Leaked Internal Blizzard Memo: "Global Diversity And Inclusion Initiative" - Sensationalist Headlines

Qualified people are everywhere, another story is how long they stay hired. Usually both female and PoC workers tend to leave the industry due to the toxicity of coworkers/bosses and their impossibility of changing the situation because they tend to go with "Well, that's the way things are here", "he's a vital member of our team, you must be exaggerating" or "We don't find you 'motivated' enough to promote you/pay more/do X thing". The most recent cases to come into mind are Uber losing almost half of their female programmers due the negativity of their leaders to fight sexual harassment or GitHub repeatedly declining promoting personnel (which themselves previously highlighted) then proceeding to either send them into mundane tasks or outright firing them out "for jeopardize" the business. There's a lot of abuse which thankfully is starting to be reported and the recent scandal with the Google worker being toxic to others shows there's a "big iceberg" of prejudice in the industry.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52562755]That wouldnt make it okay?[/QUOTE] Sure, it's abysmal but in the event that it does happen (and how often does it actually happen?) there's not much you can do about it.

[QUOTE=Maestro Fenix;52562763][...] the recent scandal with the Google worker being toxic to others shows there's a "big iceberg" of prejudice in the industry.[/QUOTE] I'm agreeing on all points but that last one (unless I missed something he did outside of the memo itself). As far as I can tell, the memo was intended to show ways to increase diversity [I]without[/I] introducing toxicity (though clumsily written as far as making it palatable to certain groups with too many preconceptions goes).

[QUOTE=DeEz;52562677] If the recruiter just follows a minority quota and hires someone less qualified then... who cares? Their business, their problem.[/QUOTE] At what point should someone care? If they hire white men over more qualified women/minorities, is it a problem then?

[QUOTE=Cliff2;52562812]At what point should someone care? If they hire white men over more qualified women/minorities, is it a problem then?[/QUOTE] It'd be the business' problem since they lose money by hiring unqualified people.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52562677]I doubt it happens as often as people would have us believe. In the end it really doesn't matter. If a recruiter manages to nab an employee that is both qualified [I]and[/I] a minority, that's great. If the recruiter just follows a minority quota and hires someone less qualified then... who cares? Their business, their problem.[/QUOTE] If a business just wants to hire straight white males then... who cares? Their business, their problem, right?

[QUOTE=DeEz;52562829]It'd be the business' problem since they lose money by hiring unqualified people.[/QUOTE] I mean it'd also be their problem because it's against the law to discriminate hiring practices based on protected classes. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII[/url] Now there are small exceptions to this "In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." For example, a construction job can turn you down for being disabled because you would be incapable of doing construction work. The problem with enforcing quotas in tech is there is no argument to be made that it's reasonably necessary for the job. The reasoning for having a minority or woman quota is that they have diverse backgrounds that could have unique viewpoints. But those backgrounds aren't unique to them. There is no black gene that makes them a better or worse coder. And there is nothing unique to women to make them better or worse coders either. While different sexes may be more likely to have certain traits, they are not absolutes. A quota could hire a woman who has the same mindset as another person already in the company, whereas the hire they passed up has a mindset that would've been unique. The big issue in tech seems to be hostile workforces that people don't want to work in. Creating a hiring quota isn't going to resolve that issue, but it looks good on paper and you can say you did something without really spending the time and money on fixing the issue. The sexist coworker(s) responsible for some of the dropout rates are still there. Management and programming is still incredibly stressful and have high burnout rates and long hours. Focusing on tackling those issues so that the field is actually attractive to people will see more actually willing to learn the field and stay in it. 1. Tech Companies need to sort out their own staff, make it easier to report incidents, and give training on how to report and collect evidence of harassment so that it's harder to dismiss and easier to bring up court proceedings if ignored. Likewise, don't act on every perceived sleight or you're going to make for a very unpleasant and humorless workplace. Note the incident, and if the person continues, take disciplinary action. Unless the incident was very blatant harassment. 2. Get better hours and work environments. Weeks/months of long overtime and little sleep are unattractive to most people. High stress + low sleep = burnout, low job satisfaction and generally unhappy and unpleasant to be around workers. 3. Promote the merits of tech industry instead of saying it's terrible all the time. If someone tells me over and over that their job sucks and it would be terrible for me, surprisingly it's going to make me less likely to consider that field to work in. If that someone then turns around and wonders why there aren't more people like me in their field, I'm going to roll my eyes and tell them the field sucks according to their own words. You make tech an attractive place to work in, and you'll find good employees from all walks of life.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52562853]If a business just wants to hire straight white males then... who cares? Their business, their problem, right?[/QUOTE] They'd get a pretty monotonous, undiverse working environment so... yes? Were you hoping for an epic zinger or something?

*looks at Bioware products since the same agenda was pushed there* *Looks at population falloff rate in Blizzard's last two games* :thinking: [QUOTE]You seem to have this strange idea going on where [I]less qualified people are being hired to create diversity[/I][/QUOTE] That's exactly what is happening at companies wealthy enough to afford the pr, and it's unlikely to be indefinitely tenable.

As long as it doesn't affect their games negatively, I couldn't care less who works at Blizzard.

[QUOTE=27X;52562993]*looks at Bioware products since the same agenda was pushed there* *Looks at population falloff rate in Blizzard's last two games* :thinking: [/QUOTE] This is probably not the reason their products suffer in quality. At least in regards to Bioware. Blizzard has been producing fairly good content for quite a while.

[QUOTE=27X;52562993]*looks at Bioware products since the same agenda was pushed there* *Looks at population falloff rate in Blizzard's last two games* :thinking: That's exactly what is happening at companies wealthy enough to afford the pr, and it's unlikely to be indefinitely tenable.[/QUOTE] Blizzard doesn't appear to have an issue at least on the outside. Overwatch is their most diverse game (Except for Warcraft... but that's a fantasy world), but it works well with the storyline and environment, it's not forced upon us for diversity's sake. That's the big difference.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52563079]This is probably not the reason their products suffer in quality. At least in regards to Bioware. Blizzard has been producing fairly good content for quite a while.[/QUOTE] Diablo 3 was not fairly good content, it was a complete mess and has stayed that way in various iterations. Overwatch started out quite strong but seems to be too busy policing the payerbase to balance the game in MANY aspects worth a damn. [quote] the difference is big [/quote] Diversity and representational [B]content[/B] isn't even kind of the issue so I don't even know where you're vaguely trying to meander with this one. This is about what at paper glance seems to be a great idea juxtaposed against what has actually happened to UbiSoft, to Bioware, to Maxis, and Riot, and it is and has been a quota-token hiring sum negative that is actually pretty damn racist/sexist/agendist in principle and practice. If Blizzard was staffed by monks and zen wizards sure. Blizzard staffed by people like [URL="https://www.google.com/search?q=blizzard+shit+talking+employee&oq=blizzard+shit+talking+employee&aqs=chrome..69i57.5097j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8"]this.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52562853]If a business just wants to hire straight white males then... who cares? Their business, their problem, right?[/QUOTE] That sort of attitude worked out so well before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;52560768]This just in: women can't be creative.[/QUOTE] This just in: some aren't. Some men aren't either. Hire people with the skills to do the job, not the ones with the genitalia to make your company look good.

[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1574675&p=52559888&viewfull=1#post52559888"]Like Blizzard doesn't have bigger things to fix instead of "feels" things[/URL]

[QUOTE=Van-man;52564458][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1574675&p=52559888&viewfull=1#post52559888"]Like Blizzard doesn't have bigger things to fix instead of "feels" things[/URL][/QUOTE] If they can get away with it, which they can, it'd be bad business not to avoid paying taxes.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52564761]If they can get away with it, which they can, it'd be bad business not to avoid paying taxes.[/QUOTE] It's incredibly morally wrong though, since the countries needs that money to fund social and public services. So they're hilariously hypocritical because they're choosing to be moral crusaders in one aspect, but being all-in for lobbying to fuck over other people for own profit in other.

[QUOTE=Van-man;52564832]It's incredibly morally wrong though, since the countries needs that money to fund social and public services. So they're hilariously hypocritical because they're choosing to be moral crusaders in one aspect, but being all-in for lobbying to fuck over other people for own profit in other.[/QUOTE] Oh absolutely, I agree completely. It's downright parasitical. But they're a business and their job is to make as much money as possible, so I understand why they do it.

[QUOTE=Maestro Fenix;52562087]I wonder from where comes the idea that wanting some diversity in your team implies hiring people of lesser skills. Seriously, there's a lot of great artists out there and they aren't inferior for being women or having a different skin.[/QUOTE] if you don't look for quality above all else you are employing an inferior candidate if it is based off of race or gender. qualifications and skill should come above all else if you are indeed looking for "skilled workers" but the flip side of this affirmative action is a more diverse and rich company background which is beneficial for a social environment such as work

Did no one read the article? Because I'm not sure how "encouraging employees to refer more qualified women and partnering with organizations to encourage more women to enter game development" = "replacing all white men with unqualified minorities".

I don't get how hiring more minorities and women will help if the initial problem is that they're leaving at a higher rate. Why are they leaving? Just a bit weird that it is not addressed in the memo. Seems like a band aid fix for a larger problem that they're not informing the public about.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;52567896]I don't get how hiring more minorities and women will help if the initial problem is that they're leaving at a higher rate. Why are they leaving? Just a bit weird that it is not addressed in the memo. Seems like a band aid fix for a larger problem that they're not informing the public about.[/QUOTE] As far as I understood it, Blizzard is actually doing that though. (Trying to fix the reasons why they leave, that is.) They want to hire more women and minorities through becoming more attractive to them, rather than through hiring bias.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;52560837]But that's the root of the problem here, these organizations don't pump out women and minorities in big enough numbers. You can't enforce diversity in employment when the qualified candidates aren't diverse in the first place. There's not waves of women and minorities going through education and training only to just not get hired. They're addressing the problem from the wrong end of the system. It begs the question where they're going to find these people in the first place without lowering their skill standards and overlooking more talented individuals who don't fit the diversity qualifications.[/QUOTE] Okay but then the issue would be "we don't have many female applicants" instead of "we're not hiring many women." You say that like we're going to "run out" of women to hire, when instead there are plenty. Is there a larger male to female ratio of potential employees? I don't know enough to say "no," but I won't dismiss the idea. There are [I]plenty[/I] of perfectly qualified women out there, enough to where I think this argument is a bit silly. And lets not forget that it's piss easy to hire a man that's below the standards, too. We've have bunches upon bunches of shoddy games/products made by men with low skills. Especially since I think we can trust them that if they're going to be hiring women for their business, they're going to be prioritizing women that can make money for them, because I'm sure they'd rather be a successful business with average PR than a failing business with good PR.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52568474]Okay but then the issue would be "we don't have many female applicants" instead of "we're not hiring many women." You say that like we're going to "run out" of women to hire, when instead there are plenty. Is there a larger male to female ratio of potential employees? I don't know enough to say "no," but I won't dismiss the idea. There are [I]plenty[/I] of perfectly qualified women out there, enough to where I think this argument is a bit silly. And lets not forget that it's piss easy to hire a man that's below the standards, too. We've have bunches upon bunches of shoddy games/products made by men with low skills. Especially since I think we can trust them that if they're going to be hiring women for their business, they're going to be prioritizing women that can make money for them, because I'm sure they'd rather be a successful business with average PR than a failing business with good PR.[/QUOTE] That is the issue. There aren't enough female applicants. Once more, with feeling: if your workforce pool is skewed in favor of males, you will never be able to hire diversely without discrediting otherwise qualified applicants based solely on their gender, which is wrong and perpetuates the same problem we had before. You need to fix the problem by getting more females into the workforce in the first place.