Equal Opportunity and Diversity
[Company name] is an equal opportunity employer based in [city]. We are committed to diversity in the workplace.
I removed the name and location from that quote, because I don’t want this to be directed at them specifically. Some overpaid lawyer likely came up with it anyway, and it is commonly used phrasing.
The problem is simply that the second sentence contradicts the first.
Equal opportunity means not taking things like race, religion or gender and making them meaningful in hiring decisions where they shouldn’t matter. You offer equal opportunity to applicants, regardless of irrelevant qualities.
You cannot be committed to diversity if you support equal opportunity. If you support equal opportunity, you are explicitly stating that you are not going to engineer demographics. The only way to achieve desired diversity is to offer unequal opportunity.
You cannot have both equal opportunity and demographically sculpted results.
The deluded promoters of “equal opportunity + dedication to diversity” want to believe that an employer can discriminate in favor of one person without necessarily discriminating against someone else. They’re wrong. Discrimination in any direction is the rearranging of a meritocratic result. Discrimination in favor of one person is discrimination against another person. It’s a mathematical fact.
Here are some sample applicants, listed in order of decreasing merit.
- Shawna Jackson
- John van Dyke
- Cindy McAdams
- Craig Newberry
There they are, ordered by merit (Ms. Jackson being the most qualified). If you can discriminate in favor of any of the last three applicants by moving them up a slot without that move resulting in someone else moving down the list, then I’ll see if I can arrange for a Nobel Prize of some sort.
I don’t think that being committed to diversity means that the most qualified gets bumped. I think it means that every effort will be made to make the job available to as many as possible, and that all factors will be considered in choosing the right person. I’ve been in the situation of hiring in the past, and have passed over the most qualified (being a subjective term, in my opinion) in favor of who I think is the “right” person for the job, still waving any prejudices for race, religion, or sex. Issues such as work place dynamics and how much room for advancement is possible both can factor into the decision, not to mention many other case by case decisions. I know for a fact that I’ve been the most “qualified” but someone else was given the job based on the feeling that I would not be “happy” with the job and it’s limits regarding advancements/salary cap/daily routine turning boring. Was I discriminated against?
Here in Florida, still considered the “South” by some, a blanket statement of “committed to diversity” can simply be a fancy way of saying this isn’t a good ol’ boys club and we look to surround ourselves with all types of people to succeed in the business world.
I will say that I don’t believe in quotas or hiring practices that are precipitated on human resources agendas, ie, hiring veterans or low income persons for tax break incentives.
The first part of that is covered by “equal opportunity.” If the factors you are considering dictate how qualified the person is for a job, then it relates to their qualification. Picking the go-getter with a high-school diploma over the lazy college grad could very well be choosing the more qualified person. Qualifications aren’t limited to tangible things.
Not at all. If you seemed like you’d be bored by the job, it sounds like you’re not qualified for it. Qualifications are more than just the raw ability to do the job.
“Equal opportunity” is how you say that it’s not a good ol’ boys club. Being open to diversity is different than being committed to it.
Then it sounds like we’re on the same page.
Diversity has been raised up by our society as a laudable goal… as something that should be engineered. But only way you can engineer diversity is if you specifically choose someone other than the right person for the job. You’re placing meaningless attributes ahead of meaningful ones.
Maybe “committed to diversity” is interpreted as some by “committed to being open to diversity” — which is completely in the spirit of “equal opportunity.” But that’s not what it says, and that’s not what is being considered when things like race, gender and religion earn university applicants additional points, or when gender quotas are filled on construction crews.
There’s this crazy notion going around that the world would be a better place with more female dump truck operators, more white NBA players, more middle-aged movie theater employees or more Hawaiian chess champions. Diversity is a fine result (and one that people should keep themselves open to), but it makes a very poor goal — a poor thing to enshrine as a “commitment.”
I’d like to touch on the first part of your “argument” first by saying I disagree about qualified. From my perspective, qualified is purely about competence to do the job, based on education, experience, and ability. Being over qualified may be a legitimate concern, but that’s not the issue raised.
I’d argue that diversity needs to be raised to a level that is laudable. Human nature, from my experience, is to surround one self with like individuals. To break out of that, and to support the concept of diversity, both by being “diverse”, and nurturing a diverse circle is to rise above a comfort level. To bring that to an esoteric realm that is business, albeit the fact that business and commerce is a wrapper to the hunter gatherer mindset, is to raise the consciousness of mankind.
A fine line to be sure, but nonetheless, being a diverse tribe and being committed to perpetuating diversity is not the same as sacrificing the strength of the tribe to its own detriment.
Or so I believe.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand your point, and I don’t think you are splitting hairs.
Perhaps the world would be a better place with more white women who drive dump trucks, drive to the basket rather than shoot the 3 pointer, and usher John Waters films at the local mega-plex in their free time. Until “we” accept the concept as normal, the forced attempts to make it a reality are legitimate, albeit altruistic and lofty goals.
Conversely, doing it for the sake of flying under the radar for other inadequacies or shortcomings is reprehensible and not in the spirit of diversity, period.
I’m not sure why this is as compelling of a discussion, but thanks for stoking a flame that’s obviously been smoldering in my keyboard.
Ah. Well in that case, there are other qualities that can (and in many cases should) be used in addition to raw qualifications when choosing the best person for the job.
Diversity, to me, is just another word for “some measure of randomness” or “a result with some points deviating from the statistical mean.” Certainly, people tend to surround themselves with like individuals, and they should be open to expanding their circle. But that’s more on a personal level. If you ignore aspects of applicants that don’t matter, and hire people based on “the best person for the job” (relevant qualities and qualifications), the diversity or lack of diversity that results is merely a function of how diverse the pool of qualified applicants is.
I’m all for openness — a liberal outlook at life and fellow human beings. But tweaking demographics so that you can marvel at the “randomness” that you have created is, well, an oxymoron. You cannot create diversity. Diversity simply is. And you can accept the diversity that presents itself to you, or you can wall yourself in and reject it.
I’m shocked! You’re suggesting that a racially mixed group of people specifically chosen to fit a predetermined demographic isn’t both natural and random?
I was long opposed to affirmative action in employment and education, but reading the SCOTUS ruling on those two college admissions cases a few years ago changed my mind. That said, I’m annoyed at the statements on college promotional materials that claim that they don’t discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, etc., etc. Bullshit. Of course they do. I support that discrimination. But let’s call a spade a spade here.
Exactly. Define the goals (diversity for instance), then honestly represent them. My problem is that these sorts of programs are always represented as “non discriminatory”. You’re defining your results before looking at applicants, of course your discriminating. An honest representation of the system is all that I want to see.
The buttons above the comment box don’t appear to be working in Firefox 2 (bold, italics, quote, etc.) I added the code as I typed.
Because I wasn’t paying attention, I left the “em” tag open on that last comment, so everything on the page below my comment is emphasized. It’s all important! Feel free to edit my comment to close it if it’s annoying.
The problem with your argument is that you assume that when ranking candidates you can’t find two equal candidates and then select as a secondary criteria on diversity or other issues.
That’s a pretty safe assumption. Qualifications aren’t integers. If two people look equally qualified, you just haven’t asked the right question.
I’ve interviewed a lot of people for a lot of jobs and admissions over the years. Thing is, for the purposes of hiring and college admissions, there are lots and lots of people who do appear to be equally qualified and it’s just not worth the time to find out what the “right” question is. It’s not that they’re identical candidates (though sometimes they appear to be) but rather that they each have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses that make them seemingly equally qualified in ways that do not lend themselves to straightforward horse-race-style comparisons.
In a vacuum, sure, everybody’s special and unique blah blah blah, but the realities of the acceptance process for just about any organization short of Google or Microsoft make it infeasible to get to that level of detail.
Mark, this is brilliant. It’s good to hear someone taking a stab at something so taboo.
think your ideas or your convictions are the craziest ones ever. Diversity should be promoted for the betterment of society, but it has its limits and should not continue to be the end-all, be-all hot button issue that it’s been for many years now. Read over Jaquith’s assertions are see if you agree with him. They’re worth your time.
Thanks Mark, you made my night.
I don’t understand why “diversity” has become such a virtue in recent years. I am not sure whether most employers truly believe in the “virtue” of diversity as a good in itself, or whether they are merely attempting appease the public. In any case, I don’t see why there is an uproar over hiring candidates based on qualification factors alone. By allowing themselves to be sucked into the quest for diversity, employers are making ethnicity (and other diversity-makers) part of the qualification for employment. It is silly to say that one’s shade of melanin or Yamulke / Crucifix / Crescent ought to affect one’s qualifications for employment.
There is no such thing as being “overqualified” for a job. One is either qualified for a job, or one is not.
Granted, Microsoft has better things to do than to compose mental “compare and contrast” essays on two candidates for weeks on end, but I too think that the right questions can be asked to find the best candidate.
Given the case where two candidates are extremely similar (they are not identical, of course – the world is too big for that), why is the “virtue” of diversity allowed to become a deciding factor? It is as rascist for an employer to pick Asian Bob over equally qualified Caucasian John for purposes of diversity as it is for Charlie the British pub owner to hang an “Irish need not apply” sign on the front of his store.
Employers who seek to be just in their hiring might do well to repeat this phrase several times before heading to the office: “May the best man win!”
[jumping in, three months later]
Mark, once again I completely agree with you. If it weren’t for the fact that you use Apple products, i would swear that you’re my twin
There’s an interesting post over at http://txfx.net/2006/10/26/equal-opportunity-and-diversity/ which is quite interesting. Reading the whole discussion is quite enlightening on how people think. My favourite is the quote below from the actual article. The deluded promoters of “equal opportunity + dedication to diversity” want to believe