Comment on DEI, more like DIED
Cruel@programming.dev 1 day agoWhen IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They’re picking from a smaller pool, yet I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified? That’s not reasonable.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I’m not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically “qualify” as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She’s not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don’t think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don’t think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I’ll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president’s cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don’t like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?
Only anecdotal. They’re having similar problems as universities, where they have “too many” asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they’re actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they’re working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public “policy”. I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women programming. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they’re trying to save money lol.
merc@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…
Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.
You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.
Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.
Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law?
If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.
You don’t think a man who was a senator for 22 years and voted on the confirmation of 11 Supreme Court justices, and who served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 8 years where he personally led the confirmation hearings of 7 of them was aware that there was a pool of qualified black women who would make good Supreme Court justices? Maybe you better think about that a little harder…
If you want to argue that Trump had no idea what he was doing, I’m not going to dispute that.
So no.
Well there you go. There’s no problem, and no reason to get mad at DEI.
Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?
No, no, no. You’re a professor of law, remember? You have strong opinions on the qualifications of Ketanji Brown Jackson. You couldn’t just be some shlub who is watching Newsmax and parroting their opinion. C’mon professor, I’m not going to believe you’re just a guy who works in tech.
lordkuri@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
“hello? 911? I’d like to report a murder I just witnessed…”
Cruel@programming.dev 20 hours ago
Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it’s somehow harder for women to make it?
I’m curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I’m sure it’s conveniently not because they think they’ll have a hard time succeeding and “don’t bother.”
In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that’s all I’m doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?
You certainly see the problem with this. They’re not the only ones doing it, and even if they weren’t, they’re still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.
Wrong. Out of the three I’ve gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?
Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)
Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it’s not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.
The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court.