Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[TragicMonkey]

Gotcha. Nice to know that you believe that at least part of the multiplicity of causes for my success is because someone wanted to give females a leg up regardless of whether my abilities were actually up to the task. I'm only where I'm at because some portion of my career was handed to me just because I'm a female.

Again, you are arguing against something in your own head, not what I actually said. Re-read. Did I say that I "believe that at least part of the multiplicity of causes for my success is because someone wanted to give females a leg up regardless of whether my abilities were actually up to the task"? No, I did not. I merely didn't completely rule out one possible factor in a myriad of combined factors. Is your ego so delicate that you cannot admit the possibility that out of a hundred thousand causes for something one of them might include somebody at some point having a partial motivation of trying to help out women?

I guess perhaps this sort of thinking is easier for you because you seem to imagine you can read people's minds. You know for certain that you got your current job simply and solely because the person who hired you liked your resume-stated points, and there wasn't a billionth of a percent of that decision influenced by them being irritated by the previous candidate's shrill voice, or that you went to the same school that their favorite cousin did, or that you made a funny joke, or that your ring reminded them of their grandma's, or that they noticed that everybody else in the department was a man.

It's not a slight against you that myriad factors played into complex events. That's just how things happen in a complex universe. It's just as wrong to insist that no, there is only one possible cause and it's because you're a woman as it is to insist that no, there is only one possible cause and it's something else.

 

[Mojo]

So did I get to my level of expertise and respect within my field because someone was gatekeeping on my behalf, and giving me a leg up to protect me from the sexists? Or did I get here on my own merits and effort, and it turns out that there just aren't as many sexists as your ideology insists?

Did my father get to his level of expertise and respect within their field because of their knowledge and skill, or because some white person kept the ravening racists at bay and gave them a extra boost so they could overcome whitey?

You didn't read the question you asked, did you?

 

[arthwollipot]

Serious question: If minorities are equally skilled and equally competent for the various roles... what purpose do active DEI policies serve? What need is there for them?

I've already said it a whole bunch of times, but I'll say it again. They ensure that people aren't excluded on arbitrary criteria including but not limited to skin colour, sexual orientation and gender identity. Say it with me: The opposite of inclusion is exclusion.

 

[Trausti]

I've already said it a whole bunch of times, but I'll say it again. They ensure that people aren't excluded on arbitrary criteria including but not limited to skin colour, sexual orientation and gender identity. Say it with me: The opposite of inclusion is exclusion.

I dunno, dude. It seems like you agree that no one should be disadvantaged because of their race. So if there's a DEI practice that does that, I assume you'd also think that wrong.

 

[arthwollipot]

I dunno, dude. It seems like you agree that no one should be disadvantaged because of their race. So if there's a DEI practice that does that, I assume you'd also think that wrong.

If you're doing DEI right, you're upholding the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. In fact we should be talking about DEIA - Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility.

I do not object to DEIA. I wholeheartedly support DEIA. I object to slapping the label "DEI" on practices that are not DEIA. Like promoting unqualified people over more qualified people simply because of the unqualified person's skin colour, sexual orientation, or gender identity. That is not DEIA, that is Straw DEI which I will now start referring to as SDEI.

SDEI is white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, homo- and trans-phobia wearing a cheap and ill-fitting suit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, you are arguing against something in your own head, not what I actually said. Re-read. Did I say that I "believe that at least part of the multiplicity of causes for my success is because someone wanted to give females a leg up regardless of whether my abilities were actually up to the task"? No, I did not. I merely didn't completely rule out one possible factor in a myriad of combined factors. Is your ego so delicate that you cannot admit the possibility that out of a hundred thousand causes for something one of them might include somebody at some point having a partial motivation of trying to help out women?

I guess perhaps this sort of thinking is easier for you because you seem to imagine you can read people's minds. You know for certain that you got your current job simply and solely because the person who hired you liked your resume-stated points, and there wasn't a billionth of a percent of that decision influenced by them being irritated by the previous candidate's shrill voice, or that you went to the same school that their favorite cousin did, or that you made a funny joke, or that your ring reminded them of their grandma's, or that they noticed that everybody else in the department was a man.

It's not a slight against you that myriad factors played into complex events. That's just how things happen in a complex universe. It's just as wrong to insist that no, there is only one possible cause and it's because you're a woman as it is to insist that no, there is only one possible cause and it's something else.

If me being female led someone to have a preference for me in any of my positions, I would be incredibly offended. Feeling that I need a helping hand getting a job in my field because I'm a female is an insult to my capabilities and my character.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've already said it a whole bunch of times, but I'll say it again. They ensure that people aren't excluded on arbitrary criteria including but not limited to skin colour, sexual orientation and gender identity. Say it with me: The opposite of inclusion is exclusion.

Let me clarify: Even though it's illegal already, we need to indoctrinate people to pay extra special attention to skin color, sex, sexual orientation, and what kind of clothing people like to wear.

Your basic starting assumption is that all white people are always racists and they can never be not racist unless they're forced to be not racist. Same for whatever other something-ist catches your attention that day.

 

[arthwollipot]

Let me clarify: Even though it's illegal already, we need to indoctrinate people to pay extra special attention to skin color, sex, sexual orientation, and what kind of clothing people like to wear.

Your basic starting assumption is that all white people are always racists and they can never be not racist unless they're forced to be not racist. Same for whatever other something-ist catches your attention that day.

No, my basic assumption, which is true, is that certain groups have historically been marginalised and discriminated against. DEIA makes sure that no longer occurs.

Or it would, if it hadn't systematically been replaced by SDIA, which deliberately flips the script in a way that you have just demonstrated quite nicely.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If me being female led someone to have a preference for me in any of my positions, I would be incredibly offended. Feeling that I need a helping hand getting a job in my field because I'm a female is an insult to my capabilities and my character.

Agreed, if that were the only reason you got a job. I doubt it was, or could be. As I've stated multiple times now, most things have multiple causes. The more complex the process, the more factors are involved. People hiring someone don't even know themselves all of the reasons behind their decisions. You are insisting that there is only one cause for a result, and that cause is breathtakingly simplistic. And then getting mad about it.

 

[Lithrael]

If me being female led someone to have a preference for me in any of my positions, I would be incredibly offended.

Does it bother you at all that it's very likely that the opposite has already happened, such that your success would have been easier and come sooner if you had been a generic white guy?

I assume that even if you had evidence of that happening, you would still turn down anyone offering you a leg up in an effort to compensate for that.

That's fine for you, but I don't know about suggesting that other people who would accept such an effort are deficient in some way.

 

[a_unique_person]

I know a woman who worked as an architect. I was amazed at how bad her typing skills were. Usually women seem to have better typing skills than men. She said it was deliberate. If she could type better than the men they would be dumping all this typing work on her.

 

[Aridas]

Maybe stop seeing people as members of racial groups?

That might hold a little more weight if your guy Trump wasn't putting people like Darren Beattie into positions of power and if the Republican Party didn't have a long and ongoing history of actively working to discriminate based on race. It's rather hard to treat your position as anything even remotely close to sincere or principled when you stump for the people who are doing what you claim to disapprove of - on those topics.

Why punish people now because they happen to have the same skin hue as someone who did supposed wrong in the past?

To answer that more thoughtfully, one would need to go through the various paradigms of justice and how they would apply or not, as well as other concerns like how accurate that framing even is. Not really worth the time when you've shown no sign that you would actually care, unless it supported your desired conclusions, at least. Then you'd just latch onto it.

Goodness, if we do the "historial impact" thing, eveyone can have grievences against everyone else. And a lot of those grievances are madeup BS. That's a terrible way to go.

Given that the far right has plenty of experience working to cover up valid grievances with made up BS grievances, this is technically true and you're in an excellent position to know that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Maybe stop seeing people as members of racial groups? Why punish people now because they happen to have the same skin hue as someone who did supposed wrong in the past? Goodness, if we do the "historial impact" thing, eveyone can have grievences against everyone else. And a lot of those grievances are madeup BS. That's a terrible way to go.

I'm going to have to mention The Great Replacement Theory here.

 

[arthwollipot]

DEI and the myth of "meritocracy" (start at 19:55):

What they're trying to do is make the default setting on competence in America a white guy.

jt512 and Trausti will not watch this video.

 

[Matthew Best]

Seems to me like everyone is in violent agreement.

The left: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we need DEI.
The right: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we must not have DEI.

Do I have that about right?

 

[a_unique_person]

Seems to me like everyone is in violent agreement.

The left: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we need DEI.
The right: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we must not have DEI.

Do I have that about right?

I have already tried to explain, DEI is about, IMHO, challenging the "commonsense" "world taken for granted" "Cultural biases". These can blind us to opportunities for inclusion. If DEI becomes putting people in jobs that they are not competent in, then it has failed. However, the incompetent employee has been a known problem for decades. The "Peter Principal" is a good example of tryting to understand it. By assuming someone is capable when they aren't is also a problem. Trump hasn't banned that. The FAA has jobs that people with disability could do. The FAA has had problems for decades trying to get people. How does DEI cause that? People claim it does but I have seen no evidence of it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Seems to me like everyone is in violent agreement.

The left: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we need DEI.
The right: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we must not have DEI.

Do I have that about right?

More like


The Right: the right person for the job is a white, heterosexual male because they are inherently superior, therefore we must not have any DEI.

 

[Matthew Best]

More like


The Right: the right person for the job is a white, heterosexual male because they are inherently superior, therefore we must not have any DEI.

I was trying to steel man the right's position, rather than straw man it.

 

[jt512]

DEI and the myth of "meritocracy"

If I might counter your late-night comedian with a quote from a peer-reviewed paper (Abbot et al. 2023)*:

Admittedly, meritocracy is imperfect. The best and brightest do not always win. But the idea that meritocracy is nothing but a myth is demonstrably false, indeed absurd. Were it but a myth, college admissions and hiring could be conducted without regard to applicants’ qualifications, and students or employees could be selected at random.​

To which I would add, if your child needed open-heart surgery, you would have no reason to prefer one cardiac surgeon over another.

(start at 19:55):

jt512 and Trausti will not watch this video.

I watched if from there all the way to the end.

___________________________
*Source: Abbot et al. In Defense of Merit in Science. Journal of Controversial Ideas. 2023; 3(1):1.

 

[Aridas]

Seems to me like everyone is in violent agreement.

The left: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we need DEI.
The right: the right person for the job is the person who's best qualified, regardless of their race, gender or sexuality, therefore we must not have DEI.

Do I have that about right?

Close enough when it comes to the main stuff, at least.

The right, of course, is still showing how serious they actually are when they say that they care about putting the best people into a position. Trump and co show that perfectly.

DEI and the myth of "meritocracy" (start at 19:55):

More like halfway through minute 13. 19:55 is the end.