Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[jt512]

It's an improvement from only helping the poor white kids and ignoring the poor black kids - which was what was going on as you very well know.

There are four problems with your statement. First, you just made up that only the poor white kids were being helped. Second, even if the first were true, it would not be an improvement if they only helped the black kids. It would be equally bad. Third, it is irrelevant, because the schools are now under orders to not consider race in any program. And fifth, it ignores the fact that ignoring race is better yet because it is fair.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know that this was going on at the school in question. I don't even know what school it was. Nor do you, I suspect. And why are you satisfied with just "better" racism rather than no racism?

Why do you think I was talking only about one particular school?

And fifth, it ignores the fact that ignoring race is better yet because it is fair.

The only people who claim that ignoring race is good are those for whom it has never been a handicap.

 

[jt512]

The only people who claim that ignoring race is good are those for whom it has never been a handicap.

Two problems with that claim. One, you just made it up. And, two, ignoring race completely solves the problem of race being a handicap. If you're gonna just make ◊◊◊◊ up, make ◊◊◊◊ up that at least mades sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you think I was talking only about one particular school?

You aren't talking about any actual school. You're talking about your fantasy.

The only people who claim that ignoring race is good are those for whom it has never been a handicap.

Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr. led a totally privileged life.

 

[bruto]

Two problems with that claim. One, you just made it up. And, two, ignoring race completely solves the problem of race being a handicap. If you're gonna just make ◊◊◊◊ up, make ◊◊◊◊ up that at least mades sense.

Do you really believe that ignoring race completely erases the social, economic and political history of previous centuries? Even if you are right about issues of DEI, and how or whether it should occur that sounds pretty clueless.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you really believe that ignoring race completely erases the social, economic and political history of previous centuries? Even if you are right about issues of DEI, and how or whether it should occur

Even if? That's rather the main question here. Is DEI legal? Is it good policy? Seems like you're trying to avoid it. And you're doing so by assuming a position he didn't actually state.

 

[bruto]

Even if? That's rather the main question here. Is DEI legal? Is it good policy? Seems like you're trying to avoid it. And you're doing so by assuming a position he didn't actually state.

He did actually state the position. There may well be arguments about how and when dei is appropriate, but ignoring the structural effect of histtory is not one.

 

[Ziggurat]

He did actually state the position.

No, he did not. He said, "ignoring race completely solves the problem of race being a handicap." That is NOT equivalent to "ignoring race completely erases the social, economic and political history of previous centuries." Here is an admittedly unrealistic hypothetical to illustrate the distinction. Suppose we look at a black former slave in 1870. He's discriminated against in part because of his race. If we could wave a magic wand and make him white, then people won't discriminate against him because he's black, because he isn't. But he still has this history as a former slave. That HISTORY, not his race, may put him at a present disadvantage, because he may not have the education that most white people got.

But everyone has a personal history. The personal history of some white people is pretty rough. The personal history of some black people is pretty privileged. There's a correlation with race, sure, but it's not a perfect correlation, and it's not the same thing as race. DEI policies which discriminate in favor of blacks because of race will treat a black person from a privileged background better than a white person from a deprived background. In the specific case under discussion, tutoring programs for poor people may end up helping more blacks than whites, which is fine, but they wouldn't be helping them because they're black, but because they are poor. So it's not like you can't do anything for people who have had rough personal histories. But you don't need to, and shouldn't, do it on the basis of their race. If more black people are poor than white people, then helping the poor because they are poor will still end up helping more black people. So no, you absolutely do not need to use race as a factor in order to help address historical problems.

 

[Hercules56]

There is nothing wrong with some DEI policies, such as recruiting at black colleges and neighborhoods, offering test-prep classes to black kids, making sure civil service exams dont discriminate, etc

 

[Ziggurat]

There is nothing wrong with some DEI policies, such as recruiting at black colleges and neighborhoods

That's not really DEI. You do know that whites sometimes live in black neighborhoods and go to black colleges, right?

offering test-prep classes to black kids

There absolutely is something wrong with only offering test prep classes to black kids. It's racial discrimination, it's illegal, it's immoral, and it's unnecessary. Offering test prep classes to kids of all races, including blacks, is perfectly fine and also not DEI.

making sure civil service exams dont discriminate

The whole point of DEI exams (like the FAA biographical exam) is to discriminate on the basis of race. Nothing wrong with exams discriminating on the basis of skill, that's the only reason you should have an exam in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

He did actually state the position. There may well be arguments about how and when dei is appropriate, but ignoring the structural effect of histtory is not one.

What is the structural effect of history, here? Poverty. Poor education. All the missed opportunity arising from those two antecedents.

And those structural effects can be addressed while completely ignoring race. Poor is poor. Give a poor person a subsidy, doesn't matter if they're black or white. Give a poor person remedial education, it doesn't matter if they're black or white. If you're correct about the structural effects of history predominantly affecting black people, then addressing those effects directly will predominantly help black people, without you ever having to take race into account.

---

Though, that still doesn't address the conundrum of Asian-Americans and their response to the structural effects of historical racism in America.... But whatever. Say they got lucky, or something.

 

[Ziggurat]

We are looking for people who will shut up and do what we tell them, not waste precious management time with their idiotic ideas on how to improve things.

The entire scoring system is incoherent if viewed as an actual attempt to sort candidates by relevant characteristics. For example, here are two back-to-back questions which basically ask the same thing but from different sides:

37. My previous supervisor (or teachers, if not previously employed) would most likely describe the speed at which I work as:
A. Superior +5
B. Above average +4
C. Average +3
D. Below average +2
E. Don't know +1

38. My previous supervisor (or teachers, if not previously employed) would most likely describe the amount of time I needed to complete assignments as:
A. A great deal +5
B. More than average +4
C. Average +3
D. Less than average +2
E. Don't know +1

The speed you work at and the time you take are basically just reciprocals of each other. Which makes these questions redundant. On its own, that's not necessarily so bad, because asking the same thing multiple ways can be a way to verify information. So the redundancy isn't really the problem, the real problem is that the scoring in perverse. The first question rewards you if you're fast, while the second question rewards you if you're slow. You cannot max out your score by answering honestly, you can only max it out by cheating and providing a specific internally inconsistent set of answers.

Or how about this one:

29. My peers would probably say that having someone criticize my performance (i.e. point out a mistake) bothers me:
A. Much less than most +8
B. Somewhat less than most +4
C. About the same as most +8
D. Somewhat more than most 0
E. Much more than most +10

Notice the pattern in the scoring? No, you don't, because there is no pattern, it's an incoherent mess with no rhyme or reason. And it's not the only question like that.

And of course, the fact that it's full of questions that seem relevant but aren't even scored is another pretty good indicator of what a farce this is.

 

[Brainster]

The entire scoring system is incoherent if viewed as an actual attempt to sort candidates by relevant characteristics. For example, here are two back-to-back questions which basically ask the same thing but from different sides:

Again, I suspect the point values were assigned after they figured out what it would take to weed out most of the White candidates.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Again, I suspect the point values were assigned after they figured out what it would take to weed out most of the White candidates.

I suspect the most damaging thing about DEI and "Affirmative Action" is the automatic assumption of someone being a diversity hire if they fit the favoured demographic. I imagine that got internalised as well.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

if a system is so fragile that a single hire of a none cookie-cutter person brings the whole thing down, maybe the problem is not the hire, but the system.

 

[Ron Obvious]

if a system is so fragile that a single hire of a none cookie-cutter person brings the whole thing down, maybe the problem is not the hire, but the system.

What system would that be then? Diversity of thought ought to be treasured, but in reality, DEI hiring practices favour diversity of skin colour and genitals, but actually favour conformity of thought and discourages hiring that non-cookie cutter person.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Back on topic because I have self-control. Found in r/LeopardsAteMyFace

View attachment 59077

DEI teachings and trainings in schools do NOT actually provide more tutoring and education support for less advantaged kids.

This is a rampant bit of misinformation going on right now. People keep insisting that "DEI Training" is actually delivering direct benefits to some minority group or other. But they don't - it's indoctrination and nothing more. Making first graders go through the "privilege walk" doesn't actually give extra help to underprivileged schoolchildren. Rather, it takes time that could be spent actually helping them. Even worse, it takes that time away while ALSO making the more privileged kids feel as if they've done something wrong and are bad because of it. It makes the kids who do have privileges be singled out and made to feel as if they're unworthy and are cheating.

So, DEI teachings don't actually help underprivileged kids learn core material any better, they take time away from those core subjects, and they also make other kids feel bad about themselves and be singled out from their peers.

Can you explain why you think privilege walks are a good idea for school children, and what benefit they provide?

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, I really don't get this complaint. Why the hell would you make a tutoring program DEI in the first place? Are you only helping the poor black kids and ignoring the poor white kids?

In Portland, OR? Kind of, yes.

We recently passed a new tax in this county, to fund "Preschool for All". The stated purpose was to ensure that every child in the county who wanted preschool could get preschool.

What ended up happening was that the program was not fully funded, and families that had already secured a spot for their child in a functioning preschool, were forced to give up their spot so that some other more disadvantaged family could have it.

 

[theprestige]

Can you explain why you think privilege walks are a good idea for school children, and what benefit they provide?

Struggle sessions are an important tool for rehabilitating the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie. And as with all indoctrination, it's best to start them as young as possible. That's the benefit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, I just did the sample questions, and it's really weird. It's really not OK that anyone thought this was a good idea.

I did the sample, and am now going through the whole thing. It's bizarre. The first 14 questions don't have any points values no matter how you answer them. Then you get a LOT of points if your worst subject in high school was science. Nothing else is worth anything at all. But hey - it balances out by giving me a LOT of points for sucking at history in college - which seems like it would be entirely irrelevant to being an air traffic controller.

This is the most strangely scored assessment I can think of. Why would they give higher points to a an aspiring ATC who takes lots of chances? And why would they give 0 point to having actual experience and ratings as an ATC? There are several questions that seem like they would be relevant to a good ATC, but they're worth nothing at all - why even bother having the question at all if all answers are worth nothing? There are also a lot of questions that seem informative at best that are worth points in some really weird ways.

I went through it again, and picked answers that would seem like good ones for an ATC - prior experience, ratings, good grades, detail oriented, adaptable to changing tasks, level headed, values work ethic, reasonably steady employment, etc. That didn't make the cut. It's crazy that people who are already fully qualified (like actually working as an ATC in the military and being rated) don't make the cut on this assessment.