What the Ellen Pao trial taught us (appointed, 2014)

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

The problem with a merit based system is that it is entirely SUBJECTIVE. This makes it easy to discriminate based on race, gender, even age. Silicon valley's "meritocracy" has interestingly enough shut out blacks and Latinos. Ageism is rampant. Sexism is rampant. You may mistakenly believe that this is because blacks and Latinos are simply not qualified or smart enough, but this is ludicrous. You may believe that a highly educated and talented woman like Pao simply couldn't cut it because the white guys who managed her said so. The fact is that there are many supreme qualified and exceptionally talented people, who are black, Latino, women, over 40, who are shut out by a meritocracy claim whose foundation is implied discrimination. A merit-based system supports the preservation of good old boy networks, cronyism, racial discrimination and Jim Crow.

A quota-based system is certainly much fairer, but whites assume that less-qualified blacks and Latinos are let in when they don't deserve to be. It is a stupid argument which assumes that blacks and Latinos are inferior, and treats them as such not only when they get hired, but every day they exist. So it too suffers from the SUBJECTIVE whims of people who favor merit-based systems. In essence, it makes it harder for blacks and Latinos to excel because of the enormous ignorance and unfair treatment of those who oppose quotas (typically the white Conservative type).

What is clear is that neither system is ideal because of the taint of subjective evaluation, and a better solution is something different ENTIRELY. It's obvious that those who favor the merit-based system are part of the problem. Any level of this subjective ignorance must be removed in order for a good system to work for the good of all, not just those who benefit from racism, sexism, and ageism.

I think that high-tech would be light years ahead of where it is now, if the supremely talented, gifted, and versatile black and Latinos were equal participants. Obviously, a merit-based system fails here. I'm glad this case came to light, and gained national exposure. It shows the good old boy network in action, which in this case, worked to the detriment of a supremely-educated Asian woman. I think this will lead to further lawsuits, and this is good. Enough of this nonsense.

What? This is a bizarre claim. Merit based systems are not subjective, but in fact are primarily OBJECTIVE, meaning based on scores on predefined tests of knowledge, production, or achievements. For example, sales is a merit-based profession based primarily on revenue results.

There isn't any evidence that "supremely talented, gifted, and versatile black and latinos" are being excluded from high-tech. To the extent that blacks and latinos are not represented in equal proportion to their population , has nothing to do with this scenario whatsoever, as it assumes something not in evidence, and for which there is no evidence. Its the same circular argument put forth by people who support racial quota systems, which are patently unfair, unconstitutional, and frankly, racist.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by ondys

In a merit based system hiring isn't based on race or gender. If someone uses these factors during the hiring process then it's sexism/racism but that's a different problem. Personally, I've interviewed a lot of candidates in our tech firm and as far as I can tell I haven't seen any gender or race discrimination but we also didn't have a single black or latino candidate (and by the way, white males were only a small percentage of them). I think the problem with black or latino representation in tech firms is simply caused by the fact that not too many of them get engineering degrees. Not sure how you imagine a quota-based system for employers would fix this.

I have never understood the mentality of people who support quota-based systems who aren't simply trying to feather their own nest. There is really no moral or rational argument to be made for quota schemes. They are inherently discriminatory and would be illegal if we had a government that actually followed the Constitution.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by calicoastal

A quota based system would hit Asians and South Indians harder than whites. In fact, quotas would actually help whites get into UC Berkeley, as they are now under-represented.

Not only that, Apple, FB, Google, and LinkedIn would have to all fire some of their Asians and hire more whites (and blacks and latinos).

[LexusNexus]

For those in denial about discrimination in the valley, get informed.

The Discrimination Double Standard

[Nikki6]

No doubt there are subtle discrimination against minorities in Venture Capital but give them credit for investing in minorities.

More than half of Silicon Valley start-ups between 1995 and 2005 had one or more immigrants as key founders, according to a study by the University of California at Berkeley and Vivek Wadhwa, founder of Relativity Technologies.

Immigrant entrepreneurs launched 25 percent of technology or engineering companies in the same period.

[spicydreamt]

Originally Posted by Nikki6

No doubt there are subtle discrimination against minorities in Venture Capital but give them credit for investing in minorities.

Immigrants as a group are the minority in the Silicon Valley?

[Nikki6]

Originally Posted by spicydreamt

Immigrants as a group are the minority in the Silicon Valley?

Touché...I guess it's more a figure of speech these days.

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

What? This is a bizarre claim. Merit based systems are not subjective, but in fact are primarily OBJECTIVE, meaning based on scores on predefined tests of knowledge, production, or achievements. For example, sales is a merit-based profession based primarily on revenue results.

There isn't any evidence that "supremely talented, gifted, and versatile black and latinos" are being excluded from high-tech. To the extent that blacks and latinos are not represented in equal proportion to their population , has nothing to do with this scenario whatsoever, as it assumes something not in evidence, and for which there is no evidence. Its the same circular argument put forth by people who support racial quota systems, which are patently unfair, unconstitutional, and frankly, racist.

Rep point for you. If you are truly supremely talented, industries will find you and fly you from wherever you are to work for them. Only mediocre, unqualified people demand preferential treatment. I can't believe the "give me a handout or else" mentality is so pervasive in our society.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

There isn't any evidence that "supremely talented, gifted, and versatile black and latinos" are being excluded from high-tech. To the extent that blacks and latinos are not represented in equal proportion to their population , has nothing to do with this scenario whatsoever, as it assumes something not in evidence, and for which there is no evidence. Its the same circular argument put forth by people who support racial quota systems, which are patently unfair, unconstitutional, and frankly, racist.

Indeed, such people are courted and prized where they can be found, like the unicorns that they sadly are. When they create a society that equates acting productive with "acting white", this is sadly not surprising.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by LexusNexus

The problem with a merit based system is that it is entirely SUBJECTIVE. This makes it easy to discriminate based on race, gender, even age.

But Pao's entire argument at the trial is that if a merit based system was used at Kliener, Pao would most definitely had been promoted.

Confused.
.