please leave politics out of your answers

@njzk2 that’s tricky given an inherently political question.

@Tim I agree that there's unavoidable politics involved. The problem with this answer, however, is that it is massively one-sided, citing selected examples without a hint that there are counterexamples, so it bears all signs of a political agenca instead of being an honest attempt at helping people with the question.

@toolforger it certainly does help and gives two options: do the right thing and whistleblow, or stay quiet. Seems pretty accurate to me. What other side are you expecting to be presented?

@Tim the side that does the things that ConcernedCitizen considers illegal. The judges who are not just following party ideas even if they are in a blue state (few judges actually do). If you consider this answer offering a "do the right thing" choice, I challenge that it's even the obvious right thing to oppose the company's politics - there are arguments to be made for both sides. I find the question more useful than the answer, frankly.

@toolforger great, then post a new answer presenting the side you consider to be the “right thing” and allow votes to distinguish them. An answer is not obligated to include every answer? Would you object to CC saying this if it were Black people being systemically overlooked

@Tim First, votes would just give a 50:50 response. Second, they'd judge other qualities than what view is "right". Third, as I said, there is no right answer here, just different kinds of evils. Fourth, I don't have a good answer, because I lack the cultural background to make one; I just have enough cultural background to identify one-sided answers and comments.

@toolforger I’m confused what you want. A user to include the point of view they disagree with (essentially: keep being racist to white people) in their answer, but you don’t want to post one. I think you’re complaining for no good reason. If you disagree with the suggestion just downvote and move on! I mean the fact that there’s no right answer is even more reason to present each option in each answer!

Please link to laws being broken.

@Tim so you assume the policy is racist against white people while ignoring that other ethnicities are being under racist pressure. Which exactly what I mean: people picking just those aspects that please their preselected views while ignoring everything else. This is actually what everybody does in everyday life, but it's not suitable as an answer to a question that asks for illuminating all sides of a difficult problem that does not have a correct solution. --- And with that, enough discussion.

I’ve downvoted this answer. I do not see how this situation is considered “icky” aside from personal feelings. I also feel this situation is not political - someone has skill/experience X that other candidates do not - of course they should be considered for hiring! Also while hiring, we may technically rank people in a order, generally there are many skill dimensions to plot, that its easier to group (“these are great”,”these are good”, “these are terrible”) so its not a matter of discarding (“more”?) qualified candidates. Lastly, potential to improve/train is in a good candidate anyways.

(ctnd): the Verge article linked explores almost exactly same situation: Youtube ordered recruiters to only hire candidates which increase the diversity, and the recruiter who tried to complain was retaliated against. Reading the details of "Arne Wilberg v. Google, Inc" is very interested: it did not end well for the recruiter

@toolforger while I find the cynic view here that judges will just follow party lines a bit overdramatic (then again, I don't have US numbers to check that) and the assumption that everthing goes like example cases a bit general, the fact that there is racism against group B, doesn't justify racism against group A. You don't justify murdering group A, because someone (perhaps someone with the same skin colour as members of group A) murdered poepl of group B (I hope).

@toolforger What is worth mentioning in the discussion and when considering how morally wrong/right these policies are is that they are partly/often meant as a "counter-measure" against other discrimination. So instead of subconscious racial bias of inferiority towards the ones they are discriminating against they stem from a desire to help groups that otherwise seem neglected or suppressed (currently or historically). That doesn't make it universally right, but it does change the moral context when evaluating how overall moral it is.

@toolforger but whether every answer needs to go there in detail, phew, but yes, some acknowledgement of the difference in context would be an improvement in objectivity. I do agree though that both top-voted answers currently go about this strongly from one perspective "accept it because there are reasons" vs "this is totally clear bad racist discrimination".

@Erika I do agree this sounds a bit one-sided as in having one perspective set in stone and no nuances in options, but you cannot consider all the skills when you don't even see all the candidates (as far as I read the question people are to be filtered out before the company looks at them based on their skin colour/ethnicity - I asked to clarify that), so I don't get how you can not see any discrimination here. The same argument "we look at everything and then just never take the black guy" would be hammered into the ground if the roles were reversed.

@toolforger "so you assume the policy is racist against white people while ignoring that other ethnicities are being under racist pressure" What?

@Erika You don't consider hiring on the basis of skin color “icky”? It's just “personal feelings”?

This is the real answer. Depending on the business culture, one shouldn't even question the practice of positive discrimination / diversity as that may cost them their job -- it's should be obvious that it's good if the leaders put it in place. Colleagues have already scoffed at the person. The OP is in a risky situation

I didn't make my original post clear enough, so I've edited it. I think you read into my post and kind of knew what I was getting at though. My real concern is this: I want to hire the best candidate based on qualifications related to the job. Some of those best candidates are being dropped based on skin color and race. That's the gist of it without a ton of details.

Others have made really good posts about how diversity can be good for a team, and I completely agree. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I feel other comments focused a lot on an idea I didn't think I made, or didn't mean to make. But I've made it clear now, I think