i mean… to pull from personal experience, fire departments in my area were accused of this issue. which looks bad, until you realize that the only people applying were latino or white, and i’m gonna guess that that’s largely the issue with the NHL. and the NBA drafts based on the quality of player, less than representation, and if the statistical majority of quality players are black, then can you blame them?
No. And yes. That’s where this stuff gets tricky. The best person for a job is the best person regardless of color or gender or whatever else.
If 10 people apply to be a doctor and 9 are white and one is Asian and the Asian candidate didn’t go to medical school… obviously someone else is probably better for the job.
So forcing “token” hires is insulting and can create a perception that skilled workers of a given group aren’t as skilled because they got their position via meeting some sort of “diversity checklist” even if a person of that group is in a job based on merit. There are also the obvious issues relating to not looking for the best but looking to hire maybe the best person that meets whatever bingo space you don’t have.
So it isn’t generally a good thing for anyone when hires are made based on a need to fill a quota. But it is more complex than that.
The NHL is a national league- so there are definitely enough people of color in… the nation.. to where they shouldn’t have the same issue where non white potential hires are as hard to find as in a given town or area. It gets tricky though right? To the small town example- why aren’t there other types of people? Were they historically unwelcome or excluded? Are they presently? Is there a perception they would be unwanted or excluded or reason to have such perception? Or maybe- maybe no one from other groups has chosen to live there and it has nothing to do with anything besides individual preference. So we do at least need to ask when we see a disproportionate majority to an overall average- is this just an innocent thing or is there intent or maybe some legacy issue here?
It’s problematic to say- lots of people of color like Hockey or ice skating or the cold- but I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out there wasn’t the same level of interest in that sport for certain groups by percentage any more than I’d be shocked to find out that Vietnam’s most popular sport wasn’t NASCAR and the UK’s biggest sport isn’t American football and you won’t find a lot of people from those countries playing in either national league. Of course there is more to that- ball games not involving horses were mostly “poor” games in the west because horses are expensive and you need a bit of land to have a pick up game involving horses. This is an example where legacy comes in. Those of certain social and economic status (the two often relating) have traditionally been disadvantaged in being able to play and thus get good at various sports.
Access is an issue for sports involving terrain etc- a rock climber needs access to rocks, a swimmer needs water, a skater needs ice. Living in an area with these features doesn’t inherently mean being wealthy, but being able to have access to such features when you live outside an area with them often implies a degree of wealth for travel or man made facilities to gain access. Sports that involve things like expensive equipment by virtue are also generally biased to socioeconomic conditions. I’ve skating is generally an activity that few schools outside places with natural ice offer unless they are fairly affluent and even street hockey on skates is often a pastime associated with more suburban or middle income tiers.
So we do have to look at such things and consider them in depth, ideally with data to help guide our assumptions. Beyond that though- there are issues of “breaking through.” There can be interest in participation but where a majority dominates many are put off from participation because they then become the “odd man out.” In issues like race and gender etc. we have seen historically and into the modern age resentment, hostility, and even danger to those “breaking in” to a field as a “first.” The anxiety or fear that creates can be a barrier to even wanting to- not for lack of desire but for aversion to the potential or likely resistance or dangers. In that sense- it can make some sense to “seed” an otherwise majority environment by intentionally diversifying it. Adding multiple “firsts” at once can help mitigate fears and potential reprisals and give some “strength in numbers,” but it also introduces culture and perspective.
Once others see that people like them are involved and hopefully see that the challenges aren’t as great as they may have once been or were feared, you can get people stepping forward. In meetings or forums when an open floor is given for questions or feedback we often see that at first, no one leaps to participate. One person speaks up and then sheepishly another and shortly after it is common that people with questions who wouldn’t have asked them at all are now getting involved. Often times a “first” inspires others to follow, or shows others or is possible and they then try what they would not have tried otherwise. We have seen this already with the desegregation of other sports and with the increasing inclusion of various careers etc. of course even with the majority of NFL or NBA players being black there are still challenges they face relating to race within their own leagues or sports and of course in the world at large- but crowds rarely throw batteries or riot as a mob..
.. because of a non white player on the field- so there is progress. So the NHL has very few people of color. Motor sports in general has some “diversity issues” with females being vastly outnumbered by males at the pro and even amateur levels across most power sports like racing- sports where many or most physical advantages sex might impart are mitigated due to the machines used. Does that mean these sports are sexist or racially biased? Well… they probably or in some cases like motor sports definitely are- though to a degree that’s not all on the sport but related to societal and historical bias- but no. Inherently not having X% of a group be a given or different race or ethnicity or sex or whatever else is not inherently biased.
Since we are aware that these biases have and still do exist and that the impact of historical bias has shaped the modern world, we do have cause to ask questions and examine the situation when things seem skewed. Why is it skewed and what if anything can or should be done?
An important thing to remember when we start talking about “diversity” and “representation” is that it isn’t just for the sole benefit of the group in question. Historically we have seen great benefit to society and progress in culture and sciences and economics etc. by incorporating different types of people and perspectives into the various levels that shape and advance humanity. So many inventions or great ideas or record breaking performances we wouldn’t have if we didn’t have certain groups and individuals contributing. It takes all sorts they say, so we all benefit from including all sorts.
@party05 same thing happened at the departments in my dad's area, they were hiring new lieutenants and the city said all 3 had to be black. Seniority and skill didn't matter. Most of those areas are only running 50% manpower capacity and the city won't let them hire any more either, cause everybody applying is white. It's too the point where if you call 911 in that area, you might not get somebody out for 20-25 min, and this is in the busiest city in Michigan (no not Detroit Lmao)
That's what they thought, the union brought a suit against the city, lost, appealed to the state, lost and at that point they were out of funds to do anything else
In theory it is federally illegal to discriminate against protected classes including “race” wether explicit or not. In practice the federal government requires its agencies and contractors to follow affirmative action and does not view affirmative action as a form of discrimination. Individual states like California, Florida, Idaho and a handful of others outlaw affirmative action on the grounds it is viewed as discrimination.
Also in practice- discrimination on racial bias can be completely legal so long as it can be justified- for example to this meme- around 93% of NHL players identify as white. If one wanted to only hire whites, one could make a hiring policy that one must be a former NHL player or direct blood relative of a player. There is no protected class discrimination but you have effectively endured a predominantly white applicant pool. Advertising jobs in specific areas or publications etc. by demographic or other means are more realistic examples of ways to build bias
into a hiring process. “Coded language” and other hiring requirements are another example. An internet joke is all the jobs that require a “fresh college graduate with 5 years of experience (on a technology that is maybe even 3 years old…)”
Let’s take a look.
- “fresh college graduate”: statistically this historically reduces the number of applicants from certain groups who have lower rates of college graduation.
It also is the fact that statistically a “fresh college graduate” is more likely to be in their 20’s or maybe 30’s than their 50’s… age is a protected class you cannot discriminate against- but one can justify wanting a “fresh grad” for “up to date” education.
- “with 5 years experience…” this has a few implications.
1. They’re banking on fudge factor. If you played with 3D printing on high school you maybe used solid works or something. So you might say you have relatable experience in the newest CAD software even though it’s 3 years old. An older person….
.. either consumer CAD software didn’t exist for them or they didn’t use it most likely. There wasn’t a lot to do with it before 3D printing etc. for the home hobbyists.
2. It gives plausible reason to reject the candidate they don’t want if they are looking for a “certain type” of person.
3. They may have literally created the post for a specific person. Some organizations like government agencies, contractors require certain postings be open to the public and internal hires but management has someone they want for the job. If the board room etc. looks a little monochromatic it’s can also look bad to hire “another one of those people.” Building the requirements based off a specific resume lowers the odds of another person making the cut and legitimizes hiring the pick you already were going to hire as no one else meets the cut.
A recent posting for NASA engineering I saw had a position that required at least 6 years of manned space capsule control system integrations experience. There are few people on earth who would meet that requirement and then a smaller handful who meet that requirement AND all the other criteria. I’m not saying the NASA listing was racially biased or anything- I’m saying that it was written to a very targeted audience- likely with a short list of hires they wanted, but with a requirement that they offer the job to the public, and so that one line excludes almost anyone who hasn’t worked for NASA or perhaps maybe SpaceX or a couple others. Using such strategies in a targeted manner one can intentionally narrow the types if candidates who can claim to be qualified. The idea behind affirmative action was to counter centuries of discrimination but it is inherently a form of exclusion based on protective class regardless of intent.
In about 30 years only 10% of NFL head coaches have been black and that figure gets worse if we go past 30 years… the NFL has 0% black majority owners- so I mean… the average of total employees still shakes out even if there is some disparity in wealth and power between owners, coaches, and players.
But… it’s overly simplistic to say it that way as obviously there are player biases in certain sports and various complex reasons for that.
If 10 people apply to be a doctor and 9 are white and one is Asian and the Asian candidate didn’t go to medical school… obviously someone else is probably better for the job.
So forcing “token” hires is insulting and can create a perception that skilled workers of a given group aren’t as skilled because they got their position via meeting some sort of “diversity checklist” even if a person of that group is in a job based on merit. There are also the obvious issues relating to not looking for the best but looking to hire maybe the best person that meets whatever bingo space you don’t have.
So it isn’t generally a good thing for anyone when hires are made based on a need to fill a quota. But it is more complex than that.
An important thing to remember when we start talking about “diversity” and “representation” is that it isn’t just for the sole benefit of the group in question. Historically we have seen great benefit to society and progress in culture and sciences and economics etc. by incorporating different types of people and perspectives into the various levels that shape and advance humanity. So many inventions or great ideas or record breaking performances we wouldn’t have if we didn’t have certain groups and individuals contributing. It takes all sorts they say, so we all benefit from including all sorts.
Also in practice- discrimination on racial bias can be completely legal so long as it can be justified- for example to this meme- around 93% of NHL players identify as white. If one wanted to only hire whites, one could make a hiring policy that one must be a former NHL player or direct blood relative of a player. There is no protected class discrimination but you have effectively endured a predominantly white applicant pool. Advertising jobs in specific areas or publications etc. by demographic or other means are more realistic examples of ways to build bias
Let’s take a look.
- “fresh college graduate”: statistically this historically reduces the number of applicants from certain groups who have lower rates of college graduation.
It also is the fact that statistically a “fresh college graduate” is more likely to be in their 20’s or maybe 30’s than their 50’s… age is a protected class you cannot discriminate against- but one can justify wanting a “fresh grad” for “up to date” education.
- “with 5 years experience…” this has a few implications.
1. They’re banking on fudge factor. If you played with 3D printing on high school you maybe used solid works or something. So you might say you have relatable experience in the newest CAD software even though it’s 3 years old. An older person….
2. It gives plausible reason to reject the candidate they don’t want if they are looking for a “certain type” of person.
3. They may have literally created the post for a specific person. Some organizations like government agencies, contractors require certain postings be open to the public and internal hires but management has someone they want for the job. If the board room etc. looks a little monochromatic it’s can also look bad to hire “another one of those people.” Building the requirements based off a specific resume lowers the odds of another person making the cut and legitimizes hiring the pick you already were going to hire as no one else meets the cut.
But… it’s overly simplistic to say it that way as obviously there are player biases in certain sports and various complex reasons for that.