https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not sure of your point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm pointing out the inherent racism in these efforts in practice.

The only really positive thing I saw was hiring more from HBCU's.

But that crowd never pointed out white people were underrepresented in tech. And that lots of the black people they claimed they were helping by hiring were actually Pacific Islanders, African immigrants and second generation African immigrants rather than ADOS that they claimed to be helping

tbf this should all start at the education level so that black/hispanic/indigenous girls/gays/whatevers aren't joining CS classes, looking around and thinking they don't belong there, but until that's reality all we can do is tackle it where it impacts people the most - hiring.

What is the bias and causes it?

Because I don't think it's a systemic bias in the hiring system, so why not solve the problem rather than trying to patch the effect.

Prove it.

I never thought that. That part of me was irrelevant to the degree, and I found it great that no one cared and were able to focus on the degree.

Forcing diversity topics in and making them a focus instead would have been hell.

EDIT, I'd also like to add: Why do you believe this tilt exists? I find it plausible to exist (especially because lots of people seem to make a lot of money talking about it), but where is the evidence for it? What I'm asking for isn't evidence that one group of people are doing better than another, I'm asking for evidence that a group of people are being discriminated against. E.g., if you took the exact same person and switched out their profile photo to showcase a Hispanic woman instead of an Asian man, they would end up with far fewer job offers. The thing is, people have tried doing exactly this, and every time it goes the other way! The exact same application, minus a name and photo change, has the reverse effect from what you would expect if the basis behind DEI initiatives was true.

One thing that's common is for people to recommend their friends for jobs. Most of the time, their friends look just like them, because that's the kind of friends that people make. If you base your hiring process around this easy source of candidates, you end up not talking to a lot of people that would be qualified for the position. "DEI" can be as simple as "in addition to employee referrals, we're going to hand out brochures at a career fair".

But but, won't someone think of the poor white males?

https://journalistsresource.org/education/race-neutral-alter...

I don't think that's an entirely accurate narrative, but I do think it's probably at least part of this (e.g., that all of the best white people were already hired, while many POC people of equal caliber were not or not making as much). The job market was soaring in 2021 and looking for ways to hire new people without having to pay them more would likely be highly attractive. Now that the job market is not so competitive, there's not as much need to do so if you're just trying to find workers.

Edit: another comment on hn says that Bloomberg's methodology was flawed, which seems more plausible to me.

If there wasn't a demand for specifically female engineers they would cost the same as male engineers regardless of the supply because an engineer should be fungible with gender. Unless you think that women have some innate characteristic that makes them better than men?

To fix this sort of problem a wholistic approach is required. Whatever the approach it should apply to all equally so that the market is fair. Offhand, my historic recollection is that STEM generally is traditionally less appealing to those of the female sex (by Science/Biology definition of the phrase), and that there might (rightly?) be a perception of poor work / life balance and career tracks that don't pair well with fulfilling time limited biological imperatives. My personal opinion is that enforced labor regulation that provides sufficient parental leave, work / life balance generally, and generally promotes healthier recognition of employees as humans would be better for society overall.

I also recognize that we're probably not going to get that until the US gets rid of the 'first past the post' madness and adopts a voting system with literally _any_ form of IRV. There just won't be bandwidth for such an issue otherwise. Of said systems, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method is my favorite, but I'd start with ANY IRV, they're (offhand) all less flawed than what we've got.

Bias of applicants is solved by making the job worth for all to do, not just from the positives but by removing the negatives.

Why is that? Virtue signaling? Discrimination on males?

Think about it like this, if you'd use the same argument you gave me if the roles were reversed with men being 3-4x overrepresented in a well paying white collar career, everyone would cry sexism and discrimination and action being taken to "fix" that. So why isn't it when the genders are reversed?

Men occupy a position of institutional and societal power that makes such a comparison unhelpful, at best.

That doesn't justify discrimination. You're using the same argument Nazis used to genocide Jews: "they're overrepresented in positions of wealth and power so it's ok to discriminate and kill them all because it's obviously their fault for your problems".

You average man has no benefits in common with the top 1% of wealthy and powerful men who write the rules. The top 1% of Americans have more in common with the top 1% of Russians or Chinese then they do with your average Walmart American male.

Why punish men todays for the original sin? This only leads to extremism as backlash.

I’m so old fashioned thinking your immutable characteristics shouldn’t be considered for employment.

In my experience, DEI programs do the opposite. I've seen manager leave headcount unfulfilled because the qualified candidates they found were non diverse and hiring them would put them below their diversity target. If 20% of the workforce is women and your bonus is contingent on reaching 30%, you could recruit at Grace Hopper and try to hire more women. But if that doesn't get you to your quota, you need to hire fewer men to push up the proportion of women.

The incredulousness is valid, but the way you’ve posed this question is so inherently biased it reads as tone deaf, as if the parent couldn’t possibly have witnessed this.

Reality is a lot stranger than you might expect, if you can believe people can hold out for a junior engineer with 5+ years experience and a $50k salary: you can believe this.