Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

arthwollipot said:
If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism.
Click to expand...
The opposite of equity (equal outcomes) is not equal treatment; it is equal opportunity.
arthwollipot said:
ETA: This is, among others, one of the things that Critical Race Theory teaches us - real Critical Race Theory and not the other straw boogeyperson that the right complains about - that because of historic and systemic injustices, some people need a bigger slice of the pie than others.
Click to expand...
No. Everybody needs equal opportunity.
 
Trausti said:
What does that have to do with a person's race or sex? Are you just prejudging people based on their skin hue as to whether to treat them equally? Can you not see the problem with that?
Click to expand...
What the actual ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about?
jt512 said:
The opposite of equity (equal outcomes) is not equal treatment; it is equal opportunity.

No. Everybody needs equal opportunity.
Click to expand...
And to get that, sometimes some people need more help than others.
 
arthwollipot said:
Then why do you think I mean something other than what I say?
Click to expand...
How would you operationalize, "To get [equal opportunity], sometimes some people need more help than others"? That is, what would you do to give those people more help to get equal opportunity?
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
It's official. DEI is for the birds.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872707749852955095
Click to expand...
So yeah, the way that is phrased using the word "bias" is certainly unfortunate and suspicious, but given the sexual dimorphism of birds, the complete statement, which addresses an actual problem for birders, and concludes with the suggestion that it will make you a sharper birder, does not seem quite relevant to this discussion, except for the amusement factor of noting how language evolves, and how it might give clues to the personality of the writer. I imagine the late Eric Auerbach, or a more modern deconstructionist, would find this interesting, not for its pretty benign content, but for its implication that this is a birder with baggage.
 
As far as I can tell, there are broadly three kinds of things that businesses might do, that fall under the heading of "DEI", at least in the US.

One is basic training in workplace professionalism, respect, and inclusion. In my experience, this training emphasizes being aware of your personal biases, and taking mindful steps to mitigate them. This is mostly useful stuff to think about, in a diverse workplace, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does improve morale, productivity, etc. Diversity is assumed as a starting condition. Respectful, inclusive treatment of your co-workers is the focus. Equity is not really touched upon. This is probably the kind of thing Arth assumes is going on across the board. If only that were true.

Then there's the rarer bird, the "struggle session" DEI. That such programs exist, and have been applied by many employers, is already attested. I have little to add, except that I find struggle sessions to be antisocial, perverse, progressive sociopolitical woo.

And finally there's DEI in hiring and business-to-business relationships. We rank and file don't get this training. This is for upper management, that want or need to signal certain (wooish) virtues, or who sincerely believe this is good practice. It might not even be a formal program, at many businesses. Certainly Joe Biden didn't need a DEI course to understand the value of nominating a black woman VP. Conveniently, that particular case also lampshades the risks of making a "DEI hire".
 
arthwollipot said:
Well it's interesting to me that that's the message you took from it, though I shouldn't be surprised by it.

No, that's a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up interpretation of what you claim to have read, and I do not believe that it's possible to get from the words in the article to what you just typed in a rational fashion, so I conclude that you are blinded by hateful ideology.

If you're treating two people equally, and giving them both $100, but one of them's a billionaire and one of them is below the poverty line, that's not admirable, because the effect of your equal treatment of them is disproportionate. Equal treatment regardless of any other concern is just as hostile and dystopian as outright racism, sexism or classism. Remember the cartoon of the people behind the fence? To be equitable means that you shouldn't treat people as though they were all identical in every way, because people are diverse. Yes, you should go out of your way to be inclusive of some people who if all else were equal wouldn't otherwise be included.

So not are you arguing against a fake "DEI", you're arguing for ongoing injustice. Nice one.

ETA: This is, among others, one of the things that Critical Race Theory teaches us - real Critical Race Theory and not the other straw boogeyperson that the right complains about - that because of historic and systemic injustices, some people need a bigger slice of the pie than others.
Click to expand...
Let's try to operationalize this. You have in vote in who is going to get hired. It's down to two candidates:

Candidate A: African American, qualified and so will do a perfectly fine job
Candidate B: white, better qualifications than A - not outrageously so, but still clearly better

Maybe play around with whether this job is professional, trade, or menial.

Does some people needing a bigger slice of the pie mean that you go with A? If not, then at what point does that come into play, if at all?
 
Paul2 said:
Let's try to operationalize this. You have in vote in who is going to get hired. It's down to two candidates:

Candidate A: African American, qualified and so will do a perfectly fine job
Candidate B: white, better qualifications than A - not outrageously so, but still clearly better

Maybe play around with whether this job is professional, trade, or menial.

Does some people needing a bigger slice of the pie mean that you go with A? If not, then at what point does that come into play, if at all?
Click to expand...
An interesting dilemma indeed. I think many of those arguing here see DEI as a different scenario, in which candidate A is actually unqualified but must be chosen anyway.
 
bruto said:
An interesting dilemma indeed. I think many of those arguing here see DEI as a different scenario, in which candidate A is actually unqualified but must be chosen anyway.
Click to expand...
That scenario is easy to reject, which is why I made my scenario the way I did, it clarifies the clash between viewpoints more effectively IMHO.
 
theprestige said:
One is basic training in workplace professionalism, respect, and inclusion. In my experience, this training emphasizes being aware of your personal biases, and taking mindful steps to mitigate them. This is mostly useful stuff to think about, in a diverse workplace, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does improve morale, productivity, etc. Diversity is assumed as a starting condition. Respectful, inclusive treatment of your co-workers is the focus.
Click to expand...
Okay, so yes, this is generally good stuff. But even this most basic element of diversity can be misapplied.

For example... my company had a corporate-wide recognition of Diwali recently, and of Hanukkah, and of Ramadan, and even a special mention for Kwanza. But all of the managers were sent a reminder to keep our holiday greetings non-denominational and to avoid saying "Merry Christmas" or using christmas-specific imagery so that we weren't offending anyone.

To me, this is nutty - our workforce is about 60% hispanic, and is largely catholic. Even those of us who are atheists still celebrate christmas because it's a cultural tradition that has next-to-nothing to do with christianity at this point.

I'm all for celebrating diversity, I've loved every Diwali celebration I've been to, and I think it's wonderful to learn about different traditions and beliefs. But I don't think that excluding the majority faith from consideration is very inclusive.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Okay, so yes, this is generally good stuff. But even this most basic element of diversity can be misapplied.

For example... my company had a corporate-wide recognition of Diwali recently, and of Hanukkah, and of Ramadan, and even a special mention for Kwanza. But all of the managers were sent a reminder to keep our holiday greetings non-denominational and to avoid saying "Merry Christmas" or using christmas-specific imagery so that we weren't offending anyone.

To me, this is nutty - our workforce is about 60% hispanic, and is largely catholic. Even those of us who are atheists still celebrate christmas because it's a cultural tradition that has next-to-nothing to do with christianity at this point.

I'm all for celebrating diversity, I've loved every Diwali celebration I've been to, and I think it's wonderful to learn about different traditions and beliefs. But I don't think that excluding the majority faith from consideration is very inclusive.
Click to expand...
I can understand how banning such greetings is petty and unnecessary, but I also can't see how it is excluding the majority faith from consideration either, unless the reminder to "keep our holiday greetings non-denominational" etc. applies only to Christmas. If it means you can say "happy Diwali" but not "Merry Christmas," then yes. If it means you shouldn't mention any specific holiday at all, and just stick to "happy holidays," orthe like, it still seems petty and unnecessary, and likely assumes more offense than is actually there, but it is a different thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom