I’m glad you asked. Racial discrimination when hiring is a problem and can be observed easily.
For example this meta study, that looked at many experimental studies in 6 different western counties, shows how racial discrimination is a problem when hiring. This has been demonstrated in experimental research by sending two resumes to different workplaces. They show the same level of qualification, but one of them is from a white on one from a person that is not. You do this a lot, like 200 times with 200 employers and see how often both candidates are invited.
And consistently you can see that white people are invites, while racial divergent people are not.
From the meta study this reads like this:
Persistent discrimination in labor markets in North America and Europe has been demonstrated most clearly by field experiments in which investigators use testers or submit applications by mail or over the internet for jobs with clues indicating the race or ethnicity of applicants (5–7). These experiments show that on average in Western countries native Whites receive about 50% more callbacks than similarly qualified non-White applicants (5).* This does not include significant additional discrimination that occurs after the callback (8).
The study is evidence that there is a systemic disadvantage for non whites when hiring.
Why should this not be the case at NASA? What makes NASA so special that findings, that showed true on a systemic level across six countries don’t apply to it?
If you are interested, NASA did an audit on their progress on including DEIA in 2023.
Despite support from Agency leaders and multiple initiatives to increase diversity, we found NASA has made little
progress in increasing the representation of women and minorities in its civilian workforce or leadership ranks.
Specifically, over the past decade NASA’s overall workforce demographics have stayed roughly the same, with small
increases (1 or 2 percent) for some groups. Demographics have not varied significantly over the same time period at
individual NASA Centers, with only two Centers increasing African American representation and other Centers making
small gains in Hispanic, Asian American, and women’s representation. We also found NASA has made few gains in the
percentages of women and racial and ethnic minorities in its senior levels (General Schedule 14 and 15 positions and
NASA’s Efforts to Increase Diversity in Its Workforce
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Senior Executive Service) over the decade. At the same time, the proportion of veterans NASA hires has declined over
the past 10 years, most significantly from 28 percent in 2015 to 13 percent in 2021
I’m saying those statistics do not say that NASA discriminates against non-whites. They could, but theres no proof of it. Applying a blanket rule to all business whether they are discriminating or not is over-reaching.
Excuse me? The Audit made to look how much discrimination NASA is doing that states that there had been no progress in lessening (hiring) discrimination in a decade (!) doesn’t show discrimination?
I already have shown proof of systemic discrimination in the hiring process against non whites. Of course a blanked rule is sensible to help mitigate this.
What is the worst that can happen? A company that didn’t discriminate in the first place won’t be affected such a rule besides some paperwork maybe. But since most do (see the study above) it sure would help.
Here’s an example of NASA discriminating, and the legal process to rectify it. Thats appropriate. Showing some arbitrary numbers and saying they aren’t high enough is nonsense.
A company that doesnt discriminate might need to hire people it doesnt want to just to fill a quota. Thats wasteful, and disrespectful to the people hired.
If they weren’t discriminating they wouldn’t have to fill the quota.
I know about the case, but it is not decided and started on 2011. It not nothing, but it’s easy to dismiss on that base, so I didn’t bring it up.
How do you arrive at the conclusion those numbers have been set arbitrary?
I am repeating myself, but the absolutely not arbitrary number here is that NASA has as many non white people then 10 ysads before. So even with DEI Programms they haven’t been able to imply more non whites. In ten 10 years. That’s not arbitrary, it’s quite clear effidence of how a the people making bring decisions are biased towards white employees.
I’m glad you asked. Racial discrimination when hiring is a problem and can be observed easily.
For example this meta study, that looked at many experimental studies in 6 different western counties, shows how racial discrimination is a problem when hiring. This has been demonstrated in experimental research by sending two resumes to different workplaces. They show the same level of qualification, but one of them is from a white on one from a person that is not. You do this a lot, like 200 times with 200 employers and see how often both candidates are invited.
And consistently you can see that white people are invites, while racial divergent people are not.
From the meta study this reads like this:
Cool study. What evidence is there that NASA has an unfair hiring practice they need to adjust for?
The study is evidence that there is a systemic disadvantage for non whites when hiring.
Why should this not be the case at NASA? What makes NASA so special that findings, that showed true on a systemic level across six countries don’t apply to it?
If you are interested, NASA did an audit on their progress on including DEIA in 2023.
https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IG-23-011.pdf
Sounds like they were already only hiring qualified people.
Forcing DEI where there was no problem causes a problem.
So you don’t see the discrimination against non white people as a problem then?
I’m saying those statistics do not say that NASA discriminates against non-whites. They could, but theres no proof of it. Applying a blanket rule to all business whether they are discriminating or not is over-reaching.
Excuse me? The Audit made to look how much discrimination NASA is doing that states that there had been no progress in lessening (hiring) discrimination in a decade (!) doesn’t show discrimination?
I already have shown proof of systemic discrimination in the hiring process against non whites. Of course a blanked rule is sensible to help mitigate this.
What is the worst that can happen? A company that didn’t discriminate in the first place won’t be affected such a rule besides some paperwork maybe. But since most do (see the study above) it sure would help.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/10/case-alleging-racial-discrimination-in-nasas-employee-evaluations-set-to-move-forward/?readmore=1
Here’s an example of NASA discriminating, and the legal process to rectify it. Thats appropriate. Showing some arbitrary numbers and saying they aren’t high enough is nonsense.
A company that doesnt discriminate might need to hire people it doesnt want to just to fill a quota. Thats wasteful, and disrespectful to the people hired.
If they weren’t discriminating they wouldn’t have to fill the quota.
I know about the case, but it is not decided and started on 2011. It not nothing, but it’s easy to dismiss on that base, so I didn’t bring it up.
How do you arrive at the conclusion those numbers have been set arbitrary? I am repeating myself, but the absolutely not arbitrary number here is that NASA has as many non white people then 10 ysads before. So even with DEI Programms they haven’t been able to imply more non whites. In ten 10 years. That’s not arbitrary, it’s quite clear effidence of how a the people making bring decisions are biased towards white employees.