Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

theprestige said:
I could have sworn that you finally stipulated that your idealized version of DEI is not the actual version of DEI commonly implemented in the US.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that the version of DEI you say is commonly implemented in the US is actually that commonly implemented in the US.
But I do believe that you believe it to be commonly implemented.

Years ago I knew a worker at Caterpillar who complained about a lazy minority worker supposedly spending hours in the bathroom that management could not get rid of because of his race. I'm sure he sincerely perceived that to be the case. But I also know that worker making that claim had coworkers complaining that he was known to take naps on the clock.

The vast majority of the time when someone complains about a DEI or Affirmative Action hire, I find that they are full of ◊◊◊◊. Even if they believe it to be true. Often, they just can't accept that someone might have interviewed or put together a better resume then they (or their buddy) did.
 
TomB said:
I'm not convinced that the version of DEI you say is commonly implemented in the US is actually that commonly implemented in the US.
But I do believe that you believe it to be commonly implemented.

Years ago I knew a worker at Caterpillar who complained about a lazy minority worker supposedly spending hours in the bathroom that management could not get rid of because of his race. I'm sure he sincerely perceived that to be the case. But I also know that worker making that claim had coworkers complaining that he was known to take naps on the clock.

The vast majority of the time when someone complains about a DEI or Affirmative Action hire, I find that they are full of ◊◊◊◊. Even if they believe it to be true. Often, they just can't accept that someone might have interviewed or put together a better resume then they (or their buddy) did.
Click to expand...
My point is that arth is back to his aspirational idealism that doesn't even account for the possibility that not all DEI is what he envisions. And he does this after having supposedly stipulated that the possibility needs to be acknowledged.
 
jt512 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, not actual policy.

That said, there is a lot of subjectivity in the hiring process. This is what has historically allowed the preferential selection of white males over seemingly equally qualified women and minorities. It is quite possible that this same subjectivity could be used to the advantage of women or minorities in some cases, such as your professor friend. (Around here, we use committees, so it would be hard for a single person to control the hiring to that extent.)

An impressive interview performance, by the way, can be a powerful thing and often has as much (or more) weight as an objective resume. Of course, if one is not objectively qualified for the position, they don't get to the interview stage. I've seen situations where an additional position was created because the interviewers liked multiple candidates so much. I was also on a committee where we hired one candidate (white male, by the way) but liked the second (white female) so much that we specifically invited her to apply for another position. (And hired her.)

Subjectivity in hiring should not be underestimated. And this has not changed at all with DEI. It's always been largely subjective.

As for your provost...I doubt that's representative if for no reason than your first sentence. I have never seen anyone given a budget for a "DEI hire." Nor have I ever heard of a provost getting involved in the hiring process, unless the position directly reported to them. My experience is that the vast majority of search committee recommendations are rubber stamped. I don't think I've ever heard of a recommendation being questioned.

In other words, I don't think your impressions are as universal as you think they are. Maybe in California.
 
Paul2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. Where a decision is based on one of those factors, there should be a good reason for it. For example, the choice of who to head up an Indigenous Affairs department in a country that was colonised by Europe (eg. Australia, the United States or New Zealand) should factor in whether a person is indigenous or has experience with indigenous cultures.
 
Trausti said:
I mean, whatever you call it, can there be concensus here that any policy that advantages/disadvantages a person based on sex or race is bad? M'kay?
Click to expand...
No. I just gave an example above of a situation where considering a person's ancestry might be relevant.
 
arthwollipot said:
I agree. Where a decision is based on one of those factors, there should be a good reason for it. For example, the choice of who to head up an Indigenous Affairs department in a country that was colonised by Europe (eg. Australia, the United States or New Zealand) should factor in whether a person is indigenous or has experience with indigenous cultures.
Click to expand...
Would you go so far as to posit that the "Champion for Women's Rights" might be reasonably expected to be female?
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1877460564307251690

The LAFD assistant fire chief thinks that it's more important to have a diverse department than have firepersons who can carry you out of a fire, because it's your fault if you need to be carried out. I'm sure all the people whose homes burned down would much rather have a diverse fireperson consoling them for their loss than have the fire put out by a bunch of hetero cis white males. That would be patriarchal white supremacist oppression.

:dl: indeed.
 
Ziggurat said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1877460564307251690
Click to expand...
Seriously, WTAF? Blaming the victim of a fire for needing assistance to not die? I don't even have words for how incredibly stupid this is.
Ziggurat said:
The LAFD assistant fire chief thinks that it's more important to have a diverse department than have firepersons who can carry you out of a fire, because it's your fault if you need to be carried out. I'm sure all the people whose homes burned down would much rather have a diverse fireperson consoling them for their loss than have the fire put out by a bunch of hetero cis white males. That would be patriarchal white supremacist oppression.

:dl: indeed.
Click to expand...
TBF, I don't think that sexuality or melanin content is particularly material... but I do lean toward accepting that the overwhelming majority of firefighters should be male. And not just any male - like, Sean Astin or seth Green are probably not going to make the cut. Firefighters really need to be large enough and strong enough to physically remove 99% of the population from a burning home in the middle of the night. That's going to exclude maybe 80% of males, and 99% of females.

That 5% of their fire department are female actually causes me some concern.
 
I would imagine that if a lone firefighter shows up at a fire, that person had better be able to do everything. Is that how fire operations work? The ones I've seen involve a lot of people, and some are operating pumps and holding nozzles, doing many things for which the strength to carry a wheelchair-bound victim is not a requirement. It sure would be a good thing if at least one of them is a strong man who can carry someone who cannot be dragged. But if a criterion excludes a huge majority of the population, how likely is it that the remaining one percent will want to become firefighters, and how much are you willing to pay to convince them to?

I'm under the impression that fire fighters, at least professional ones, do require some training, which includes at least a modicum of strength as well as rescue techniques. I really don't know, but I'd be interested to see some reliable statistic reporting how often the inability to carry victims has been a problem, and how often such a problem can be blamed on diversity or could have been averted by the presence of a person of normal human strength.
 
In the event, the primary failure we witnessed wasn't that firefighters were insufficiently strong. The primary failure is that brush wasn't cleared, and sufficient water wasn't available. The point about DEI isn't that it led to firefighters who weren't strong enough (which may or may not be the case), but that it led to a focus on something other than being prepared to fight fires. On an individual level, maybe most of the firefighters were prepared to fight fires, but on a system level, the LAFD proved that they were not prepared. They were very badly underprepared. And massive damage resulted from that systemic failure. One would be hard pressed to argue that "diversity" somehow helped in that preparation.
 
bruto said:
But if a criterion excludes a huge majority of the population, how likely is it that the remaining one percent will want to become firefighters, and how much are you willing to pay to convince them to?
Click to expand...
:cautious: Being a doctor excludes a huge majority of the population based on the criteria for acceptance to medical school and the difficulty of residency. I'm not really seeing a good argument for loosening those criteria so that more people can be doctors if they want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom