MGibster
Legend
Well the political bent of the candidate is unlikely to come up during an interview. And as I said, both candidates already have DEI experience.
WotC WotC is hiring Senior Manager for Diversity, equity and inclusion.
- Thread starter Bolares
- Start date
Well the political bent of the candidate is unlikely to come up during an interview. And as I said, both candidates already have DEI experience.
Carleton IS conservative, that's true, and if all else is equal between the candidates, then the other candidate must be conservative also.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
Much discussion has been generated about the word Primitive or [insert new "offensive" word/term of the week] as a perjorative for fantasy races but it seems A-ok using conservative as an implied perjorative for real life people. I mean I'm tempted to say we should take more care how we ascribe qualities to RL persons but I don't want to appear anti inclusive to the plight of our communal imaginary shaman-loving lizardmen and orcish raiders.
If I am being insulting about someone's views, I capitalize the word because here in the US, conservative and Conservative and liberal and Liberal mean different things or mean a different degree of the same thing. Same thing for right/Right and left/Left. I try to use the lower-case, more generic versions of the words, so that my posts do not go over that political line here.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
They mean the same to me with or without the capitalization.
Olrox17
Hero
To be precise, when I said all else being equal, I was talking about skills and competence. Personal political ideology never crossed my mind, first because I didn’t even recall Carlton’s, and second because personal politics shouldn’t normally matter in a job interview.
For conservative versus liberal, I like the terminology from computers and technology:Much discussion has been generated about the word Primitive or [insert new "offensive" word/term of the week] as a perjorative for fantasy races but it seems A-ok using conservative as an implied perjorative for real life people. I mean I'm tempted to say we should take more care how we ascribe qualities to RL persons but I don't want to appear anti inclusive to the plight of our communal imaginary shaman-loving lizardmen and orcish raiders.
Standardization versus Innovation.
One can see more obviously how each side has costs and benefits. In a specific situation, one side might prove more helpful than the other, and in different situation the other might prove more helpful.
The ideal is to coordinate these opposing tendencies of Standardization versus Innovation, to optimize the maximum benefit from both of them.
It is a dialectic.
In theory, the ability to understand discrimination issues isn't tied to being a minority, but in practice, if you have a group of non-minority people, no matter how much theoretical knowledge they have, they're extremely likely to miss things pertaining to discrimination which would not be missed by a more diverse group. Diversity in and of itself produces observably better outcomes. There's underlying mechanical reasons for this, and there's actually several different types of "diversity", and all of them at least somewhat matter.
Also be aware that "the best person for the job" is absolutely contextual. I'm a very good programmer. I'm also a bit of a flake in some ways, but also very creative and non-traditional. So for a team that doesn't have someone like me, I'm an incredible candidate -- I will add immense value that they do not currently have. But if you already have a couple of people like me, another one isn't gonna do you much good, and a more "boring" candidate who's just good at getting stuff done is going to be much more valuable. That's more in the realm of psychological diversity rather than ethnic diversity, but it turns out that ethnic and cultural diversity are strong predictors of psychological diversity. If your team is not currently particularly diverse, increasing diversity will bring significant benefits.
Another consideration is that there's a lot of metadata and signalling. Part of the role of a "manager for diversity, equity, and inclusion" is to inspire confidence in other people that these things matter, and that, for instance, it's worth bringing concerns to this person when appropriate, and the workplace will be welcoming for members of minority groups. If you've tried two or three times in the past to bring up concerns about blatant or excessive harassment or discrimination to people whose job title was something like "manager for diversity, equity, and inclusion", and had them blow it off because they didn't really understand or care about the issue, and all of those people were white guys with college degrees who could use the buzzwords but had no skin in the game, you may be reluctant to bring an issue up with another white guy with a college degree and no visible skin in the game. And that means that, in practice, the white guy may not be able to do the job as effectively. Which is hilariously ironic, but also turns out to matter, if you're trying to fix a problem.
Also be aware that "the best person for the job" is absolutely contextual. I'm a very good programmer. I'm also a bit of a flake in some ways, but also very creative and non-traditional. So for a team that doesn't have someone like me, I'm an incredible candidate -- I will add immense value that they do not currently have. But if you already have a couple of people like me, another one isn't gonna do you much good, and a more "boring" candidate who's just good at getting stuff done is going to be much more valuable. That's more in the realm of psychological diversity rather than ethnic diversity, but it turns out that ethnic and cultural diversity are strong predictors of psychological diversity. If your team is not currently particularly diverse, increasing diversity will bring significant benefits.
Another consideration is that there's a lot of metadata and signalling. Part of the role of a "manager for diversity, equity, and inclusion" is to inspire confidence in other people that these things matter, and that, for instance, it's worth bringing concerns to this person when appropriate, and the workplace will be welcoming for members of minority groups. If you've tried two or three times in the past to bring up concerns about blatant or excessive harassment or discrimination to people whose job title was something like "manager for diversity, equity, and inclusion", and had them blow it off because they didn't really understand or care about the issue, and all of those people were white guys with college degrees who could use the buzzwords but had no skin in the game, you may be reluctant to bring an issue up with another white guy with a college degree and no visible skin in the game. And that means that, in practice, the white guy may not be able to do the job as effectively. Which is hilariously ironic, but also turns out to matter, if you're trying to fix a problem.
Hussar
Legend
You hire the American of course. Can't give jobs to foreigners.
Besides, how does your Englishman have a Green card? He's not even legal to work in the United States.
Olrox17
Hero
Already answered thatYou hire the American of course. Can't give jobs to foreigners.
Hussar
Legend
Well, now I don't want to hire him because he's too old. He's got 20 years of work experience. He's overqualified.
Carlton is a fresh out of college guy with no experience. Or, are we no positing a 40+ year old Carlton who, frankly, we have never met and have no idea what he's like?Look, instead of being coy, why not just come out and say what you're hinting at?
