Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
Tell me you've never been involved in hiring without telling me you've never been involved in hiring.

This myth you guys have invented where the way hiring works is we look at a list of accomplishments and skills, apply points to them, and then the person with the highest point score gets the job unless a devious diversity hiring quota makes us pick someone lower on the list is pure fantasy.

This is how hiring actually works: We interview a lot of candidates. They have a range of pros and cons. Internal candidate with less technical skills but more internal knowledge? External candidate with lots of technical skills but needs to learn our system? Fresh out of college candidate with a lot of promise but a lot of training needed?

Which one is best? It's almost entirely subjective and hyper-specific to the role being applied for. There is almost never a "best" candidate. There are usually multiple qualified, quality candidates that have different pros and cons. I've been involved in hiring dozens, maybe hundreds, of people in my career, including with diversity initiatives, and not ONCE have I ever. been in a situation where there was just one qualified candidate and we had to make a decision to hire them or someone unqualified. It's an absurd, cartoon caricature of how the real world works.

- - - Updated - - -



The problem is that you are equating "bad motivations" with "bad actions" on one side of the ledger. They aren't the same thing. You are trying to say that doing a good thing for a maybe bad reason is the same as doing a good thing as a cost of materially harming people. Do you not see the difference here?

- - - Updated - - -



Are you going to make someone post the white/black name resume studies? I know you've been shown them before.
Remember, these are the same people scared of brown people taking all those jobs no one wants to do in the first place.