As a colored dude, it’s hard to explain. I’ve even had white folks say, “Nah man it’s not like that.”

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    In the very strictest sense, not exactly. If you looked at resumes with all indicators of race and gender removed, then you would probably see that the people with the highest amount of merit were white men.

    …But that’s only half of the story.

    The issue is that, broadly speaking, white men will have had more advantages growing up that allowed them to have that merit. It’s no indicator of potential. If you get a head start on the race, then sure, you’re much more likely to end up winning, not because you’re inherently faster, but because you got an advantage. DEI is part of an attempt to find the people who have the potential to be the best, no just the people that are the best right now.

    • thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      The issue is, in practically, resumes don’t have all indicators of race or gender removed.

      There have been several studies that suggest that the name on the resume is enough of an indicator of race and gender to let bias creep in. Even on otherwise identical resumes. I’m not sure if we’re going to remove names from resumes any time soon.

    • Fisherswamp@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      This isn’t even true though. Hiring is done by people who have implicit biases and subconscious preferences. When a hiring committee has no diversity, the people hired tend to be less diverse than the average.