orchestra auditions.
That men are found more guilty of murder is irrelevant to this discussion . The only relevant discussion is whether men are more likely to be found guilty of murder for a similar crime. The former is not bias, the latter is. However the former may be caused by systemic biases that put men in more likely scenarios to commit violent crimes. This is all high level of nuances that need to be understood, versus just saying “this is the way because it’s the way”
You keep fixating on very broad strokes, especially gender. You keep also missing the point of the not just focusing on intake. I’ve spelled that out multiple times, but you keep returning to intake.
There isn’t a point to continuing this discussion because you aren’t willing to even address the actual point of the discussion.
> I have gone out of my way to explicitly talk about consistent outcomes however, and where a discrepancy is found, to understand why.
My point is that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination to prove that an inconsistent outcome stems from bias. You've concluded that this disparities means underrepresented groups are bing "pushed out" on account of this unequal outcome.
This is a big leap in logic, and instead of actually trying to substantiate your claims you're saying I'm not addressing your point. I fully acknowledge your point: some other discrimination outside the scope of the hiring process, or whatever else we're talking about, is having an effect. And my point is that you're merely postulating this as fact and doing nothing to substantiate this statement.
What am I missing? You say I'm missing your point, so please explain what I'm missing.
Escalation from speech to physical harm can come in many forms. Like you said, Kanye 2024+antisemitism is a form of stochastic terror, using one persons speech to convince others to cause physical harm. But it can also be emotional abuse that is often not seen by many people that can lead to self harm. Or most simply, it can just be escalation of emotions that leads to mutual physical aggression.
With regards to equality, I don’t think it means that demographics should be evenly split. For one, that’s impossible given the large number of demographics and population variances. But I also think it’s more than equal opportunity.
Equal opportunity only tracks the opportunity to get a job at a superficial level. There’s also the pushing out of non-majority demographics through compounded aggressions. This is quite trackable in many companies and colleges as you can see big differences in percentage shares between career milestones (each year in university, or promotions in companies), but very few companies post it. Netflix and Apple have fairly good reports here
So to that end I’d posit: even if we’ve become better about equality, and agree we should have equal opportunity, are we actually setting up our systems to measure whether we’re being honest about it?