• Andrew Hersh, almost 6 years ago


    The key to much of this is that you have cleverly (unconsciously?) changed the word "biological" to "social". None of the factors I mentioned are social, and none of them should have any bearing whatsoever on whether you have been "successful" at anything at all worth achieving in a place of business.

    You have inequality in your office? Unequal representation is not necessarily inequality. If you have an unequal representation of genders or races, or anything else, and that is a result of a bias in your hiring practice, then that bias should be snuffed out. If, however, you have an unequal representation of genders or races, or anything else, and that is a result of simply hiring the most qualified applicants or positions, then there is no bias, and no changes are needed.

    If, on the other hand, you have inequality in your office because people who have been hired based purely on their qualifications are being discriminated against because of these differences, then the individuals in management should be snuffed out.

    This report didn't make me "feel" excluded. It expressly says that I AM TO BE excluded by the fact that there is no mention of the treatment of individuals, and only the mention of the PRESENCE of individuals and the implication that too many of My Kind is a thing that needs to be “fixed.”

    11 points
    • Sarah Armstrong, almost 6 years ago

      Thank you for your quick reply Andrew! We’re glad you’re as passionate about this as we are.

      My choice of the word social was conscious as race, sexual orientation, and gender are social constructs. However, I realize now that you did choose the word “male” to describe yourself, which is indeed a biological category.; you are welcome to check our job openings regardless of the social or biological groups you are in.

      While we are working to combat bias in our hiring practices, we are also conscious that systematic discrimination and oppression has created unequal opportunities for people of marginalized backgrounds, and that diversity makes for better, more creative, more profitable teams.

      I am sorry that you think our report excludes you because we do not mention the treatment of individuals; we don’t think that anyone or any social group needs to be “fixed”. Do you have any suggestions on how you would have liked this to be approached in our report?

      9 points
      • Andrew Hersh, almost 6 years ago

        Race can be determined by a blood test. It is biological.

        So can gender. It is also biological.

        Surely you aren’t trying to insinuate that differences in sexual orientation are imaginary (social constructs)…? Regardless, I’m not really sure why the sexuality part of your report exists at all, unless people are simply practicing their sexuality in an open format in your offices (in which case, I’m REALLY not going to be checking out the openings……… erm…), and if not, how/why would you even know their orientation unless you made it a point to ask, specifically so you could discriminate on that basis moving forward?

        I’m not sure why you would need to “combat bias in (y)our hiring practices” as some sort of seemingly longterm fight. If you’ve got any kind of tiered interview process, then all of your interviewers would need to be racially motivated (or ‘whatever’ motivated) for there to be an actual problem of discrimination within your company.

        I would like to see any examples you may have of “systematic oppression” anywhere in the United States that is specific to gender, race, or sexual preference. I have a suspicion that what you will be able to produce will be related to nothing more than geography and will then be intimated as being racial via explanations that are themselves unironically racist.

        “and that diversity makes for better, more creative, more profitable teams” How? Why? If your argument is, on one hand, people are identical regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference, then how could it possibly be beneficial to enforce diversity in these areas? If, on the other hand, your argument is that people are NOT identical regardless of these things, then wouldn’t it logically follow that certain combinations of those things may produce individuals who are better suited to different tasks?

        In short, when reviewing prospects for a design firm, I can’t see how discriminating on race, gender, or sexual preference (either positively or negatively) can do anything other than work against the goal of building the best design firm you can.

        If your issue is with opportunity in areas LEADING UP to an individual applying for a job at a design firm, then shouldn’t you have opened a school, rather than a design firm?

        6 points