DNC: we don’t want to recruit any cis gendered white males

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You may want to go back and read the wording as that is not what she said. 

I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they're already in the majority.


Is what is in the OP not what she said?


Because it sure looks like she is saying they have a LOT of straight white males (a majority) and would "prefer" if new applicants be something else.

[*bfine32*]

I'm sure there are 1,000 different studies; however, this was pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20121026.htm



I don't see the drastic ratio that Ms Leader is fighting to combat according to many in here. Looks like she might want to tell her folks to quit hiring those Asians. Also I have not saw an unequal ratio in the IT field of white men in my dealings with folks on a daily basis. I will be cognizant going forward.  

[JustWinBaby]

"No straight white males, unless they're confused about whether or not they have penis"...probably doesn't go over as well.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 05:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they're already in the majority.


Is what is in the OP not what she said?


Because it sure looks like she is saying they have a LOT of straight white males (a majority) and would "prefer" if new applicants be something else.

Nowhere did she mention they had a majority of straight white males or that they had hired any; she simply stated that white males are in the majority. Regardless how big you make it and underline it she didn't say we don't want to hire more white males (as if that is better), she said I prefer you not hire white males. 

I'm not as gifted as you and the others. I can only go by the words she said; not what she meant. I would need an explanation from her to do that. It is amazing the hoops some folks will jump through to OK discrimination. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-31-2017, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure there are 1,000 different studies; however, this was pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20121026.htm



I don't see the drastic ratio that Ms Leader is fighting to combat according to many in here. Looks like she might want to tell her folks to quit hiring those Asians. Also I have not saw an unequal ratio in the IT field of white men in my dealings with folks on a daily basis. I will be cognizant going forward.  

That's because you're interpreting that graph incorrectly.
That's the distribution of careers within each race and ethnicity. Not a distribution of races within career fields. That's why you have four totals of 100% for four individual races/ ethnicity instead of one total of 100% for all four races/ethnicities combined.

White employees could account for 96% of the employees while African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and Lations could account for 1% each. But, the individual breakdown of each 1% will show a distribution that equals 100% because you're only breaking down that 1%.

So you cant draw your conclusion based upon that graph.

So more Asians might choose professional career, but that graph doesn't mean Asians outnumber other races in professional careers.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nowhere did she mention they had a majority of straight white males or that they had hired any; she simply stated that white males are in the majority. Regardless how big you make it and underline it she didn't say we don't want to hire more white males (as if that is better), she said I prefer you not hire white males. 

I'm not as gifted as you and the others. I can only go by the words she said; not what she meant. I would need an explanation from her to do that. It is amazing the hoops some folks will jump through to OK discrimination. 

Your inference of her statement is logically flawed. If she was referring just to the majority of people, what difference would it make in her hiring them? Her decisions regarding hiring them does not affect their majority overall, but it does their ratio in the department. Thus her use of the phrase points to the majority in the department. The only logical inference by her statement that they are already in the majority is in relation to the department for which she is hiring.

(10-31-2017, 08:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's because you're interpreting that graph incorrectly.
That's the distribution of careers within each race and ethnicity. Not a distribution of races within career fields. That's why you have four totals of 100% for four individual races/ ethnicity instead of one total of 100% for all four races/ethnicities combined.

White employees could account for 96% of the employees while African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and Lations could account for 1% each. But, the individual breakdown of each 1% will show a distribution that equals 100% because you're only breaking down that 1%.

So you cant draw your conclusion based upon that graph.

So more Asians might choose professional career, but that graph doesn't mean Asians outnumber other races in professional careers.

I was going to say the same thing. The information presented does not support the argument he is trying to make.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your inference of her statement is logically flawed. If she was referring just to the majority of people, what difference would it make in her hiring them? Her decisions regarding hiring them does not affect their majority overall, but it does their ratio in the department. Thus her use of the phrase points to the majority in the department. The only logical inference by her statement that they are already in the majority is in relation to the department for which she is hiring.


I was going to say the same thing. The information presented does not support the argument he is trying to make.

As I said, my powers of inference are not as strong as yours, Dinos, and others. I can only go by what she said. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 08:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's because you're interpreting that graph incorrectly.
That's the distribution of careers within each race and ethnicity. Not a distribution of races within career fields. That's why you have four totals of 100% for four individual races/ ethnicity instead of one total of 100% for all four races/ethnicities combined.

White employees could account for 96% of the employees while African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics and Lations could account for 1% each. But, the individual breakdown of each 1% will show a distribution that equals 100% because you're only breaking down that 1%.

So you cant draw your conclusion based upon that graph.

So more Asians might choose professional career, but that graph doesn't mean Asians outnumber other races in professional careers.

I understand that; however, if we are talking hiring practices we must consider ratios and not total numbers (read Majority). The graph does not support the assertion that there is a drastic ratio difference (you'll notice I used ratio when I first referred to the graph). Of course there are going to be more white males. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I understand that; however, if we are talking hiring practices we must consider ratios and not total numbers (read Majority). The graph does not support the assertion that there is a drastic ratio difference (you'll notice I used ratio when I first referred to the graph). Of course there are going to be more white males. 

In order to support the argument you are trying to make, you would need information that compares the races with each other in their ratios in different industries. The data you are linking to does not provide that.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 09:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said, my powers of inference are not as strong as yours, Dinos, and others. I can only go by what she said. 

Not true. You have your implicit biases that color your inference of her statement, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 09:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said, my powers of inference are not as strong as yours, Dinos, and others. I can only go by what she said. 

...and then try to infer. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 09:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In order to support the argument you are trying to make, you would need information that compares the races with each other in their ratios in different industries. The data you are linking to does not provide that.

Not really. If I can show a race is equally represented in a particular field (ie 15% of white males are employed as a conductor and 14% of black males are employed as a conductor, you cannot say it is slanted if Whites make up 75% of conductors). The demographic is represented in proportion. 

The way you would look at it skews the data

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 09:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not true. You have your implicit biases that color your inference of her statement, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Of course you are viewing it clearly. All she said is white males are in the majority. That's all she said whether you acknowledge it or not. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 09:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you are viewing it clearly. All she said is white males are in the majority. That's all she said whether you acknowledge it or not. 

That was all she may have typed in the email, but that was not the entirety of the communication. How you infer the message is as much as part of the communication as her implication. When a message is sent, the receiver is going to decode the message and infer the message. You are inferring something different than I am and Dino is based upon biases that you have regarding this topic. I infer it based upon my biases. Neither of us knows the composition of the department prior to this hiring process, so to say with absolute certainty what was implied with her message is our best guess. I'd be willing to wager that my guess that she was saying that cis straight white males make up the majority of the department is accurate, though.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 09:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really. If I can show a race is equally represented in a particular field (ie 15% of white males are employed as a conductor and 14% of black males are employed as a conductor, you cannot say it is slanted if Whites make up 75% of conductors). The demographic is represented in proportion. 

The way you would look at it skews the data

I get what you are saying. Though if the comparisons are made between races and compared to overall population, that would be to what I was referring. When looking at your graph, and your explanation in this post, though, I find that it still doesn't further your argument. If we go with the inference that Dino and I are going with, that she was referring to the majority in her department, then the overall industry numbers do not mean anything to that.

To look at the broader picture, though, with regards to implicit biases in hiring practices we also can't use this data to draw much a conclusion. As it does not drill down any deeper into the different types of jobs, levels of jobs, etc. Looking at broad industry data provides little to no insight into this topic.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 11:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "prancing"

"an episode of Will and Grace"

Maybe don't make these statements when asking why someone is interpreting your statements as ridiculous. Because those are just ridiculous.

Now you are prancing around lol

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 10:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was all she may have typed in the email, but that was not the entirety of the communication. How you infer the message is as much as part of the communication as her implication. When a message is sent, the receiver is going to decode the message and infer the message. You are inferring something different than I am and Dino is based upon biases that you have regarding this topic. I infer it based upon my biases. Neither of us knows the composition of the department prior to this hiring process, so to say with absolute certainty what was implied with her message is our best guess. I'd be willing to wager that my guess that she was saying that cis straight white males make up the majority of the department is accurate, though.

Please share the "entirety of the communication" that leads you to believe she was talking solely about her department when she said White Males are in the majority. Even if that is the case it doesn't make her desire for racial hiring preference "OK" as white males make up the majority of the employment pool.

My inference is that she's saying white males are in the majority and she would rather that not be the case. As I have said in my interaction with IT support white males are not disproportionately represented

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please share the "entirety of the communication" that leads you to believe she was talking solely about her department when she said White Males are in the majority. Even if that is the case it doesn't make her desire for racial hiring preference "OK" as white males make up the majority of the employment pool.

I've already explained my inference.

(10-31-2017, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My inference is that she's saying white males are in the majority and she would rather that not be the case. As I have said in my interaction with IT support white males are not disproportionately represented

Do you have much experience with her department at the DNC? Hell, I used to work in a software company and based on those job titles, equivalent positions at that company were filled almost entirely by white men. I remember one Latino and one Asian, but that was it.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 10:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you have much experience with her department at the DNC? 

I do not and if you, her, and others of like mind have their way I never will. 

I appreciate you efforts to support that it is OK for her to say she would prefer not to hire a population based on race and sex. 

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 10:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not and if you, her, and others of like mind have their way I never will. 

I appreciate you efforts to support that it is OK for her to say she would prefer not to hire a population based on race and sex. 

Except that is not what is said at all.  And as a majority of people of your ilk have jobs there its more likely than not you'd be able to work there.