News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs by Manuel_D on Friday January 10, 2025 @09:24PM (#42662724)
If the goal is to prevent people from being biased, why not anonymize candidate packets? Zoom interviews can also be anonymized easily. If it's the case that equally strong, or stronger, candidates are being passed over anonymization should solve this.

Rather than working to anonymize candidates, every DEI policy I've witnessed sought to incentivize increasing the representation of specific demographics. Bonuses for hitting specific thresholds of X% one gender, Y% one race. Or even outright reserving headcount on the basis of race and gender. This is likely because the target levels of representation are considerably higher than the representation of the workforce. At Dropbox the target was 33% women in software developer roles. Hard to do when ~20% of software developers are women.

Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs by gr3ml1n on Saturday January 11, 2025 @12:06AM (#42663467)
If you anonymize applications you don't hire the 'right' ratio.
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs by eapressoandcats on Friday January 10, 2025 @10:19PM (#42663010)
Anonymization is probably an under tried idea. Various orchestras switched to blind auditions and significantly increased the number of women they hired.
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs by shreyshnaccount on Saturday January 11, 2025 @04:29AM (#42664576)
people can cheat in anon interviews?
Re:Meta's memo to employees rolling back DEI programs by Manuel_D on Saturday January 11, 2025 @11:45AM (#42667027)
They can cheat non-anonymous interviews too. An alternative is to have candidates go in person to an office to interview, but the grading and hiring panel only sees anonymized recordings of the interview.