Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[arthwollipot]

DEI is about race/sex based consideration. I ask you: what is the difference between equal opporunity and DEI? But you, yourself, upthread wrote that it is okay to treat people differently. And for DEI, than means pre-judging people based on race or sex.

No, it doesn't. That's just what the rightist Trumpian ◊◊◊◊◊ want you to think it is, because it justifies their belief in white supremacy.

 

[jt512]

Sure, it's not the rightist boogeyperson that they refer to as "DEI".

False. As you have been shown over and over again, this version of DEI is precisely leftist, "progressive" DEI. You have no excuse at this point for claiming otherwise.

 

[Paul2]

No, it doesn't. That's just what the rightist Trumpian ◊◊◊◊◊ want you to think it is, because it justifies their belief in white supremacy.

A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

For an example of a positive action, if you had two qualified candidates for whom you couldn't decide between - each offered a different mix of advantages, without a clear way to resolve the difference - you could give the job to the candidate who came from a group historically underrepresented in the industry/profession because of past actual discrimination. Would such a strategy fall under DEI in your understanding of it?

 

[Darat]

A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

...snip...

Or you make effort in your initial selection process - it may mean for example in the USA taking adverts out in Spanish to reach an "underrepresented group". In the UK an example is stripping out names during initial screening.

 

[Paul2]

Or you make effort in your initial selection process - it may mean for example in the USA taking adverts out in Spanish to reach an "underrepresented group". In the UK an example is stripping out names during initial screening.

Spanish advertisements would be an example of a positive step that goes beyond merely not discriminating but doesn't discriminate against others in return. Stripping out names is an example of something that helps ensure no discrimination.

 

[arthwollipot]

A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

For an example of a positive action, if you had two qualified candidates for whom you couldn't decide between - each offered a different mix of advantages, without a clear way to resolve the difference - you could give the job to the candidate who came from a group historically underrepresented in the industry/profession because of past actual discrimination. Would such a strategy fall under DEI in your understanding of it?

Despite the change in your framing, you're still posing the hypothetical in a single-variable binary choice, and I'm still not going to answer it.

In response to your first paragraph, I think Darat just gave a decent answer.

 

[Paul2]

Despite the change in your framing, you're still posing the hypothetical in a single-variable binary choice, and I'm still not going to answer it.

In response to your first paragraph, I think Darat just gave a decent answer.

I don’t want to badger you into answering, so you don’t have to reply, but isn’t it true that sometimes, even in situations that are usually or potentially complex, one might still come across a case that does reduce to a single variable? I don’t see how one could rule that out, to claim it would never happen.

So my question is, in that case, what does DEI say?

 

[arthwollipot]

I don’t want to badger you into answering, so you don’t have to reply, but isn’t it true that sometimes, even in situations that are usually or potentially complex, one might still come across a case that does reduce to a single variable? I don’t see how one could rule that out, to claim it would never happen.

So my question is, in that case, what does DEI say?

No, I don't believe that any complex question can be reduced to a single-variable binary choice.

 

[TomB]

Then it's not DEI.

In the real world, yes it is.

I'd quote policies, but I can't do that without identifying my employer. (Similar to Emily's Cat's concerns in one of the insurance threads.)

What I will say is that I work for an extremely large entity that has multiple DEI officers in multiple departments. I looked at the pages for several of those and none of them say anything about giving advantages to anyone in the hiring process.

Here are a few of the things they have done in the name of DEI:

• Added menstrual products in all restrooms
• Created lactation spaces
• Implemented guidelines for office assignment and remote/hybrid work
• Hosted a Tamarkoz method workshop
• Hosted workshop focusing on taking care of self and others

A lot of it seems to be related to helping people with different backgrounds collaborate and work together. (Inclusivity)

How many here have actually been on hiring committees and know how they operate? I have. Many times over my career and, I think three times in the past two years.

In terms of hiring, our efforts for diversity don't go into how resumes or interviews are evaluated. It does play into recruitment, however. By that I mean where we advertise for candidates. Which journals, organizations, etc. we might post an opening in. If we are hiring a chemist, we will reach out to the chemistry departments of nearby universities. For higher level positions, we might also post in journals and professional organizations that have a more national (or even international) reach. This may include professional organizations that serve a particular demographic. (If there's a society of Hispanic Chemists, for example. Don't know if that exists.)

The committees I've been on usually got 20-30 resumes in response. these tend to be pretty diverse. (I've seen people in India with PhDs apply for dishwasher or lab assistant jobs.) But when we evaluate the resumes, we do so based on stated job requirements and preferences (two different categories) and how the resume matches what was requested. Then we interview usually the top three candidates. Again, the interview is graded based on the answers given to questions asked.

Now, could DEI efforts result in an advantage for a minority candidate? Sure. It's possible that someone could be so worried about appearing biased that they unintentionally bias themselves the other way. But the committees have three members (and an HR rep to coordinate, but they don't get a vote), so it's unlikely.

There are efforts to make sure that the search committee has some diversity. (At least one woman or minority.)

In terms of hiring here:

Diversity is addressed by recruiting a diverse pool of candidates.
Equity is unbiased evaluation of candidates.
Inclusion is people of diverse backgrounds working together as an integrated team.

The only system I've ever encountered that gave extra points have been civil service systems. (Not the hiring I'm talking about.) I looked up the extra points for Illinois:

• Veterans (10 points)
• Purple heart recipients (10 points)
• National Guard members (5 points)
• Surviving spouse of veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)
• Parent of an unmarried veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)

No points for ethnicity, as far as I can see. Just for veterans.

 

[bruto]

Actually, I can, because I just did. It's just a hypothetical, and holding the variables constant except the one in question can be useful for clarifying all sorts of things.

But, as I said, if you don't want to engage with it, that's fine.

No, I don't believe that any complex question can be reduced to a single-variable binary choice.

I agree that in the real and complex world that simple binary choice would be very unlikely, and probably much more unlikely than a person who sees things in that way would like to believe. That said, I do think that as a pure thought exercise, trying toward a "matched-pair" comparison, and trying to be honest about it might help in clarifying one's own position. I think there are times when imagining such a choice and imagining having to explain it to a third party can be helpful. And if you're honest one of the benefits might be to realize, when the situation arises, how much more complex the real world situation turns out to be than the thought exercise. Thinking about things ahead of time is usually a better choice than not doing so.

 

[TomB]

A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

For an example of a positive action, if you had two qualified candidates for whom you couldn't decide between - each offered a different mix of advantages, without a clear way to resolve the difference - you could give the job to the candidate who came from a group historically underrepresented in the industry/profession because of past actual discrimination. Would such a strategy fall under DEI in your understanding of it?

DEI where I work would not guide you towards one candidate or the other. It would suggest you stop and think about your reasoning. This would be an extremely rare situation, however. After interviews there is almost always a clear candidate from those interviewed (or clearly no good candidates, in which case the search is extended).

 

[jt512]

In the real world, yes it is.

I'd quote policies, but I can't do that without identifying my employer. (Similar to Emily's Cat's concerns in one of the insurance threads.)

What I will say is that I work for an extremely large entity that has multiple DEI officers in multiple departments. I looked at the pages for several of those and none of them say anything about giving advantages to anyone in the hiring process.

Here are a few of the things they have done in the name of DEI:

• Added menstrual products in all restrooms
• Created lactation spaces
• Implemented guidelines for office assignment and remote/hybrid work
• Hosted a Tamarkoz method workshop
• Hosted workshop focusing on taking care of self and others

A lot of it seems to be related to helping people with different backgrounds collaborate and work together. (Inclusivity)

How many here have actually been on hiring committees and know how they operate? I have. Many times over my career and, I think three times in the past two years.

In terms of hiring, our efforts for diversity don't go into how resumes or interviews are evaluated. It does play into recruitment, however. By that I mean where we advertise for candidates. Which journals, organizations, etc. we might post an opening in. If we are hiring a chemist, we will reach out to the chemistry departments of nearby universities. For higher level positions, we might also post in journals and professional organizations that have a more national (or even international) reach. This may include professional organizations that serve a particular demographic. (If there's a society of Hispanic Chemists, for example. Don't know if that exists.)

The committees I've been on usually got 20-30 resumes in response. these tend to be pretty diverse. (I've seen people in India with PhDs apply for dishwasher or lab assistant jobs.) But when we evaluate the resumes, we do so based on stated job requirements and preferences (two different categories) and how the resume matches what was requested. Then we interview usually the top three candidates. Again, the interview is graded based on the answers given to questions asked.

Now, could DEI efforts result in an advantage for a minority candidate? Sure. It's possible that someone could be so worried about appearing biased that they unintentionally bias themselves the other way. But the committees have three members (and an HR rep to coordinate, but they don't get a vote), so it's unlikely.

There are efforts to make sure that the search committee has some diversity. (At least one woman or minority.)

In terms of hiring here:

Diversity is addressed by recruiting a diverse pool of candidates.
Equity is unbiased evaluation of candidates.
Inclusion is people of diverse backgrounds working together as an integrated team.

The only system I've ever encountered that gave extra points have been civil service systems. (Not the hiring I'm talking about.) I looked up the extra points for Illinois:

• Veterans (10 points)
• Purple heart recipients (10 points)
• National Guard members (5 points)
• Surviving spouse of veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)
• Parent of an unmarried veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)

No points for ethnicity, as far as I can see. Just for veterans.

Universities and the federal government give extra weight (up to 100%) to gender or ethnic group. The State of California has officially tried to do it twice (including for contracts), but it was voted down by referendum both times.

 

[TomB]

Universities and the federal government give extra weight (up to 100%) to gender or ethnic group.

Any evidence for this? Which states? Which Universities? I know that neither answer is "all" or "all public."

I am aware that there have been efforts to prefer minority owned businesses, but I'm talking about hiring.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree that in the real and complex world that simple binary choice would be very unlikely, and probably much more unlikely than a person who sees things in that way would like to believe. That said, I do think that as a pure thought exercise, trying toward a "matched-pair" comparison, and trying to be honest about it might help in clarifying one's own position. I think there are times when imagining such a choice and imagining having to explain it to a third party can be helpful. And if you're honest one of the benefits might be to realize, when the situation arises, how much more complex the real world situation turns out to be than the thought exercise. Thinking about things ahead of time is usually a better choice than not doing so.

You think I'm being dishonest? My position is clear. I do not answer hypotheticals that boil down to a single variable binary choice, when real world situations are what is actually under discussion. What's unclear or dishonest about that?

 

[arthwollipot]

DEI where I work would not guide you towards one candidate or the other. It would suggest you stop and think about your reasoning. This would be an extremely rare situation, however. After interviews there is almost always a clear candidate from those interviewed (or clearly no good candidates, in which case the search is extended).

DEI means that you do not deny someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. In other words, no "blacks need not apply" signs.

 

[jt512]

Any evidence for this? Which states? Which Universities? I know that neither answer is "all" or "all public."

I am aware that there have been efforts to prefer minority owned businesses, but I'm talking about hiring.

Discriminating on the basis of race or gender in the U.S. is illegal; therefore, universities rarely if ever put these preferences explicitly in writing. But they will tell you things to your face. I have had a chemistry professor tell me that he is only hiring women postdocs this year because "men have had their chance" A provost told me that he has no money for a general faculty search, but he has funds specifically allocated for a DEI hire. And I have heard various accounts of provosts overruling departmental recommendations to hire a candidate who was white or male and selecting a lower-rated minority or female candidate instead.

 

[jt512]

DEI means that you do not deny someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. In other words, no "blacks need not apply" signs.

Unfortunately, it often means no white males need apply.

 

[bruto]

You think I'm being dishonest? My position is clear. I do not answer hypotheticals that boil down to a single variable binary choice, when real world situations are what is actually under discussion. What's unclear or dishonest about that?

I'm not sure why you think I am calling you dishonest, but perhaps I'm being too generous to Paul2 in taking his suggestion just as a way to help organize your own thoughts by testing them in fictitious scenarios where, unlike reality, variables can be controlled. It's possible we are approaching this in opposite directions. If he thinks that a controlled thought experiment will help form a rule to make real world choices easier, I think the opposite. Eliminating many simple but distracting variables leaves you with a choice that is harder, not easier.

I don't think there's a down side to thinking about things, but if the idea was to come up with an answer here, or a rule, or a shortcut to avoid complexity, then forget it. The paradoxical answer to the thought exercise is that it cannot provide answers.

 

[Paul2]

I'm not sure why you think I am calling you dishonest, but perhaps I'm being too generous to Paul2 in taking his suggestion just as a way to help organize your own thoughts by testing them in fictitious scenarios where, unlike reality, variables can be controlled. It's possible we are approaching this in opposite directions. If he thinks that a controlled thought experiment will help form a rule to make real world choices easier, I think the opposite. Eliminating many simple but distracting variables leaves you with a choice that is harder, not easier.

I don't think there's a down side to thinking about things, but if the idea was to come up with an answer here, or a rule, or a shortcut to avoid complexity, then forget it. The paradoxical answer to the thought exercise is that it cannot provide answers.

I appreciate your comments. My scenario - I like to think of it as a thought experiment - was framed as a means to help define DEI, not to provide rules per se.

 

[Paul2]

DEI means that you do not deny someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Let’s flip that. Does DEI mean that you do not approve someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation? I suspect not, but I’m asking if you agree.