back to article So much for rainbows, Zuck: Facebook staff still overwhelmingly male and white

Facebook may be celebrating gay rights around the world today by encouraging its users to paint their profile photos with a rainbow-themed filter, but the firm will be less proud about its latest diversity report. That's because the company's workforce remains overwhelmingly white and male. Facebook's latest "diversity report …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Diversity Director"

    Institutionalized racism by any other name.

    1. MachoBunny

      Re: "Diversity Director"

      Perhaps you could call it intelligent hiring and management. Moreover, the results speak for themselves and indicate the state of the national employee pool. If the majority of highly skilled "technology" professional were non-white females, you would see the employment numbers reflecting that.

  2. Velv
    Facepalm

    If you open offices/factories where white people tend to live then you'll tend to get white people applying for jobs.

  3. heyrick Silver badge

    Why is...

    ...it necessary to fulfil some sort of racial/gender quota? Isn't it more important to hire people based upon their ability to do the job?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why is...

      One reason would be to get input from people with different viewpoints. Apple for instance makes gold watches and phones because Chinese people like them, and the drawing messages were aimed at their style of writing too. I'd be surprised if a group of white American male geeks thought that up, although it's not impossible of course. Diversity can lead to more diverse ideas. I don't like the forced equality of turning down good candidates in favour of diverse ones, but there certainly are some benefits to be had by choosing that way where all else is equal.

      Another good reason is that IT is a product of the people who work in IT. From what I've seen this is usually an ego driven geekfest where businesses are railroaded into poor solutions by staff who want cool toys and want to compete with their mates. I'd bet if there were more women in IT there would be quite a few technologies that would have died off by now. An analogy would be that men often choose the gut buster meat platter at a restaurant while women will choose various dishes.

      All generalisations of course, but experience does seem to agree

      1. Craigness

        Re: Why is...

        "Diversity can lead to more diverse ideas."

        They're not aiming for a diversity of ideas, they want diversity in skin tone, genitalia and who people sleep with. They're fine with everyone thinking exactly the same way. If you think diversity of skin tone is irrelevant then you're diverse. And they'll sack you for it.

        1. tonton

          Re: Why is...

          "...they want diversity in skin tone, genitalia and who people sleep with." <-- EXACTLY!

    2. streaky

      Re: Why is...

      Isn't it more important to hire people based upon their ability to do the job?

      You really don't want a slice of this cake. Simple answer is apparently no but don't go down this rabbit hole of silly, I've been there and it stinks of mediocre.

    3. LucreLout

      Re: Why is...

      Why is it necessary to fulfil some sort of racial/gender quota?

      It is necessary only because the PC brigade are sexist, racist, and hard of thinking. Positive discrimination is just discrimination. Descriminating against a man in favour of a woman is the same thing as discriminating against a woman in favour of a man. And so it goes.

      I've never hired or rejected anyone because of skin colour, sexual preferences, gender, or how many world cups they could remember. Those factors aren't relevant at all. I'm hiring developers, not pole dancers, or bouncers.

      Were I based in Africa I might have mostly black people working for me, hispanic were I based in South America, or Chinese were I based in Asia. But I'm not. I'm based in the UK. So I hire mostly white male Brits, because they represent most of the candidates and potential workforce.

      The best person to apply gets offered the job. Best is defined on your skill set, relevant experience, motivation level, intelligence, and personality. Discrimination doesn't come into it.... not unless someone can tell me how Patterns, SOLID, REST, C#, SQL, Java, HTML, or JavaScript get influenced by whom you take to bed? Because, frankly, I don't see it.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Why is...

        "I've never hired or rejected anyone because of skin colour"

        My mother in Maryland in the 70s. She did a test, came second, and then was refused the job because second place was reserved for a minority.

        T'was a crap job and forty some years ago, but there's an example. I'm sure there will be others.

  4. RobHib

    Sometimes there's good reason.

    '...overwhelmingly male and white.'

    Running an IT department I found it difficult to raise the female staff ratio more than about 30%. Often this was through the lack of female applicants–not through selection (as I (and hiring staff) actively practiced affirmative action).

    My two assistants were female and they were excellent. The other female staff were also very good and often preferred to males especially when dealing with customers/clients (females exhibited less bravado and were far less likely to greet customers with comments such as 'what did you stuff up this time?').

    Not all staff were white nor native English speakers. Foreign-language speakers (perhaps 20% of the staff) came from diverse countries including Germany, Russia, India, China and Arabic-speaking ones.

    1. JustNiz

      Re: Sometimes there's good reason.

      >> as I (and hiring staff) actively practiced affirmative action

      And you're actually PROUD of that?

      PeeCee people like you get right up my nose. You dumbasses refuse to see that no matter how you try to hide it with a positive name, "affirmative action" is just yet more institutionalized sexism.

      You idiots need to get over yourselves and understand there is no such thing as "good" sexism, so you need to hire people solely on their ability, not give people an unfair advantage (and so oppress others) just because of their gender.

      The best and only logica thing you need to do is to make sure your vacancies are EQUALLY available to everyone. Anything more and you are unavoidably practicing some form of institutional bias. Two wrongs don't make a right.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sometimes there's good reason.

        @JustNiz

        Calling it affirmative action seems to have been, in the case of the post you responded to, a polite way of saying that men were more likely to be assholes than women, hence he was actively seeking women. Your knee is jerking probably because you are one of those assholes and if more women, or other races applied for jobs then you would likely be shit out of luck.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sometimes there's good reason.

          "Your knee is jerking probably because you are one of those assholes and if more women, or other races applied for jobs then you would likely be shit out of luck."

          I am very inclined to agree. The joke in the top level comment is "choosing the best person for the job". To say the least, this is a bit of a joke. For many interviewers this translates as :

          1. Someone who is like me except

          2. Has a less dominant personality and

          3. For some reason isn't likely to be a threat to my job.

          For the manager in a software operation this could lead to a bias in favour of people with strong mathematical and science skills who are socially awkward and so not likely to be promoted, but equally lack a lot of soft skills which would contribute to product usability.

          Many recruitment processes include hidden biases - it's well known for instance that in the US the taller candidate is likely to get the job. Paper testing isn't reliable but also never really tests for abilities like getting on with other staff and customers. We only have to look at some of the dysfunctional people who get to the top to see that.

          "Affirmative action" at least forces recruiters to look at a wider pool of candidates.

          1. RobHib

            @ Arnaut the less -- Re: Sometimes there's good reason.

            It's at times like this I know I've truly stuffed up well and good. As Gerard Hoffnung once said 'I must have lost my presence of mind' to have even contemplated using those two words beginning with 'a', experience has long taught me one can't do that without a squabble.

            Now let me correct this:

            "1. Someone who is like me except

            2. Has a less dominant personality and

            3. For some reason isn't likely to be a threat to my job. "

            Seems simple but that's just not how it worked. First, it wasn't possible to easily rig the employment process as independents were used on selection committees to keep everyone honest. These independents were usually unknown to us (and the process was very fair).

            Second, one's best employees are always a threat, but I can assure you that threat is much less of a problem than a stupid wayward employee who discovers (or thinks) he has rights and has the urge to exercise them. Good employees argue logically and I've been in many a scrap with them but matters are usually resolved amicably. I'm an argumentative didactic bastard by nature (many of my posts will attest to this), so I don't want 'yes' men around me. I often solve problems not by fighting but through argument, as there's little point if someone is always going to agree with one (such people I find intensely irritating).

            From my experience, the greatest threat to one's job isn't from other good employees, it's from stupid management decisions usually brought about by some overly-paid consultant/management 'guru' whose only true expertise is cutting-&-pasting boilerplate from management textbooks.

      2. RobHib

        @JustNIz - Re: Sometimes there's good reason.

        "affirmative action" is just yet more institutionalized sexism.

        Believe it or not I agree with you, but that does not mean that many of my female staff were less capable employees than their male counterparts (most were very good).

        Irrespective of my views about affirmative action per se, there was no chioce in the matter–that policy was dictated from upon high and at the threat of dismissal.

        Let's get the facts straight: affirmative action, rightly or wrongly, is a policy, loathsome or otherwise. From my experience, when employment procedures were implemented fairly and honestly it made very little difference, as the best person got the job anyway (their sex being irrelevant).

        BTW, let me add that I'm not being holier than thou here. It's that my job was a damn side easier when I had good staff, so it's always been in my interest to hire the best person available irrespective of his pr her sex.

  5. Preston Munchensonton
    Coat

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

    Just because Facebook has a bunch of gay, white males working for them is no reason to mistakenly point to discrimination against women and other minorities. Gay men have the right to work too.

  6. fishman

    What are the incoming hiring rates?

    What is the breakdown of the incoming hires? And if you aren't hiring many people, it would be hard to change the % breakdown of the current employees.

  7. Infernoz Bronze badge
    FAIL

    Shock, surprise .. NOT!

    Most women just aren't interested, so these quotas are futile; they'd rather work with people than STEM stuff.

    See: "The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011" (found via ZeroHedge)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

    Basically it shows that:

    * Females have different conception and sex chromosomes, and different hormone ratios, which makes them noticeably physically, psychologically and behaviourally different from males, even as new born babies!

    * Females mostly only do stuff they like less when it helps them to better survive, breed and raise children e.g. in developing countries.

    * In counties like Norway where there is enough wealth and freedom available, females gradually migrate away from doing stuff they like less to stuff they like more, even with radical feminist attempts to stop or reverse this, the same with men; so typically a greater proportion of men are in S.T.E.M. based jobs and a greater proportion of women are in people based jobs.

    1. Lusty

      Re: Shock, surprise .. NOT!

      "Most women just aren't interested"

      Weird then, how the number of women interested is rising as the apparent opportunities rise and as workplaces become more equalised. Perhaps what you mean is most women don't want to work in an all male environment where sexist comments are rife? Perhaps you also think blacks are also genetically not interested because they don't want to work in all white environments where racism is common? There are plenty of women, gays, blacks etc. interested, and constantly telling them that they are incapable, genetically predisposed to not want this, not physically able, or any other crap you care to come up with is likely more of a reason why there is an imbalance. Females do things in developing countries because males in developing countries force them to. Here in the rest of the world we have education to try to allow freedom for everyone. Females may be genetically programmed to be different from males, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't hire them.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Shock, surprise .. NOT!

        Women have been encouraged by a decades long campaign to get them more interested. Now they're at 20% and retention is a problem, because when it comes down to it, they're not that interested. I don't know if you've noticed lately, but women get praise heaped upon them just for turning up, whereas men get told they're awful when women _don't_ turn up. The sexism in IT is towards men.

        When teaching decides to call itself sexist and seek more men, I'll reconsider my opinion that the campaign to get more women in STEM is simply anti-male bigotry masquerading as some form of equality.

      2. JustNiz

        Re: Shock, surprise .. NOT!

        >> Weird then, how the number of women interested is rising as the apparent opportunities rise and as workplaces become more equalised.

        Thats actually not true. There were far more women as a ratio working in science/IT in the 70's/80's than now.

      3. Cari

        Re: Shock, surprise .. NOT!

        Or maybe we are seeing interest increase because younger generations are getting to benefit from a return to a less gendered social view of tech as time goes on?

        People that want equal representation want it NOW.

        They don't realise that in order to effect lasting change, we need to start with the younger generations and encourage them when they express interest in something that isn't socially coded for their gender. It will be a longer process, but for those who genuinely want to increase diversity of experience in the workplace, and increase opportunities in all sectors for groups that are under-represented (including men!), it will be so very worth it.

        Instead, they want to force people to conform, whether it's genuine bigots, people who just aren't affected by the same issues as others are, or people from the under-represented groups that really aren't interested in such things. This will always have the affect of breeding resentment.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shock, surprise .. NOT!

      "See: "The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011" (found via ZeroHedge)"

      And so women scientists, for instance, perhaps think that citing a Youtube video versus the many, many actual peer reviewed studies out there is proof of anything at all?

      If I was recruiting and I read your post, you certainly wouldn't be on the short list because you fundamentally don't understand how science works.

      1. uncredited

        Re: Shock, surprise .. NOT!

        If you had bothered to watch the video you'd have seen that it not only cites but interviews researchers that conducted some of the largest social studies ever made on exactly this issue and the results were exactly as Infernoz quoted them: In more gender equal countries women tend to stay away from technical careers such as in IT for the very reason stated above, they chose the career they were interested in.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    SJW employee review

    HR Bod: Hi Greg, how are you?

    Greg: Fine thanks.

    HR Bod: Looking over the comments on your file from your seniors it looks like you're doing well. How do you think it's going?

    Greg: I'm really enjoying working here. I love my team

    HR Bod: That's nice Greg..

    <Awkward silence>

    HR Bod: Well Greg I have some unfortunate news. We have a trans-lesbian-disabled-multiracial candidate that has absolutely no skills in any area that is relevant to our company but wants to join the company and due to anti-patriarchy legislation we have to fire our most privileged employee to create a position for <insert pronouns listed on tumblr profile here>.

    Greg: Oh

    HR Bod: You're still white aren't you Greg? Do you feel that you might actually be an asian person in a white body?

    Greg: Not that I know of..

    HR Bod: mmm.. Do you think that you might want to have your penis removed in the near future?

    Greg: Certainly not.

    HR Bod: mmm arh.. I notice from your file you're married with children. Have you adopted those children with a same-sex partner by any chance?

    Greg: No, I made them with my wife.

    HR Bod: Greg, I hope you realise the correct term is partner. Please don't use that sort of language again.

    Greg: Sorry

    HR Bod: Let's continue.. It seems to us that you have a privilege score that's off the charts so unfortunately it'll be your position we will be giving to our candidate.

    1. Hollerith 1

      Re: SJW employee review

      Yep, this is what folks come up with to show how absurd and ridiculous and discriminatory any concern with diversity is: straight white guys will be dumped on, mocked, and put into a difficult place.

      But no conversation like this has ever happened

      It is the same fantasy that's had whenever race, disability etc come up. 'So, Greg, you have all your limbs? Can use both eyes and both ears. Oh dear...'

      The fantasy is that white males are under threat from diversity. No, they are not. Unless one white straight guy here among the commentards has a true story about how he was demoted/fired/managed out solely on the basis that he was white and straight and male.

      I did have one ex-colleague to claimed that, even though he had been taken through a process to try and get him to up-skill himself, which he refused because his J2EE experience was his meal-ticket for life. The fault had to be anyone's but his.

      1. Craigness

        Re: SJW employee review

        @hollerith our local labour party had their preferred election candidate kicked out for being male. The whole point of diversity is to have fewer white men doing things white men have traditionally done. They can't achieve that without discriminating against white men.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: SJW employee review

        Yep, this is what folks come up with to show how absurd and ridiculous and discriminatory any concern with diversity is: straight white guys will be dumped on, mocked, and put into a difficult place.

        Well, although the "sacking in preference of" is a bit OTT, SELECTING based on characteristics other than the ability to do the job is actually not exactly unique, and that is exactly because of such stupid requirements as seeking to hit some magic number to score publicity or political points instead of ensuring the intake process has most of its bias removed.

        You comment merely suggest you've never been near a big company's HR process. They have even automated this sort of stupidity now (basically, if they have IT systems selecting people you know it's no longer a HR department, but a people processor - and most of them are).

  9. Grubby

    Stupid

    Why does it matter how many men, women, gays, blacks, whites etc a company hires? The people doing the counting should be the ones ashamed, they're grouping / labelling people because of the sex, colour of their skin or where they like to put their d*ck. Will these same group of bean counters, after they've forced companies to hire people based on the above, hold their hands up and apologise when a company goes bust because they had a choice of hiring a person who was qualified but were pressured to hire the guy in a wheelchair because they hadn't hired any for a while. Also, will the guy in the wheelchair be happy knowing the reason he got the job has little to do with his abilities and everything to do with his disabilities?

  10. Cari
    Stop

    B..but what about the womenz?!

    No!

    Women in the tech industry have every other day of the year to raise awareness for the issues we still have there.

    It's not even been a day that the LGBT community have had an historic win for their US number, and already women are crapping all over that and the public celebration to draw attention back to "our plight"? Ugh!

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Did anybody noticed...

    .. OPM is led by two women?

  12. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    "Perhaps white people live there because black people can't afford to because your racist ass won't give them a job?"

    What a racist statement. Nope, most people can't afford to live in these areas in California, regardless of race. About 20 years ago, I was offered a job in Silicon Valley area of California, with pay that sounded good by the standards of the midwestern US... but when I looked up expenses for the Silicon Valley area, I realized it would not have even paid for an apartment there even with 0 left over for living expenses.

    As for the gender differences... I think the main factor here is IT departments that tend to demand unpaid "on call" service, and brutal overtime. I would not want to work at a place that sees this as the normal state of events, rather than a temporary situation they should work to correct. But, I hear that it's all to common. Quite simply, I think there are plenty of people of both genders that will not put up with this long-term, but more males than females will put up with it.

    1. streaky

      I realized it would not have even paid for an apartment there even with 0 left over for living expenses

      Call the chap racist then back up the argument, interesting.

      1. Cari

        "classist" was probably more appropriate. Progressive types love to forget about class and economic privilege, because it's one of a few privileges (or lack there-of) that transcends the holy trinity of gender, race, and sexuality.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Because most progressive types are usually very good at obtaining those privileges, and to defend them well...

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A little OT perhaps

    I'm a white male.

    In 1994 I was sacked from Game because I wasn't a woman.

    This was my year out to earn money (not to travel the world like rich kids) prior to university.

    I attended an interview, Was given the job, Started day after. 3 days later was told my store manager had 'imbalanced' without consent from head office. As a young company they had to fulfill certain gender quoters in order to get certain GOVT funding. So I had to go.

    If I had been black or female I would have kept that job. Or a black one legged lesbian, especially.

    ^ Does the US not have similar infuriating laws ?

    1. JustNiz

      Re: A little OT perhaps

      I would have sued their asses.

    2. Cari

      Re: A little OT perhaps

      That really sucks AC. Former Game (xmas temp) employee here, and in the last 20 years I believe things have improved somewhat in that regard.

      Both stores in my town had (at least 2 years ago) all male permanent staff, and none were dropped and replaced with us female temps they took on. They kept the already experienced staff (and welcomed back all temps each year that did a good job).

      Side-note: they were wicked to work for, and considering it was one of those "evil male dominated workplaces", I never felt out of place or offended.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Here we have three things that we consider when looking for staff.

    1) The right qualifications (not necessarily a university degree).

    2) Ability to do the job (not needing constant supervision).

    3) Get along with the other staff.

    If the person meets those requirements I couldn't care if they were a little green man from mars, they get the job. Conversely if they don't meet those qualifications - no job offer.

    Having diversity targets are the quickest way of a company going broke, that is unless you are very large then you have a reorganisation and get rid of the dead wood that way..

    1. Craigness

      Being large is important. There is a correlation between large companies and "diversity" because the laws enforcing diversity focus on large companies, and they are better able to absorb the extra costs. It actually helps them when these laws are extended to smaller companies because the bureaucratic cost of compliance and loss of productivity are harder to absorb in smaller companies. All FTSE 100 companies are on board with the "women on boards" programme despite the research showing it harms company valuations (when the requirement to appoint a woman is forced on the company - hiring women is not in itself a value-losing proposition).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'd add:

      4) Being able to intelligently engage in debate (knowing the difference between a debate and an argument).

  15. Kaltern

    I have to say,

    Who gives a fuck.

    I'm so sick of reading about why quad-dyke transgender homeopathic paraplegics are not in this or that job.

    I'm White, male and British. Therefore, by the way the precious snowflakes of the SJW brigade harp on, I should be King.

    It just doesn't work like that. Get a fucking grip. If someone wants to hire mostly men who happen to be white and straight, let them - if you don't like it, go find a job elsewhere - it has fuck all to do with you, or anyone else who hires who.

    I suppose there should be exceptions to that rule, but I imagine that 'Facebook' is not exactly going to be a 'better place' if rainbow farting unicorns start working there.

    I'm sorry, but this SJW crap is just going too far. If you're in a minority, you're in a minority. Deal with it, just don't try and persecute those who are NOT in a minority for being, you know, not a minority.

    Downvote me all you want, I'm just utterly sick of reading about crap like 'too many whites', 'not enough transgender snowflakes', and other stuff that makes out minority groups are getting a raw deal, just because they can't get that job they wanted. Hell, maybe it's because, you know, you're not very good?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I have to say,

      My recommendation; Dont hire you. Youre a fucking whining ninny who, if you do anything wrong will try to blame anyone other than yourself. All those you denigrate will likely be more reliable, trustworthy, and hardworking than you. Another white asshole blaming the world for his own shortcomings.

      1. GrumpenKraut

        Re: I have to say,

        Replace "white asshole" with "back asshole" in your comment. Then read it again. Does it possibly sound racist to you?

      2. Kaltern

        Re: I have to say,

        Wow... did I hit a trigger there my little snowflake?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I have to say,

        And in case anyone is wondering, I am a white male and I can use any words I like about myself and my idiot brethren. Ever since Friday I've been seeing floods of self victimising bullshit from mean spirited, straight white men (predominantly) exhibiting not a single thread of self awareness or empathy for anyone other than their poor pitiful selves and I'm sick of the whole fucking lot of you, embarrassed to be associated with you. Take me to Mars please.

        1. Cari

          Re: I have to say,

          Bro, you're free to say whatever you want about yourself. But you're an arrogant prat if you presume to project that onto half the population just because you share the same pronouns.

          I'm sorry you and the men you interact with are sexist jerks and you believe that those you don't interact with are also like you. I would recommend you join the freedom programme, but sadly I believe it's only for women. Women who actually have an understandable reason for fearing or disliking the entire male gender at that.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I have to say,

            Ah, I'm just venting. There's been a lot of irritation this weekend and this is just my version of primal screaming. As when Dory Previn got pulled over by a cop while screaming in her car on the highway. All men aren't jerks (half of those celebrating the new freedoms are men) but very small irritants can have very large effects on the irritated.

  16. Dana W

    The US finally got dragged into the 1990's and we got a win on the religious nuts. This is probably the biggest supreme court decision of the last 50 years, let us enjoy a rare "in the US" victory for humanity and sense.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Let's see, large organisation whose product is IT based is interested in taking on more female workers. Great! OK, so what's the gig? Hmmm, it's a social media thing, helps people talk to each other - I'm fine with that. It likes pushing advertising at users (that's how it actually makes money) - nope, no problem so far. Hang on - wants to track practically everything you do so that targeted advetising can be presented to users - that's a tad creepy. Oh, and regulalry ignores users privacy settings and makes private stuff public by default without a by-your-leave - what kind of socially and ethically retarded idiots are they? Hell, no, i do NOT want to work with these people! Sounds like Stalker Central. Next!

    I'm a card-carrying feminist, and I think quota-based hiring is retarded. What might be more to the point is a requirement that in order to be allowed to employ or manage people that you have to be able to pass some kind of standard in ethics, to try to reduce the number of shitheads in positions of power, whilst not preventing said shitheads from finding work, just reducing their opportunities for making others working lives a misery, irrespective of anyones gender, sexuality creed or colour.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > and I think quota-based hiring is retarded ... you have to be able to pass some kind of standard in ethics ...

      This is basically the point of quota-based hiring. There are many industries which are, for reasons of history, male dominated. There are many which lack basic infrastructure for employing disabled people, even if those people are awesome - such as ramps. In such an environment "bad habits" develop - if you hire lots of guys then you will get frat-house behaviour from some, which would not have happened in a more mixed sex environment because the need for social behaviour regulation isn't there. You need trail-blazers of <other> [sex/color/race/disability] in order to cause that work environment to adjust, and quotas just help that help a little faster, as it removes one part of sub-concious self-selection.

      The general aim is that once society adjusts the quotas can be backed out, and it should be self sustaining, although in some countries such as Sweden the quotas for sex equality basically turn into something which is just about the quota, even though social norms are now pretty good, and that is destructive in the long term. The trick with quotas is realising when you don't need them any more.

      Quotas are not about any specific job - they are about causing a shift in social norms - and they have a long-term view to fixing problems because society does not move quickly ...

  18. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Holmes

    Can't we just employ the best people for the job and come down like a tonne of bricks on those people we do employ who can't work alongside other kinds of people who we also employ? It would seem like the best way of going about things.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Can't we just employ the best people for the job

      The problem is that "best people for the job" becomes self defining. If you have a department full of testerone-addled males, women by definition won't be the "best people for the job" because they won't fit. (Employment law does recognise that work is a social enterprise.) If you have a department with a wide variety of people from different backgrounds, the person with the best job related skills is more likely to find people to get on with. So it is actually easier to recruit the best person for the job.

      I have grandchildren at two very multicultural schools in London, both rated outstanding by Ofsted. It's interesting how children seem to form friendships by personality and interests rather than colour or background, because they haven't yet been told that being white or Afro-Caribbean or whatever makes you special and different. I suspect that this is the future, in which my Scots-Indian grandson's best friend is Mexican-French and nobody really notices except when they dress up for their family origins day. The job market is going to have to deal with this.

      1. DN4

        Re: Can't we just employ the best people for the job

        So then companies with homogeneous workforce (of any colour, gender and sexual preferences) will lag behind the diverse ones, eventually go bust and the problem will solve itself. No quotas necessary.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Can't we just employ the best people for the job

          "So then companies with homogeneous workforce (of any colour, gender and sexual preferences) will lag behind the diverse ones, eventually go bust and the problem will solve itself. No quotas necessary."

          The difficulty for managers of large companies is how to tell that colour and gender blind recruitment is actually happening. If you start to slip down the ladder, there are many possibilities of which a poorly selected workforce is only one. I agree that in an ideal world quotas should not be necessary. I also note that Russell group universities have observed that State school pupils tend to do better than private school pupils with the same A levels, but a disproprtionate number of private school pupils continue to be selected. How do you turn around a big ship?

      2. RobHib

        @A.C. - Re: Can't we just employ the best people for the job

        "The problem is that "best people for the job" becomes self defining. If you have a department full of testerone-addled males, women by definition won't be the "best people for the job" because they won't fit."

        Often the "best people for the job" does become self defining, but to me it seems more complex than that, especially so in today's society. For instance, I find it somewhat strange that a significant number of women want to be soldiers. Why would women want to lower or debase themselves to work in the profession of soldiering–to use your words–one that's traditionally so full of testosterone-addled males? It's a double-whammy too, for soldiering is not only full of testosterone-addled males but the job of being a soldier often brings with it the absolute worst of all possible human experiences.

        The fact that these days many women do want to be soldiers says something that we simply cannot ignore. Same can be said about the large number of women in traditional male enclaves such as electrical engineering.

        I've argued above that some of my best employees are women, I have not however argued that on parity they've all the same skill-sets as my male employees, the percentage of males obsessively interested in the nuts, bolts and mathematics of the work is definitely higher (but it's also true that a higher percentage of females have better skill-sets in other related areas). Nevertheless, there's a large overlap, so generalizing is difficult.

        I'm not a cultural or social anthropologist so I make no attempt to explain or understand the shift, only that it's happened and that we can't ignore it.

  19. Thomas Gray

    Going out on a limb here...

    If 100% of Facebook's employers were homosexual, wouldn't they still be overwhelmingly white and male? IOW, the diversity rating of the company has nothing at all to do with celebrating gay rights and rainbow filters.

    1. Cari

      Re: Going out on a limb here...

      I thought based on the title of the article and accompanying image, it would be about how lacking in diversity with respect to sexual orientation Facebook's staff is.

      But instead the article seems to be appropriating a positive event for the LGBT community in order to go on, yet again, about the plight of women in the workplace. This is some tumblr grade "feminist" tat right here.

  20. Terry 6 Silver badge

    Selecting

    Selecting doesn't have the benefit of hindsight. i.e. it actually means looking at how someone apparently did their last job (or what exams they passed) and guessing how good they will be at this one.

    And it's far too easy and maybe arrogant to choose someone like yourself.

    Which means that white, middle class, male managers choose white, middle class, male staff.

    (And yes it might mean that black, one legged lesbian managers would equally be more likely to choose black, one legged lesbian staff - but they don't happen to be an overwhelming majority of managers in most organisations )

  21. Sarah Balfour

    Here in Blighty, there seems to be another worrying trend - regional discrimination.

    Seems that however well-qualified (in every sense) you are for a position, if you tick 1 - or more - of the following boxes, you'll be passed over:

    Comprehensive school education

    'Annoying' accent (Brummie and Scouse are considered the most annoying, apparently)

    Working-class background

    However, if you've a Home Counties RP accent, a grammar or public school education and are (upper) middle-class, then you're more likely to be hired, regardless of qualifications.

    This seems to be especially true in the financial sector, particularly in the City, which could be why the banks went into meltdown - a load of posh twats who didn't have the first fucking clue what they were doing (whilst siphoning off funds on the side).

    It's been going on for decades really (yes, before anyone says anything, I realise this post probably doesn't make much sense but, even though it's cooler today, I'm still suffering a particularly bad case of Troll Brain - I'm dreading Wednesday, it's rumoured it's gonna hit 32°, anything over 22 and I'm dead. I'm fully expecting my brain to literally melt and dribble out my ears…).

    SJ tired. SJ sleep now.

    So much for the Classless Society, eh…?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "However, if you've a Home Counties RP accent, a grammar or public school education and are (upper) middle-class, then you're more likely to be hired, regardless of qualifications."

      Practising your RP English and learning how to fake your background does no harm either. I'd mention a few former politicians but in this country, the greater the truth the greater the libel.

  22. Terry 6 Silver badge

    As above (selecting)

    The "people like us" problem.

    In a country where Old Etonians and the like have had immense influence since the days of empire the top layers of most institutions are still largely packed with people who perpetuate the same profile by trusting people who most resemble their younger selves. In other words; jobs (and before that places at Oxbridge) for the posh white boys with often rather outdated views, but a good address and plenty of the right contacts.

    I'd make an educated guess (having met a few) that American fraternity boys from the Ivy League are pretty much in the same vein

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Diversity is misunderstood

    This diversity thing is really being totally misunderstood. So when a white guy and a black guy apply for the same position, we should first see if there are any vacancies for black/white guys. If the black guy is better than the white guy, but if there are more black guys than white guys, we should definitely hire the white guy, right? We need diversity. Who cares if he's capable of doing his job or not? Stop this bullsh*t. Diversity reports mean nothing unless you're a "diversophile."

    1. Bucky 2

      Re: Diversity is misunderstood

      A lack of diversity is a possible indicator of a problem, not a problem in and of itself.

      I once worked with an SEO person who insisted that all images have non-blank "src" and "title" tags -- even 1x1 google tracker images -- because the automated SEO tool flagged them.

      Obsessing over the indicator for its own sake is a mistake.

      For hiring managers, it's a heads-up to see if they're missing an opportunity to hire more talented workers. As some have pointed out, there could be reasons outside of a poor working environment for those numbers (in our example: tracker images are not an SEO opportunity).

  24. MachoBunny

    Winners hire the best without regard for color or gender. The unskilled or inferior always whine and blame their lack of intelligence and natural ability on racial or gender bias. BULL. If there is such a bias, that bias is the effect of being less suited for the job, not the "unfair" cause of it.

  25. Kar98

    Oh no!

    Not male and white! The horrah! The horrah!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like