This is 100% a political move. The number of people hired matches the national average, which is what is usually used to determine "diversity".
Honestly, there is no reason this lawsuit should be pressed. As you pointed out I'm sure there were visa's required for some applicants, and 20% Asian is still good by percentage.
Do we know that the non-Asians also didn't require visas?
Also, I find it interesting how national average always seems to justify discrimination against Asians when it comes to jobs/college acceptance but then if someone brings up how Asians can be under-represented in things like media representation or politics, some people will say it's because there aren't many Asians who go into acting/modeling/politics.
agree, it is total discrimination. the narrative is that it is normal there is no Asian at all, as long as there is more than one Asian, Asians are overrepresented. so no matter what, screwing asians is the safe bet.
The same complaint is the basis of sexism in the tech industry. I haven't seen many resumes from women cross my desk. So it's not that I'M being sexist, but clearly there's a problem somewhere. And it could be the way I'm soliciting those resumes in the first place.
Actually, its not that its a personal choice question. There are real differences in what different sexes value. What you choose to spend your free time on? How much you value stability? What you enjoy doing? How risk averse you are? How much you value having more free time? What hobbies you have?
There are real differences there between sexes, and those preferences affect what career is the best for you. You don't pick whats average for you, you pick your best career with all things considered, and small differences in preferences can skew the outcomes heavily.
Also I like to point out there is bunch of careers where there is heavy shortage of MEN choosing it for same reasons.
You can't point to the "industry" when the industry is composed of individuals with distinct roles. The scope of influence of the average employer, for example, begins with the receiving of applications - they have less control of who chooses to study the subject.
That's exactly what I'm saying. "5% of my employees are female because 5% of my applicants are" does not mean that you've actually done what you can to eliminate bias in your recruiting, marketing, etc.
You compare it to the general population. In disparate impact lawsuits, this is the 'applicant' vs 'pool' distinction; the idea is to make it possible to sue even when the discrimination 'barriers' operate before the formal application process, but of course, you wind up in Orwellian games where the necessary number of minority potential-employees simply do not exist and the employer is forced to provide a devil's proof to show they weren't being discriminatory and they argue over what 'proxies' are appropriate... Ward Cove and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_School_District_v._U...
Work authorization for internships is very easy to get. If you are on F1 visa, you just need to apply for CPT (Curricular Practical Training) and it does not require any costs on the employer's side or different visa. You remain on F1 visa.
I was thinking not, but then: the place was founded by Peter Thiel, who spoke at the Republican National Convention.
It does smell like revenge, especially given that the numbers are so unusual and the company is probably dealing with security clearance issues. The fact that the numbers are so strange in the supposed pool should raise lots of red flags about one particular country too: were these people with family connections to China? That is normally disqualifying. Is the company expected to hire people who are certain to fail the clearance process, and then get stuck firing them for that failure?
Honestly, there is no reason this lawsuit should be pressed. As you pointed out I'm sure there were visa's required for some applicants, and 20% Asian is still good by percentage.