My view also. Also, I work in civil service and the idea that hiring is not based on merit is laughable. In fact, I have never witnessed a racial preference occurring in action.
I’m in the federal civil service (US), and hiring is on merit. Ive never seen anyone hired who wasn’t deemed qualified at the point of hire. Not everyone works out, of course. Just like the private sector.
My former agency was extremely concerned about imbalances in its minority and gender status and took specific steps to try fixing it. Having recruiters disproportionately focus on hiring minorities is a form of racial preference.
Some parts of government, like the Foreign Service, still have a testing regime similar to the classic one. Of course, so did the FAA and that didn’t turn out well.
Getting rid of the civil service exams lowered the ability to select on people good at testing. Inasmuch as you believe the well-established correlations between standardized testing, general intelligence, and job performance, you’ll be proportionately concerned.
It’s usually not the case that any given employer blatantly jettisons merit. The problem being alleged is more subtle than that.
The more difficult but more defensible options include actively advertising where you believe black applicants may see it, and ensuring (sometimes explicitly as policy, usually not) that black applicants make it to the interview.
Legally and morally, that's much better than an actual quota system, but it will put pressure on everyone involved to nudge a qualified-but-perhaps-not-as-much candidate over someone else. Whether this is a problem depends on your perspective, but it appears Hanania thinks so.
IDK, going from "Civil Rights laws indirectly cause companies to inefficiently allocate HR money advertising at HBCU" to "Civil Rights legislation undermined hiring for merit" seems like a motte and bailey to me.
Both have absolutely happened, though. The more straightforward is just to tell your hiring managers to select black applicants, but that's often too obvious. The less obvious way is to try to influence the candidate pool, but it takes a lot more work and may not actually result in additional qualified black applicants, so some companies don't rest their laurels on that approach.
From my view from slightly outside the civil service this claim is just laughably silly at several federal departments. I don't know maybe you work at a different one, the federal government is a big place. But in my area the diversity hiring/promotion is extremely noticeable, to the extent that the small number of white male staff often end up leaving.
My view also. Also, I work in civil service and the idea that hiring is not based on merit is laughable. In fact, I have never witnessed a racial preference occurring in action.
I’m in the federal civil service (US), and hiring is on merit. Ive never seen anyone hired who wasn’t deemed qualified at the point of hire. Not everyone works out, of course. Just like the private sector.
I did and I have.
My former agency was extremely concerned about imbalances in its minority and gender status and took specific steps to try fixing it. Having recruiters disproportionately focus on hiring minorities is a form of racial preference.
Some parts of government, like the Foreign Service, still have a testing regime similar to the classic one. Of course, so did the FAA and that didn’t turn out well.
Getting rid of the civil service exams lowered the ability to select on people good at testing. Inasmuch as you believe the well-established correlations between standardized testing, general intelligence, and job performance, you’ll be proportionately concerned.
It’s usually not the case that any given employer blatantly jettisons merit. The problem being alleged is more subtle than that.
The more difficult but more defensible options include actively advertising where you believe black applicants may see it, and ensuring (sometimes explicitly as policy, usually not) that black applicants make it to the interview.
Legally and morally, that's much better than an actual quota system, but it will put pressure on everyone involved to nudge a qualified-but-perhaps-not-as-much candidate over someone else. Whether this is a problem depends on your perspective, but it appears Hanania thinks so.
IDK, going from "Civil Rights laws indirectly cause companies to inefficiently allocate HR money advertising at HBCU" to "Civil Rights legislation undermined hiring for merit" seems like a motte and bailey to me.
Both have absolutely happened, though. The more straightforward is just to tell your hiring managers to select black applicants, but that's often too obvious. The less obvious way is to try to influence the candidate pool, but it takes a lot more work and may not actually result in additional qualified black applicants, so some companies don't rest their laurels on that approach.
From my view from slightly outside the civil service this claim is just laughably silly at several federal departments. I don't know maybe you work at a different one, the federal government is a big place. But in my area the diversity hiring/promotion is extremely noticeable, to the extent that the small number of white male staff often end up leaving.