Activision Blizzard Appoints Kristen Hines as Chief DEI Officer

[Zmagoslav]

Just how many non-sensical C-level positions does a company need?

I can already see the outrage when it comes out at how much less she makes than the male C-level coworkers.
Yes, sometimes the scenarios just write themselves.

I cannot give you specific examples but it's not unheard of that they recruit from other studios (who have an employee base that mirrors the problem) or hire on recommendation of friends of friends. I agree with you that education is a good place to start but that does not exclude what Ion wrote about in the quote: doing a more comprehensive job of recruiting candidates. Again, all of this focus on hires is mostly beside the point: recruit more widely, especially for entry-level positions where qualifications mean much less, and your workplace will diversify on its own.

That's pretty much the only thing you can do in the "seller's market" the current developer's job market is.
I can only speak from my own experience, which is not in the same "gaming" market, but every time i'm looking for new team members (in DA/cloud DWH) i basically only get applicants i wouldn't even consider for a junior position. (And then one of the above happens, with a recommendation from colleagues who usually bring in at least a lower mid-tier dev)

It's basically gotten so bad that one of our main HR-strategies is to buy other firms and absorb their workforce.

[Biomega]

I think education is a FAR better place to start - start asking why certain groups are not interested in certain fields, and work to encourage them to pursue a career in that field.

This is something that does need to happen, and there ARE initiatives to get it underway.

But there's no need to be hierarchical here; those things can and should happen in parallel, not sequentially. It's a serious misconception to think (even implicitly) that there's only one thing we can focus on, and that we need to choose priorities among measures that aren't actually in direct competition either ideologically or in terms of resources. We can - and should - do many things at the same time.

Additionally, many of these processes not only run in parallel, but also in concert. Part of making certain fields more attractive to people comes from encouraging hiring practices in those fields that demonstrate to potential students that there is a future for them in that field. That's why increasing diversity in STEM jobs can lead to more diversity in STEM education; and, conversely, increasing diversity in STEM education can feed into more diversity in STEM jobs. Things are interconnected, and they need to be worked on multiple fronts.

It's not something that can be changed overnight. And it's a many-layered, highly complex problem in many aspects, some of which are still not clearly understood or have good solutions to implement. This is the legacy of many decades of inequality; it will take many years to improve to the level of true equity, or at least a reasonable approximation of it. Many steps along the way will not be what they will or should be at the end of the journey. That's to be expected. Measures change along the way, just as results do. To suggest that we should treat the beginning of the solution the same way as we treat the end is basically saying "I don't know why we should put a cast on that broken leg, once it's healed we don't need a cast slowing us down that'd be stupid".

[Wangming]

Do we really need an officer to remind higher-ups to not be dicks to people just cause they are different? This sounds pointless honestly.

[MoanaLisa]

Do we really need an officer to remind higher-ups to not be dicks to people just cause they are different? This sounds pointless honestly.

An $18,000,000 dollar settlement on a lawsuit about just this says yes. Frankly the cynical take is that a C-Level executive in place to potentially make some changes in order to avoid more lawsuits and expensive settlements in the future is a bargain. There are other lawsuits pending and likely more to come in the future. If having positions like this do anything to reduce the penalty on the California DFEH suit that started all this, again: bargain.

[Wangming]

QFT.



More racist hirings by Bli$$ard. What're the odds for how long this one lasts?

Hopefully we get some more blue-haired whales, militant, fish-mouthed feminists, and homosexuals for quest design while we're at it.

Well if they can write better than Danuser, they are welcome to join. He might be white, normal haired, cisgender and heterosexual, but he is a hack.

[Mendzia]

Imagine taking thousands of dollars for making decisions based on race and sex.
Obviously skin colour of this person is also totally facultative...
One of the reasons i am so happy that i do not live in US or Western EU...
My God... what a clown fiesta times...

[Wangming]

An $18,000,000 dollar settlement on a lawsuit about just this says yes. Frankly the cynical take is that a C-Level executive in place to potentially make some changes in order to avoid more lawsuits and expensive settlements in the future is a bargain.

Yeah it is cheaper than an actual change. But still pointless. A new position with barely anything to do on a daily basis that people can ignore at will won't bring lasting change. At best we will have more token characters like Pelagos who don't feel like representation but are marketed as such.

[Soeroah]

Yeah it is cheaper than an actual change. But still pointless. A new position with barely anything to do on a daily basis that people can ignore at will won't bring lasting change. At best we will have more token characters like Pelagos who don't feel like representation but are marketed as such.

Not saying I don't think Pelagos was poorly handled, but he was hardly 'marketed'. The most Blizzard ever said on the matter was a note on the PTR forums and even after taking three Kyrians through the campaign I never found the one paragraph of dialogue where he hints at being trans. If they're trying to 'market' representation to the LGBT crowd like that they're doing a worse job than Disney's "our first gay character (unnamed, on screen for 20 seconds, just mentions a boyfriend) is in the Avengers (movie, not as a main character, just set dressing)!".

It was the players erupting at the datamining that was the reason most players know about it at all.

[arkanon]

This is something that does need to happen, and there ARE initiatives to get it underway.

But there's no need to be hierarchical here; those things can and should happen in parallel, not sequentially.

Completely wrong, unless you are suggesting industries start hiring people who lack the qualifications for the job? You MUST start with education, it MUST start by doing their best to promote the industry to a broader 'market'. As most agree, the problem is not that they are hiring white people over non-whites, the problem is that only white people are applying. I personally dont believe it is an employers job to go hunting for a person of colour or specific gender to fill a role when they already have suitable applicants on their desk. But I absolutely think it would be very beneficial to encourage more people of a diverse background to start their journey in a particular industry in their teens / young adulthood.

But no one seems willing to answer this simple question - should diversity quotas be implemented in ALL industries, or just specific ones? I would love someone to answer that question clearly.

[Hotdog Shirt Guy]

What a waste of resources and manpower this whole thing is.

[varren]

Lmao. Really all that needs to be said.

[arkanon]

But if that also means that a few PoCs and, gasp, maybe even a few females get in as well... again because they're qualified .

So you are totally fine with a fully qualified white male with equal or greater experience missing out on a job purely because of his skin colour and gender? There is absolutely nothing stopping them (poc / female) getting the job right now, and the quote that keeps getting linked even says that.

[Soeroah]

Completely wrong, unless you are suggesting industries start hiring people who lack the qualifications for the job? You MUST start with education, it MUST start by doing their best to promote the industry to a broader 'market'. As most agree, the problem is not that they are hiring white people over non-whites, the problem is that only white people are applying. I personally dont believe it is an employers job to go hunting for a person of colour or specific gender to fill a role when they already have suitable applicants on their desk. But I absolutely think it would be very beneficial to encourage more people of a diverse background to start their journey in a particular industry in their teens / young adulthood.

But no one seems willing to answer this simple question - should diversity quotas be implemented in ALL industries, or just specific ones? I would love someone to answer that question clearly.

The Ion quote you got linked a while back indicates that there are interested people in other demographics and they are applying for Blizzard, but for whatever reason their applications have been getting filtered out earlier in the process. Ion said in that quote that when they make an effort to change how they're doing the recruitment process they're finding plenty of qualified individuals of other demographics.

That said, yes, education also needs to be overhauled, as do public perceptions of other demographics. Diversity hiring is trying to save a tree's branches when it's been planted in bad soil.

[Biomega]

Completely wrong, unless you are suggesting industries start hiring people who lack the qualifications for the job? You MUST start with education, it MUST start by doing their best to promote the industry to a broader 'market'.

That would only be true if there are NO diverse people with qualifications already. Which isn't true. You just want MORE. You can absolutely already hire some, it just takes more work to find them. In some fields it's easier than in others, and it's usually a matter of degrees - but there is no field whatsoever where there are absolutely no diverse graduates available right now. That's simply not true.

But no one seems willing to answer this simple question - should diversity quotas be implemented in ALL industries, or just specific ones? I would love someone to answer that question clearly.

In principle, yes. In practice, it's more complicated. Some are easier to implement than others, some are already a lot more diverse than others. The goal is universal equality of opportunity - in theory. In practice it won't ever be more than an approximation, and the short-term goal is simply an INCREASE in equality, iterative and consistent. That's harder in some areas than it is in others, for various reasons.

But yes: we need more female brick layers and garbage collectors just as we need more female lawyers and CEOs. The former, however, is a harder sell than the latter.

[Th3Scourge]

Well if they can write better than Danuser, they are welcome to join. He might be white, normal haired, cisgender and heterosexual, but he is a hack.

He has no hair

[arkanon]

The Ion quote you got linked a while back indicates that there are interested people in other demographics and they are applying for Blizzard, but for whatever reason their applications have been getting filtered out earlier in the process. Ion said in that quote that when they make an effort to change how they're doing the recruitment process they're finding plenty of qualified individuals of other demographics.

That said, yes, education also needs to be overhauled, as do public perceptions of other demographics. Diversity hiring is trying to save a tree's branches when it's been planted in bad soil.

Thats not REALLY what it says - read it again. Read the specific examples it uses, right after it very specifically says that no one is NOT hired because they a poc or female, but that they dont even receive those resumes - not because they are filtered out during the application process, but before that. But i ask you this - even if they were getting "filtered out" during the very early application stages (before shortlisting) do you honestly believe that is because of race, and if so, how would they know? Do you often put your race on your resume? And if so, why?

- - - Updated - - -

In principle, yes. In practice, it's more complicated. Some are easier to implement than others, some are already a lot more diverse than others. The goal is universal equality of opportunity - in theory. In practice it won't ever be more than an approximation, and the short-term goal is simply an INCREASE in equality, iterative and consistent. That's harder in some areas than it is in others, for various reasons.

But yes: we need more female brick layers and garbage collectors just as we need more female lawyers and CEOs. The former, however, is a harder sell than the latter.

So you believe the NFL should be far closer to 50/50 white/poc? Because as it stands, its overwhelmingly African American dominated. At amateur levels, thats fine, but in a professional career, surely it should be more diverse, right?
What about strippers? Prostitutes? Porn? Porn in particular male stars are paid a tiny percentage of their female counterparts, even in the same scene - is that ok?
Army? Do you think aiming for 50/50 male/female front line soldiers is a good target?
What about factory jobs?
What about secretarial work, should they be aiming for 50/50 male/female targets?
What about early childhood teachers, do you think we need more males looking after 5-8 year olds?
Do you think we need more males selling bras to women?

How about midwifery, farming, truck driving, sherpas? Do you see a lot of females complaining that they cant get a job as a sewer maintenance tech?

Yes, whataboutism, and intentionally so, because i see a HUGE discrepancy in the jobs i see all the drama about in regards to diversity, with the huge majority being very desirable jobs, with little to no physical labor involved at all, and extremely low risk to health / life, if any at all.

[Soeroah]

Thats not REALLY what it says - read it again. Read the specific examples it uses, right after it very specifically says that no one is NOT hired because they a poc or female, but that they dont even receive those resumes - not because they are filtered out during the application process, but before that. But i ask you this - even if they were getting "filtered out" during the very early application stages (before shortlisting) do you honestly believe that is because of race, and if so, how would they know? Do you often put your race on your resume? And if so, why?

There have been experiments that show more diverse people get through the process if they use a white-sounding name or fudge other parts of their applications. It doesn't necessarily make the recruiter racist, it doesn't mean they're consciously aware of the fact they're doing it, but it's certainly not a stretch to say humans have biases that can affect their decision-making in situations like recruitment.

So no, I don't put my race on my resume, but having a name that sounds like it comes out of Asia or Africa could affect the chances of me getting through to the interview stage than if I replaced it with Jones or whatever. And the one part where both sides of this debate agree is that companies SHOULD be hiring on merits and there SHOULDN'T be this kind of bias in recruiting, but the most effective short-term, if inelegant, solution we've got right now is to force diversity to give diverse applicants an equitable opportunity. We haven't gotten rid of that unconscious bias yet.

[arkanon]

That would only be true if there are NO diverse people with qualifications already. Which isn't true. You just want MORE. You can absolutely already hire some, it just takes more work to find them. In some fields it's easier than in others, and it's usually a matter of degrees - but there is no field whatsoever where there are absolutely no diverse graduates available right now. That's simply not true.

So just to be clear, for this to be true, when the shortlisting is done, you are suggesting someone looks at each applicant and says "pretty sure that guy sounds black, lets throw it in the bin" - you are suggesting active racism during the shortlisting process, do you have ANYTHING to back that up?

- - - Updated - - -

There have been experiments that show more diverse people get through the process if they use a white-sounding name or fudge other parts of their applications. It doesn't necessarily make the recruiter racist, it doesn't mean they're consciously aware of the fact they're doing it, but it's certainly not a stretch to say humans have biases that can affect their decision-making in situations like recruitment.

So no, I don't put my race on my resume, but having a name that sounds like it comes out of Asia or Africa could affect the chances of me getting through to the interview stage than if I replaced it with Jones or whatever. And the one part where both sides of this debate agree is that companies SHOULD be hiring on merits and there SHOULDN'T be this kind of bias in recruiting, but the most effective short-term, if inelegant, solution we've got right now is to force diversity to give diverse applicants an equitable opportunity. We haven't gotten rid of that unconscious bias yet.

This i can somewhat believe MIGHT happen, but i would enjoy reading some of these experiments. You got links?

[Wangming]

He has no hair

According to some here, no hair is better than blue hair.

[Caradras]

So to prevent racism and promote inclusivity they hire someone to be specifically racist and uninclusive. What a dumb policy.