Preferably Caucasian

[sanantone]

A job ad for an account manager position at Cynet Systems Inc. was placed on several websites. The ad said that the ideal candidate will be preferably Caucasian. After being called out on Twitter, the co-CEO, who is Indian, said that the recruiter will be retrained. The ads have since been pulled down, but they still come up in a Google search. 

I'm not buying the story that the recruiter came up with this on his or her own. My guess is that Cynet asked for a Caucasian candidate, and the recruiter was dumb enough to put it in a job ad.

I tried attaching a screenshot from my phone, but the file is too big. You can find screenshots in the Twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/nick_budhiraja/status/1122195346174750723

[jsd]

if it actually was the recruiter's fault, they should have been fired. "retraining" is pretty crazy for that kind of "mistake" by a recruiter.

[dfrecore]

If you go to the CEO's twitter feed, it does apologize and say that the people responsible have been fired.

[jsd]

Good. His initial tweet only said they'd be "retrained."

[sanantone]

They had no choice but to fire the person. They were receiving backlash on every major social media platform for only requiring a retraining. They ended up taking down their Facebook page.

I wasn't surprised or angered by this because I've become desensitized. Companies ask recruiters to violate federal law all the time; the recruiters just aren't dumb enough to put it in a job ad. I'm more concerned about these employers than the person who did the lazy copy and paste job.

[bluebooger]

I don't see the problem

there's often a push to hire minorities or women

EVER SINCE GOOGLE released its first transparency report in 2014, the company’s efforts to diversify its overwhelmingly male, white, and Asian workforce have been criticized as too little and too late for a company founded in 1998. As the needle failed to move on the share of black and Hispanic engineers, frustration intensified toward an industry that wants to influence the globe, but can’t change itself.

Lately, though, Google’s diversity efforts have come under fire from an unanticipated source: white male former employees alleging discrimination at Google, whose technical workforce is 80 percent male, 53 percent white, and 39 percent Asian, according to the company’s 2017 diversity report.

In January, James Damore, the engineer who was fired after writing a screed against Google’s diversity efforts, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination against white people, men, and political conservatives. Then Arne Wilberg, a former technical recruiter in Google’s YouTube unit, filed suit1, alleging that YouTube illegally used quotas as recently as last year in an attempt to hire more black, Latinx, and female engineers. Exhibits in the complaint include a screenshot of an internal document where recruiters tracked diversity goals for women and minorities, as well as two emails where a hiring manager instructed the recruiting team to “only consider” candidates from “historically underrepresented groups.” Wilberg's suit was earlier reported by the Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-lawsuit-...diversity/

when companies or universities make an effort to favor women and minorities its perfectly acceptable -- even encouraged
https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-d...eport.html

but go the way and face social media backlash

in China you used to be able to get a "white monkey" job -- companies would hire you just because you were white because it gave the company the appearance of being international and successful --- maybe this was the same kind of thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-DJrrMb...u.be&t=152

[sanantone]

I don't see the problem

there's often a push to hire minorities or women

EVER SINCE GOOGLE released its first transparency report in 2014, the company’s efforts to diversify its overwhelmingly male, white, and Asian workforce have been criticized as too little and too late for a company founded in 1998. As the needle failed to move on the share of black and Hispanic engineers, frustration intensified toward an industry that wants to influence the globe, but can’t change itself.

Lately, though, Google’s diversity efforts have come under fire from an unanticipated source: white male former employees alleging discrimination at Google, whose technical workforce is 80 percent male, 53 percent white, and 39 percent Asian, according to the company’s 2017 diversity report.

In January, James Damore, the engineer who was fired after writing a screed against Google’s diversity efforts, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination against white people, men, and political conservatives. Then Arne Wilberg, a former technical recruiter in Google’s YouTube unit, filed suit1, alleging that YouTube illegally used quotas as recently as last year in an attempt to hire more black, Latinx, and female engineers. Exhibits in the complaint include a screenshot of an internal document where recruiters tracked diversity goals for women and minorities, as well as two emails where a hiring manager instructed the recruiting team to “only consider” candidates from “historically underrepresented groups.” Wilberg's suit was earlier reported by the Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-lawsuit-...diversity/

when companies or universities make an effort to favor women and minorities its perfectly acceptable -- even encouraged
https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-d...eport.html

but go the way and face social media backlash

in China you used to be able to get a "white monkey" job -- companies would hire you just because you were white because it gave the company the appearance of being international and successful --- maybe this was the same kind of thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-DJrrMb...u.be&t=152

You never fail to defend racism.

Let's separate college admissions from employment laws because those are two different things. Affirmative Action says that, if you have two top candidates who are equally qualified, then you are supposed to hire the candidate from the underrepresented group. Employers have an obligation to attempt to recruit applicants from groups that are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the population in the local area.

Affirmative Action is designed to combat discrimination based on protected classes, but it doesn't work well because it's hard for applicants to tell if they've been discriminated against. An experiment from a few years ago proved that African Americans are less likely to get called for interviews. They used fake resumes with Anglo and African American-sounding names.

[dfrecore]

I don't see the problem

there's often a push to hire minorities or women

That's ridiculous.  How about if they are BOTH wrong.  How about if a company just tries to hire the best PERSON for the job, without looking at any of the other crap.

I don't want to get a job just because I'm a woman.  I want to get it because I'm a great candidate.

[Thorne]

You never fail to defend racism.

Let's separate college admissions from employment laws because those are two different things. Affirmative Action says that, if you have two top candidates who are equally qualified, then you are supposed to hire the candidate from the underrepresented group. Employers have an obligation to attempt to recruit applicants from groups that are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the population in the local area.

Affirmative Action is designed to combat discrimination based on protected classes, but it doesn't work well because it's hard for applicants to tell if they've been discriminated against. An experiment from a few years ago proved that African Americans are less likely to get called for interviews. They used fake resumes with Anglo and African American-sounding names.

Oh please, it has nothing to do with racism to say that there are double standards which are inadequate. There is no rational reason to say that two equally qualified candidates should be selected based on race or should be prioritized based on race, not unless you can prioritize in either direction without being penalized. If it is not racist to prioritize a minority group over a majority group, it also would not be racist to prioritize a majority group over a minority group.

If I were faced with two equally qualified candidates, one white and one black, my choice would never come down to race, because I'm not a barbarian or an ignoramus. I would then differentiate by references, distance from the office, culture fit, etc. If, by some crazy occurrence, both candidates were equal in literally every way thus far, then the question would come down to can I afford to hire both people or only one? If I can only select one, I would devise a complex test of reasoning to see how well my thought process lines up with theirs regarding a nonstandard issue which may plausibly happen on the job, with the candidate whose answer provides the most insight being chosen over the other.

If the chosen applicant happens to be black, so be it. If white, so be it. I want the best applicant for a job, the best fit in culture, the most ingenious, the most capable -- if that person is white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or an ET hailing from Jupiter, that person would be hired for the job over the other candidates. To reduce it to race is monumentally hypocritical at best.

[bluebooger]

> You never fail to defend racism.  

and liberals never fail to promote it 

and as for what I wrote, you only see what you want to see 
I did not defend the racism in those articles 
" as well as two emails where a hiring manager instructed the recruiting team to 'only consider' candidates from 'historically underrepresented groups.' "
I called that practice out for what it is -- racist 

when are liberals going to stop being hypocritical ? 
liberals think having a majority of workers be white and asians is racist 
but setting goals of decreasing whites and asians and hiring minorities is not 
LOL - liberals don't see that as racist ?? it obviously is 

> Employers have an obligation to attempt to recruit applicants from groups that are underrepresented in relation to their proportion of the population in the local area.

that's just a personal belief of yours 

my personal belief is that employers have an obligation to make make money for themselves and their share holders 
and do it without polluting the environment or making a dangerous product

look at this quote 
http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-201...ty-report/

According to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report on diversity in the tech industry, tech firms hire a larger share of White, Asian, and male employees than the private sector overall.

Black and Hispanic or Latinx workers make up 14.4% and 13.9% of the private workforce overall, respectively. In the tech sector as a whole they are 7.4% and 8% of employees.

they say all that as if its a bad thing 
they imply underrepresentation 
but they provide no context at all  

but if you look at the number of minorities getting science and engineering degrees 
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/college-11.html

only 8.8% of science and engineering bachelors degrees are earned by blacks
and when they say "science and engineering" they're including psychology, and social science  
 

Degree data reflect U.S. citizens and permanent residents only; they do not include foreign nationals with temporary visas. Population data include all U.S. residents, regardless of citizenship status.
S&E = science and engineering. S&E includes biological/agricultural sciences, physical sciences, computer sciences, mathematics/statistics, engineering, psychology, and social sciences; excludes health sciences. Physical sciences = chemistry, physics, astronomy, and earth/ocean/atmospheric sciences.

so if 8.8% of bachelors degrees in S&E are earned by blacks is it really a big deal that they make up 7.4% of the workforce in tech ?

sounds pretty fair to me 

and also 

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/dige...minorities 

look under the tab 
Degrees earned by underrepresented minorities
scroll down to 
Bachelor's degrees earned, by ethnicity, race, and citizenship: 2016

Hispanics or Latinos earned 13.5% of science and 10% of engineering bachelor’s degrees; black or African American students, 9% and 4%; and American Indians or Alaska Natives, 0.5% and 0.3%.

black or African American students earned 9% of science degrees and 4% of engineering degrees 

how can a group that is earning 4% of engineering degrees claim to be underrepresented in the tech industry ? 

it is racist to hire someone based on their race 
liberals will never admit this 
because if they did it would gut their entire political platform 

so no, I don't defend racism 
but anyone who encourages hiring minorities just to ensure diversity does   

> An experiment from a few years ago ... 

I know about that ... 
all that proved was that companies wanted employees with names that sounded professional, 
that weren't going to hire some white guy named Bubba or Bobby Joe or Billy Ray either 

> That's ridiculous.  How about if they are BOTH wrong.  How about if a company just tries to hire the best PERSON for the job, without looking at any of the other crap.

but what if the best person for the job is a white person ? 
like in the video I posted, 
some chinese companies hired white people not because of their skills, but just because they're white 
because it gave the company a look of international reach and makes it easier for them to get contracts