Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[arthwollipot]

Oh, look, a pile-on.

Surprise surprise.

What do you think about requiring the following DEI competencies for California Community College employees when they go up for evaluation and tenure review:

I am not your monkey.

 

[Paul2]

I am not your monkey.

I wanted to hear the other side, that lays out the justification for those requirements. I thought maybe you would be on that other side, so I asked. I wasn't trying to make you my monkey, whatever that means.

And, I didn't think I'd done anything that would indicate we couldn't discuss the topic cordially and honestly.

 

[arthwollipot]

I wanted to hear the other side, that lays out the justification for those requirements. I thought maybe you would be on that other side, so I asked. I wasn't trying to make you my monkey, whatever that means.

And, I didn't think I'd done anything that would indicate we couldn't discuss the topic cordially and honestly.

Except ask leading questions.

 

[Paul2]

Except ask leading questions.

A leading question "suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed." (Wikipedia) I thought I could guess what your answer would be, but my goal wasn't to have my suspicion confirmed - it was to start a conversation. My first post to you wasn't a leading question.

My second was, shall we say, coy, but my intent was to remove the issue - Jerry Coyne - that was problematic for you via your own words, and it still wasn't a leading question.

I don't want to spend too much more time on this meta-issue. If you don't want to engage my issue, then there's nothing further to do.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't want to spend too much more time on this meta-issue. If you don't want to engage my issue, then there's nothing further to do.

In case you hadn't noticed, I stopped seriously participating in this discussion some time ago. It's completely pointless.

 

[Ziggurat]

In case you hadn't noticed, I stopped seriously participating in this discussion some time ago. It's completely pointless.

Then why are you participating at all? Seriously, just don’t post if you don’t want to take part. No one is forcing you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Then why are you participating at all? Seriously, just don’t post if you don’t want to take part. No one is forcing you.

Because it's more fun to ridicule the dumb things being said, and there are times I actually learn some things. Why do you?

 

[catsmate]

Those are the classical meanings of those words. If DEI meant what you keep pretending it does, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, for the umpteenth time, that is not what those words mean when organizations engage in "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)." Again, for the umpteenth time, by "diversity" they mean that they give hiring preferences to certain perceived or actual historically marginalized groups (or, equivalently, they discriminate against everyone else); by "equity" they mean their stated goal is equality of outcomes for each group; and by "inclusion" they mean things like inventing microagressions, banning "uninclusive language," believing in the debunked concept of implicit bias, requiring ideological purity from employees, and holding mandatory diversity training sessions, which we now know actually create a hostile work environment.



No doubt. But they don't call it "DEI."

Oh good grief, more of the "anti-woke" bollocks.

We’re arguing about your failure to admit that that is what DEI is.

No. You are pushing what you want 'DEI' to mean to support your prejudices.

 

[catsmate]

What is there to defend? My position is literally the dictionary definitions of those words.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’​

 

[catsmate]

I'd have some respect for an argument that went, "DEI is not necessary anymore because it's been successful".

But instead we are shovelled blatant sexist and racist hatred by DEI's opponents.

Indeed, and in this forum by at least one poster in this thread.

 

[catsmate]

The good news is that it doesn't matter what you think. The world is over peak woke and its enforcement wing, DEI. Here in the U.S., the Trump administration will eliminate DEI in the federal government and public universities and reinstate colorblind equal opportunity. Elite private American universities will face the choice of following suit or be relegated to the scrapheap of history. Science grants will return to being funded on the basis of their scientific merit rather than their ability to convince DEI bureaucrats that they will advance the ideology of Critical Social Justice. Corporations will figure out that their financial survival depends upon their hiring the best and the brightest without regard to job applicants' skin color. Europe will follow suit. Canada? Well, who knows. I'm just glad I'm not living in Canada. Ditto for New Zealand.

This is of course complete bollocks. I really can't believe anyone is actually stupid enough to believe a Trump administration will be "colorblind" about anything.

 

[Brainster]

One more time: Being colorblind is considered racist these days.

Color-blindness may be an attractive ideology because it allows people who benefit from a racist society to ignore their own privilege and lets them off the hook for contributing to it,

 

[Aridas]

I'm going to be a pain and add some specificity.

It's not that equal opportunity wasn't happening, it's that equal opportunity wasn't producing equal outcomes. Opening up to all applicants and not discriminating on the basis of race or anything else doesn't guarantee that you'll get a representative selection of applicants, let alone of qualified applicants.

Of course opening things up to all applicants and not discriminating on the basis of race or anything else doesn't guarantee that you'll get a representative selection. That part, at least, is entirely correct.

With that said, again, the main part of the rise of DEI that I've been distinctly pleased about is, quite simply, the decrease in actual discrimination as qualifiers. For example, as a gay person who neither flaunts nor hides my preferences on that front, the decrease in "simply being gay is a fireable offense" alone would have been enough to leave me with a distinctly positive impression, and has done so. I, at least, am not asking for additional rights, reparations, or whatever else, either way, just meaningfully equal rights to everyone else. One of the major reasons that I'm especially wary of the anti-DEI push is, quite simply, that it has very significant overlap, political and otherwise, with the efforts to make sure that gay people like me don't get to have meaningfully equal rights, period, and want to bring back the "simply being gay is a fireable offense" or worse crap.

For example... my profession is absolutely not representative. Actuarial science is dramatically lacking in black and hispanic professionals. And it's definitely NOT a case of discrimination - all of the exams are completely blinded, we take the exams as numbers, the graders are not present when the exams are taken and are assigned a random collection of tests with no names on them. Each exam is graded by more than one grader, and if they disagree on the points (some tests have a degree of interpretation when it comes to written answers), the graders confer and come to an agreement. It's not possible for discrimination to play a role in it. But despite all of that... there are extremely few black or hispanic people who even try to enter the field. And although females make up about 55% of the starting cohort for the lower level exams, they fall out prior to reaching fellowship level so that at the end of the day, fellows end up being IIRC about 65% male. Asians are overrepresented by a fair bit.

DEI ended up being adopted to try to FORCE things to have equal outcomes. Which is silly, really.

Sure. As I've noted previously, there certainly are fair criticisms that can be raised about DEI programs and arguments related to them, some of which have and are being raised. Yours, in particular, I've mostly found to be quite fair and reasonable.

With that said, I think that poking back at an earlier bit of discussion would likely sum up my overall position on DEI and a bit more of the larger picture at work. Under the influence of DEI, multiple orchestras implemented measures to eliminate discrimination and base selections solely on actual skill. Some of the disparities in representation dropped notably as a result, but not all. I wholeheartedly approve of this kind of DEI effort and am quite pleased that that DEI effort occured and that the orchestras that did implement it did so. By and large, I expect that those who support DEI in this thread are also pleased about things like this and that that plays a role in their positions. The disparities did not vanish completely and some were less affected than others, though, and a few voices have invoked DEI as they try to argue that orchestras should undo the previous measures and institute a way that will force the outcome into something that they think will be more representative of some population. I very much do not approve of that kind of DEI effort and think that it's entirely reasonable to be unhappy with those trying to push it. It's perhaps also worth noting that, unlike the DEI measures to eliminate discrimination, there was no evidence that those recommendations to force the outcome have actually been implemented. I also think that it's unreasonable to try to use that to tar all DEI efforts, including the ones focused on eliminating discrimination. DEI may have noble goals, which truly should be lauded and supported, I think, but any large scale noble human endeavor will have humans that try to accomplish not so noble things under that banner or forget that the means will shape the end actually reached. Personally, I rather prefer having large scale noble human endeavors, either way, even with the need to guard against such.

 

[Aridas]

One more time: Being colorblind is considered racist these days.

It can be. Especially if it's actually just an excuse to try to get away with benefiting from wrongs committed without receiving any unpleasant consequences.

There's enough overlap in some acts of discrimination, either way, that whining about how something isn't technically racist ends up as a remarkably hollow argument.

With those things said, I'm going to quote the beginning of that article to give some of the context that you're avoiding in your argument.

According to psychologists, an important step in rooting out systemic racism is to first acknowledge it, rather than deny or minimize its existence. A study published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology and led by Jacqueline Yi, a clinical-community psychology doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, looked at over 80 previous studies in which different types of color-blind ideology were found to increase anti-Black perspectives and give a pass to racist behaviors and attitudes. More specifically, power evasion (the denial of racism) led to these negative outcomes, and color evasion (ignoring race) did not necessarily do so.

 

[Ziggurat]

With that said, again, the main part of the rise of DEI that I've been distinctly pleased about is, quite simply, the decrease in actual discrimination as qualifiers. For example, as a gay person who neither flaunts nor hides my preferences on that front, the decrease in "simply being gay is a fireable offense" alone would have been enough to leave me with a distinctly positive impression, and has done so.

That has occurred to a significant degree at the same time as the rise of DEI, but it isn't DEI. That's just traditional anti-discrimination, which is much older. But again, DEI isn't antidiscrimination. DEI is very much in favor of discrimination, just the right sort, because the goal isn't equal opportunity, but equal outcome.

With that said, I think that poking back at an earlier bit of discussion would likely sum up my overall position on DEI and a bit more of the larger picture at work. Under the influence of DEI, multiple orchestras implemented measures to eliminate discrimination and base selections solely on actual skill.

But that didn't produce the desired outcomes. Blind auditions got a lot of women into orchestras, but not enough minorities, and so now DEI advocates are trying to do away with blind auditions.

DEI is not about equal opportunities. It never has been. That's why it's different than traditional anti-discrimination. That's why there's a new term for it.

 

[Aridas]

That has occurred to a significant degree at the same time as the rise of DEI, but it isn't DEI. That's just traditional anti-discrimination, which is much older. But again, DEI isn't antidiscrimination. DEI is very much in favor of discrimination, just the right sort, because the goal isn't equal opportunity, but equal outcome.

Yet, the distinction there may as well be splitting hairs in practice. DEI is very much interlinked with "traditional anti-discrimination," after all, to the point where it's pretty well become synonymous in practice, rightly or wrongly, and political forces that oppose DEI and have been pointedly working to manufacture outrage out of it can be reasonably said to have that traditional anti-discrimination in the crosshairs, too. It's not like there's any real mystery about why there's been so much outrage about CRT in elementary schools, despite CRT actually being a law school legal theory that was never taught in elementary schools. It's not like there's any real mystery about why there's been so much outrage about elementary schools performing sex change surgery on trans kids without any knowledge or involvement by their parents, despite that not even remotely happening. The "evils" of DEI are being played up by largely the same people for largely the same reasons, often using similar methods, and we're all supposed to play dumb about that?

But that didn't produce the desired outcomes. Blind auditions got a lot of women into orchestras, but not enough minorities, and so now DEI advocates are trying to do away with blind auditions.

That might be more hard hitting as a point if I hadn't raised and addressed that right after what you quoted. That you would try to raise that as if I hadn't done so does your cause no favor.

DEI is not about equal opportunities. It never has been. That's why it's different than traditional anti-discrimination. That's why there's a new term for it.

So you assert. I'm not particularly impressed by your assertion, though. Not least because, again, DEI, specifically, is largely rooted in companies trying to avoid legal jeopardy.

 

[Trausti]

So you assert. I'm not particularly impressed by your assertion, though. Not least because, again, DEI, specifically, is largely rooted in companies trying to avoid legal jeopardy.

LOL. So the "DEI improves business performance" really is BS. It's just racial extortion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet, the distinction there may as well be splitting hairs in practice.

The distinction is major and critical. It cannot be brushed under the rug.

DEI is very much interlinked with "traditional anti-discrimination,"

No. DEI exploits the legitimacy of traditional anti discrimination for unearned legitimacy. But it deviates radically from it.

it's pretty well become synonymous in practice

No, it has not.

So you assert. I'm not particularly impressed by your assertion, though. Not least because, again, DEI, specifically, is largely rooted in companies trying to avoid legal jeopardy.

To the extent that DEI reduces legal jeopardy it’s because of the perverse legal theory of “disparate impact”, which actually encourages discrimination so long as it’s the right kind of discrimination. Absent that theory, traditional anti discrimination policies are all anyone ever needed to protect themselves from legal jeopardy. There are two other major reasons for DEI adoption. One is ideological indoctrination and infiltration of the educated class. The other is funding. Companies like Black Rock have used their financial muscle to push companies into adopting DEI initiatives in order to get easier access to capital.

You still haven’t come to terms with the fact that DEI encourages, in fact requires, discrimination.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed, and in this forum by at least one poster in this thread.

Can you provide a quote from this threat that supports your assertion?

 

[Aridas]

LOL. So the "DEI improves business performance" really is BS. It's just racial extortion.

The logic required to get from what I said to what you said falls apart when subjected to any actual scrutiny. That DEI, specifically, is rooted in avoiding legal trouble in no way negates its potential to improve business performance. There's nuance that can be invoked there about what conditions lead to benefits and which do not, of course, but you've not come anywhere close to that level of discussion.

The distinction is major and critical. It cannot be brushed under the rug.

No. DEI exploits the legitimacy of traditional anti discrimination for unearned legitimacy. But it deviates radically from it.

No, it has not.

May as well just call this gainsaying. You denied while offering no hint of actual refutation to the points made.

When the forces attacking DEI are also going after more traditional anti-discrimination using such as cover and are actively working to stir up resentment and trouble, in part to keep attention on DEI and away from their efforts to implement discrimination and dishonestly manufacture justification and support for such? The distinction, for practical purposes, is rather limited and also deceitful on top of that.

When DEI is effectively implemented as just a PR relabeling of anti-discrimination, as seems to have been shown that it usually is in practice, there's no effective distinction.

Your denial is ideological, not practical, and my point there was all about the practical.

To the extent that DEI reduces legal jeopardy it’s because of the perverse legal theory of “disparate impact”, which actually encourages discrimination so long as it’s the right kind of discrimination. Absent that theory, traditional anti discrimination policies are all anyone ever needed to protect themselves from legal jeopardy. There are two other major reasons for DEI adoption. One is ideological indoctrination and infiltration of the educated class. The other is funding. Companies like Black Rock have used their financial muscle to push companies into adopting DEI initiatives in order to get easier access to capital.

Of course you would attempt to push at this angle, after refusing to address the rest.

You still haven’t come to terms with the fact that DEI encourages, in fact requires, discrimination.

Yet more wishful thinking that doesn't seem based on the things I've actually posted.

Here, though, a simple observation that you seem to have missed. Any effort to actually rectify the damage done by discrimination will, in fact, require discrimination. Plenty of discrimination and the detrimental effects thereof are in evidence. When you choose to try to reduce your objection to the latter with "Oh noes! Discrimination bad!" it ends up as little other than support for the original discrimination. Then, of course, there's always the point that discrimination in some form is entirely normal and reasonable. Complaining that something encourages what it claims is "the right kind of discrimination" isn't really much of a real complaint in the first place and ends up as little other than a really lame gotcha attempt.