Bismarck.Josiahflaming said:
»And secondly if that same field is currently 80% white guys, and your specific company has only hired 98% white guys for the role, you also have a critical responsibility to at the very least bring your own internal percentage closer to that aforementioned 80%, or else you are deliberately failing to hire the best candidates for your roles and are severely lacking in your hiring processes. Your hiring team is currently at risk giving their white male candidates an unfair and discriminatory advantage, and requires further auditing.
If the further auditing does not find genuine effort to bring your 98% rate closer to the 80% average for the field, then changes need to be made.
This is assuming that the hiring process didn't already evaluate the candidates for merit before deciding on the candidates they accepted. When your applicant pool is 80% white males, and 20% broken down between each other race/gender combination, you're talking about race/gender combinations with representation of 1-2% or less. There is a very real possibility that a smaller sample like that has less outliars(and if you have hundreds of candidates to choose from, you want the upper end outliars).
Hitting some target ratio doesn't give you a higher chance, using a greater degree of objective criteria to evaluate the best candidate does. And, if you want to credit 'math', try running a few simulations that randomly distribute merit values. In a situation where you are hiring 10 out of 1000, 10 out of 100, etc.. you'll find that the simulation very rarely distributes merit perfectly evenly.. probability doesn't work that way.
Finally, the assumption that merit is just evenly distributed across races in the first place is entirely unsupported. There are perfectly valid arguments to be made against the data supporting racial IQ differences, so let's not go there. But, you still have differences in average living conditions between races. You have differences in minimum score required to get into a college or program in the first place, due to the same representation arguments. You have measurably different hormone balances, which alter behavior in subtle ways we can't fully evaluate. Unfortunately, you have some applied eugenics from eras of slavery. The argument that all of these conflating factors perfectly balance out to create an exact equilibrium is absurd. Every race/gender combination has a wide variety of people with a wide variety of capabilities, but when you narrow it down to one geographic location and one high-skill profession, you don't necessarily represent that.
Bismarck.Josiahflaming said:
»It comes down to very simply math. What is going to give you the highest chance of hiring the best possible candidate for a role?
Pulling your pool of applicants from 60% of the entire population of people? Or pulling them from 100% of the population.
Pulling your
pool of applicants from 100% of the population is going to give you the highest chance of hiring the best possible candidate. Considering every candidate on their merits, regardless of race is undeniably the best path. Your earlier post was not talking about applicant pools, you specifically mentioned internal percentages. When you try to match internal percentages to demographics, you are potentially hiring based on racial discrimination.. because it requires looking at race when considering who to hire.