I'm all for equal opportunities, but given that only 25% of the US population is considered a minority, why is the target higher than that percentage (and we are pretty much at it) if we are going for a representation of the workforce? Our target for women in workforce makes sense at 50%.
14 replies (most recent on top)
@3bfo+1rvK2Uer are you not a non Indian hired by Indian manager?
People were not hiring based on race, they were hiring based on similarity biases, which is a natural response. Addressing that bias is important, but that doesn't mean we should prioritize race metrics in hiring decisions, just that we should realize those biases, and ensure our decisions are made to minimize them. If we REALLY want to have hiring equality, TA would anonymize everything about candidates when presenting to hiring managers for consideration.
@3tvf has never worked under an Indian manager. Then again… few non-Indians have the chance.
Minorities are just as if not more racist than anyone else
"We need to stop hiring based on race and other boxes...why can't we just hire the best person even if they are a white male?"
Originally, people WERE only hiring based on color the difference is they were hiring folks who looked most like them. Affirmative action came about because of the inequality and exclusion faced by minorities in America. That is why "we cant just hire the best person". The best person can be incredibly biased if you believe your race is superior.
remember when nike hired and made jarvis the vp of dei when he was 25, despite having almost no work experience? phil knight remembers
Wow so awesome that anonymous sites like this reveal that some of my white male coworkers actually do think this way tho 🫠
Nonsense. We are making product and serving athletes globally. This post reeks of fragile white ego
We need to stop hiring based on race and other boxes...why can't we just hire the best person even if they are a white male?
FWIW - women at 50% doesn't make sense either depending on the level of the job. There are less women in the employment pool at higher level positions as some elect to leave the workforce. I'm sure there is data on this but the available pool of candidates for a mid-level or senior level manager position could be 40% women 60% men.
As it relates to racial diversity, I have personally seen certain BIPOC candidates selected for jobs over less desirable BIPOC candidates purely because they checked more diversity boxes. In a few instances, the candidate with less merit was chosen simply because they checked more boxes.
That is so flawed.
These stats are specifically for the US, so it isn't the "wrong mindset"
We're are global brand, "in the US" is the wrong mindset.
Made you clutch your pearls, huh? What are you afraid of?
If you are all for equal opportunity but your first thought is why do we need more diversity . You are in fact not for equity or equal opportunity .
I mean your math is wrong for starters. Forty percent of the US population is considered a minority.
Second, I don’t know that we stop at parity for other distinctions. Should the Supreme Court only be made up of a maximum of 4 women because at 5, they’d be overrepresented? That’d be an incredibly silly argument.
Instead, we should be focused on ensuring people have access, equity, and opportunity and that those drive fair outcomes — agnostic of if it drives overrepresentation in some way.