Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[arthwollipot]

The ultimate takeaway from this thread is that there is this thing referred to as "DEI" which is neither diverse, equitable or inclusive, and certain elements of the political right wing absolutely hate it. I'm pretty certain they actually invented this thing, because it bears no resemblance to any actual functional set of policies regarding diversity, equity or inclusivity, when they can even define it at all.

So, how about that woke Superman then, eh?

 

[jt512]

The ultimate takeaway from this thread is that there is this thing referred to as "DEI" which is neither diverse, equitable or inclusive, and certain elements of the political right wing absolutely hate it. I'm pretty certain they actually invented this thing, because it bears no resemblance to any actual functional set of policies regarding diversity, equity or inclusivity, when they can even define it at all.

You are correct that DEI is neither diverse, equitable, nor inclusive. But you are being utterly disingenuous when you say that it was made-up, as I and have posted links showing that it this is the reality of DEI as actually implemented, including links to executive orders that instituted exactly this type of DEI throughout the entire federal government of the United States of America.

 

[TomB]

My "argument" is that those who defend DEI and at the same time say it's colorblind are contradicting themselves. As for the context I'm avoiding here's the paragraph again:


Do you see the buried assumption in that first sentence? That systemic racism is real and that it exists. Now obviously systemic racism has existed in this country--Jim Crow, segregation, poll taxes, red-lining, etc. But that sort of overt, de jure racism is not what they mean. Ibrahim X. Kendi, the star of the movement, has said that any disparity in outcomes between Whites and Blacks is evidence of systemic racism. I find that difficult to believe, mainly because we can see that there is also a disparity in outcomes between Asians and Whites. Consider the current freshman class at Harvard:


Note that they felt no need to mention what percentage of the class identified as White or Caucasian. If we assume they made up the remainder, that would mean that roughly 32% of the class is White.
Quite obviously Whites are under-represented compared to American society in general and Asians are wildly over-represented. Systemic racism in favor of Asians and against Whites? Or the more likely reason, which is that Asians work hard and (may) have higher IQs in general than Whites.

I think it bears pointing out that it's not as simple as that.

Prominent universities tend to have (and recruit) a significant international student body. (There are reasons for that. In the case of a private school like Harvard, it might have to do with chasing a worldwide prestige. In the case of some large public universities I'm familiar with, money also comes into play. International students pay full out of state tuition. But the reasons aren't really relevant.)

What is relevant is that about 24% of the Harvard student body is international students and 20% of the international students are from China. If you want to compare the student body demographics to U.S. population demographics, you need to limit your comparison to the non-international portion of the student body. It may well be that white people are still under-represented. But you can't make a valid determination to that effect without accounting for the international students.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are correct that DEI is neither diverse, equitable, nor inclusive. But you are being utterly disingenuous when you say that it was made-up, as I and have posted links showing that it this is the reality of DEI as actually implemented, including links to executive orders that instituted exactly this type of DEI throughout the entire federal government of the United States of America.

That someone has tried to actually implement the made-up falsely named ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing is not really all that surprising given how hard the Antiwoke Right Brigade pushes it.

Meanwhile in Australia, actual diversity, equity and inclusiveness are inherently part of the Australian Public Service, as outlined in the strategy and policy documentation as I linked to earlier, and on which I haven't yet seen you (or anyone else) comment yet.

 

[jt512]

That someone has tried to actually implement the made-up falsely named ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing is not really all that surprising given how hard the Antiwoke Right Brigade pushes it.

Incoherent.

Meanwhile in Australia, actual diversity, equity and inclusiveness are inherently part of the Australian Public Service, as outlined in the strategy and policy documentation as I linked to earlier, and on which I haven't yet seen you (or anyone else) comment yet.

It does seem that what goes on under the rubric of "DEI" in Australia is not nearly as discriminatory as in the rest of the English-speaking world, but to claim that what every English-speaking country except yours calls "DEI" is somehow not what DEI is in all those countries except Australia, is absurd.

 

[Brainster]

I think it bears pointing out that it's not as simple as that.

Prominent universities tend to have (and recruit) a significant international student body. (There are reasons for that. In the case of a private school like Harvard, it might have to do with chasing a worldwide prestige. In the case of some large public universities I'm familiar with, money also comes into play. International students pay full out of state tuition. But the reasons aren't really relevant.)

What is relevant is that about 24% of the Harvard student body is international students and 20% of the international students are from China. If you want to compare the student body demographics to U.S. population demographics, you need to limit your comparison to the non-international portion of the student body. It may well be that white people are still under-represented. But you can't make a valid determination to that effect without accounting for the international students.

That actually reduces the estimated number of White people, since the 37% was Asian Americans, and therefore not international students from China. Regardless, the number of Asian Americans does seem wildly over-represented. Evidence of systemic racism, or something else? I go with something else.

 

[theprestige]

I might go with systemic self-racism. Some minorities have adopted a cultural self-image that is intentionally counter productive to "white" ways of succeeding. I think this amounts to self-inflicted systemic racism, as the term is commonly used.

 

[arthwollipot]

Incoherent.

It's perfectly coherent, if somewhat wordy.

It does seem that what goes on under the rubric of "DEI" in Australia is not nearly as discriminatory as in the rest of the English-speaking world, but to claim that what every English-speaking country except yours calls "DEI" is somehow not what DEI is in all those countries except Australia, is absurd.

Here we see the Antiwoke Right Brigade's information bubble, which is so tough and impenetrable that those within can't see out of it, can't even acknowledge its existence, and believe that all they can see is all the world contains. This bubble explains a lot about why America is the way it is right now.

 

[jt512]

It's perfectly coherent, if somewhat wordy.

Here we see the Antiwoke Right Brigade's information bubble, which is so tough and impenetrable that those within can't see out of it, can't even acknowledge its existence, and believe that all they can see is all the world contains. This bubble explains a lot about why America is the way it is right now.

You deny the pernicious ideology that is DEI throughout practically the entire English-speaking world, and refuse to admit that (the possibly softer, gentler) DEI in Australia is the exception. And you claim that I'm the one in a bubble. Riiiight.

 

[jt512]

double post.

 

[arthwollipot]

You deny the pernicious ideology that is DEI throughout practically the entire English-speaking world, and refuse to admit that (the possibly softer, gentler) DEI in Australia is the exception. And you claim that I'm the one in a bubble. Riiiight.

See? The invisibility of the bubble to those inside it is quite evident to those of us outside it, and now we also see the typical projection and transference that is typical of the Antiwoke Right Brigade. When their flaws are pointed out, they reflect that back on the pointer outer and say that we are the ones who exhibit those very flaws.

Fascinating, isn't it?

 

[jt512]

See? The invisibility of the bubble to those inside it is quite evident to those of us outside it, and now we also see the typical projection and transference that is typical of the Antiwoke Right Brigade. When their flaws are pointed out, they reflect that back on the pointer outer and say that we are the ones who exhibit those very flaws.

Fascinating, isn't it?

*facepalm*

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, it is frustrating, isn't it?

 

[HansMustermann]

The ultimate takeaway from this thread is that there is this thing referred to as "DEI" which is neither diverse, equitable or inclusive, and certain elements of the political right wing absolutely hate it.

Absolutely correct,

I'm pretty certain they actually invented this thing, because it bears no resemblance to any actual functional set of policies regarding diversity, equity or inclusivity, when they can even define it at all.

That is false, however, and I've actually sent you links to organizations PUSHING for it, as well as a survey where hiring managers were told to do that. I'm sorry, you can't just make reality disappear away by just wishing really really hard that what's real were just some right-wing misinformation. Wilful ignorance is NOT evidence for your beliefs.

 

[arthwollipot]

That is false, however, and I've actually sent you links to organizations PUSHING for it, as well as a survey where hiring managers were told to do that. I'm sorry, you can't just make reality disappear away by just wishing really really hard that what's real were just some right-wing misinformation. Wilful ignorance is NOT evidence for your beliefs.

This is just evidence for how hard the false "DEI" has been talked up by the AWRB. Like the word "woke" it no longer means what it was supposed to mean, they've just taken it over and filled the entire conceptual space with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When you're too busy indulging in your preconceptions about what you wish was said and doing so repeatedly, it can rather interfere with understanding what was said. It rather feels like most of this conversation is driven by you doing such and I've been growing tired of such.

Look, I get the desire to just be snippy with someone you feel you're not making headway with... but in this case, you really aren't being clear at all.

Genuinely... you appear to have made the assertion that blind auditions didn't address the damage done to orchestras from discrimination, and thus to support the elimination of blind auditions in order to facilitate a more "hands-on" way of addressing discrimination. But at the same time, you seem to acknowledge that blind auditions resulted in a higher portion of female musicians being hired... and that is clearly addressing the issue of discrimination.

Your arguments seem to be contradictory on the surface. Perhaps you have something more nuanced in mind, but you're not communicating it well at all.

So instead of just handwaving it away and insisting that your interlocutor is just being difficult, how about you try to explain your position better?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or the more likely reason, which is that Asians work hard and (may) have higher IQs in general than Whites.

More plausibly, most Asiatic cultural backgrounds emphasize intellectual and technical capability over physical or social capability. There's more of a tendency to venerate scientists and engineers rather than athletes and models.

Lots of variation by country of origin and religion... but it still generally holds true that Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Singaporean, Taiwanese, Japanese, S. Korean, and so forth tend to place more social capital on cognitive skill than physical skill.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that at least some of that emphasis derives from Buddhism, Confucianism, and Tao all placing higher value on dedication, loyalty to family and community, and clear thought, and lesser value on combat and martial prowess. All of those religions value curiosity and questioning.

Judaism also historically values questioning and investigation. Islam and Catholicism tend to value faith above all else. Protestantism lands somewhere in-between, with wild swings from sect to sect; generally speaking there's an emphasis on productivity, but it's been so diluted with the fracturing of the various protestant beliefs that it's near impossible to make a generality that holds water.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The ultimate takeaway from this thread is that there is this thing referred to as "DEI" which is neither diverse, equitable or inclusive,

This is fairly accurate

and certain elements of the political right wing absolutely hate it.

This is moderately accurate, but incomplete - many people who are NOT politically right wing also have strong reservations about it. Pretty much, it's only progressives that embrace it without consideration of the ramifications.

I'm pretty certain they actually invented this thing, because it bears no resemblance to any actual functional set of policies regarding diversity, equity or inclusivity, when they can even define it at all.

Well, no. If you had bothered to actually investigate the origins of DEI, and then trace its evolution from critical theory to application, you'd be much better positioned to make a cogent argument. As it stands, you don't seem to have any actual understanding of the premise behind critical theory at all... and you definitely haven't bothered to read any of the ◊◊◊◊◊ written by Kendi or DiAngelo. And those two are some of the primary influences behind workplace DEI policies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meanwhile in Australia, actual diversity, equity and inclusiveness are inherently part of the Australian Public Service, as outlined in the strategy and policy documentation as I linked to earlier, and on which I haven't yet seen you (or anyone else) comment yet.

Oh... you mean the one that you linked to, but couldn't actually explain in any fashion whatsoever? The one where you were completely unable to articulate in your own words what formed the foundation and the guiding principles? That one?

 

[Brainster]

More plausibly, most Asiatic cultural backgrounds emphasize intellectual and technical capability over physical or social capability. There's more of a tendency to venerate scientists and engineers rather than athletes and models.

Lots of variation by country of origin and religion... but it still generally holds true that Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Singaporean, Taiwanese, Japanese, S. Korean, and so forth tend to place more social capital on cognitive skill than physical skill.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that at least some of that emphasis derives from Buddhism, Confucianism, and Tao all placing higher value on dedication, loyalty to family and community, and clear thought, and lesser value on combat and martial prowess. All of those religions value curiosity and questioning.

Judaism also historically values questioning and investigation. Islam and Catholicism tend to value faith above all else. Protestantism lands somewhere in-between, with wild swings from sect to sect; generally speaking there's an emphasis on productivity, but it's been so diluted with the fracturing of the various protestant beliefs that it's near impossible to make a generality that holds water.

Whatever the cause might be, it is unlikely that the system is somehow stacked against Whites and in favor of Asians, or that it was stacked in favor of Jews before that.