I have trouble believing UA ever believes a Black person getting a job over a white person isn't motivated at least in small part by racial politics. Which is weird, because UA's best friend is probably Black.
JFC, entirely not the point. Feel free to rewrite the question however you want, the point is just a situation where after whatever recruitment processes you want you have two candidates who seem equal apart from: One seems like they would be the more productive of the two on day one. The other seems like they would be the more productive of the two on day 90. It's not a gotcha for the right answer, because the point is that there isn't necessarily a right answer in all situations, and things are more complex than simply being able to pick the best person by predefined objective standards. (The standards all have to be predefined before the process starts, because any you try to introduce later will be biased towards getting the answer gut feel tells you is right)
First, in real life, you are not going to typically get to get people to agree to work a trial set of shifts at AlbertCo. for your own personal evaluation. People have competing jobs out there, and you may or may not have the funds or other wherewithal to have two people filling the single position at one time. Second, I hope you concede that a) in many or most job listings, there are not a ton of objective, impersonal standards available and b) the people who are hiring do not necessarily apply what objective, impersonal data there are. (If you do not, then it for me brings into question your ability to recognize anything close to objective standards). If you make that concession, how is it anything but a fiction that the objectively best person is generally picked for jobs when the process selecting them does not use many (or sometimes any) objective standards?
So... Because you can concoct a hypothetical where it is "impossible" to identify an objectively superior candidate, I must pick them by their intrinsic traits instead of, I dunno, flipping a damned coin or something? Does not follow.
The disparity between what you think they should do and what the actually do is no excuse to force irrelevant details into the situation.
Here's his right-wing Mister Spock mode; then when his sophistry is pulled apart, he'll tell everyone to commit gay acts.
In other words, "don't use reality to point out why I'm wrong. I prefer to use the conditions I specify for my own fantasy realm."
Nope, I didn't say that. This is just establishing that often the whole idea is wrong that you can just objectively identify the best candidate from a checklist.
"Often." Exceptions don't invalidate the concept. It's still the least imperfect in a stable of flawed solutions. A damn sight fairer and more useful than factoring in irrelevant details.
If the concept is "in situations where a simple checklist can objectively determine the best candidates then a simple checklist can objectively determine the best candidates" then...yes? Well done? I've got no idea what it actually is you're arguing against anymore, and I suspect you don't either, other than some DEI strawman you've concocted.
In plainest terms, I'm saying the flaws in objective qualification assessment doesn't justify introducing irrelevant terms like race or sexual orientation.
So then you agree with the principles of DEI. Historically in this country, preference has been given to certain races and orientations (among other demographic categories). Broadly speaking, DEI is about eliminating that leg up for those in historically favored demographic categories, and putting everyone on an equal playing field.
the trouble is you're presuming objectivity in the first place, rather than ingrained prejudices... nobody says you have to hire the diversity applicant, jsut that their diversity can't be the reason you don't. this is built upon documented decades of seeing less qualified pale and male get favoured...
Bingo. Although those of us who have been/are actually involved in hiring have explained this already and he keeps arguing his strawman version.
