Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[jt512]

Just imitating yours, mate, just imitating yours.

Sorry, no, I rejected the article you posted because I read it and it was nonsensical.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, no, I rejected the article you posted because I read it and it was nonsensical.

As did I yours.

 

[arthwollipot]

Should black people with sickle cell trait be treated the same as all the other recruits, with no regard for skin colour? Or is there "justification for discrimination" here?

Dying to serve: Dozens of recruits have died nationwide while training to become police officers

At least 29 recruits have died during basic training at law enforcement academies nationwide in the last decade.

apnews.com

“Training shouldn’t have one death, much less 29,” said David Jude, a retired Kentucky State Police academy commander and instructor. “To hear that number, it is shocking.”

Black recruits represented nearly 60% of those who died, a striking disparity given that federal data show Black officers make up 12% of local police forces. Many carried sickle cell trait, a condition most prevalent among Black Americans that increases the risk of serious injury following extreme exertion.

Overall, the deaths amount to a tiny percentage of the nation’s 800,000 sworn officers but highlight another hazard in a profession where shootings, car accidents and other dangers are part of the job.

AP’s tally shows the deaths have grown at a time when departments are tapping an older and more diverse pool of applicants to address officer shortages. More than two-thirds of the deaths occurred since 2020.

 

[jt512]

If it were that, then it would be. It isn't. This is just the racist "reverse discrimination" idiocy all over again. This time it didn't even put on a fancy hat.


Just imitating yours, mate, just imitating yours.


That's because that's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that inclusion is justifiable. You know, making sure that everybody gets a chance at the pie. Racists think that this means that white people get shorted by black people being included. Sexists think that this means that men get shorted by women being included. Transphobes think that this means that cis women get shorted by trans women being included. This is the argument that the Yearslong Campaign has so successfully hammered us over the head with in the service of racism, sexism and transphobia, and it's completely backwards. Completely!

The result is that programs that genuinely encourage diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility - all good things - are getting shut down in the name of antidiscrimination. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, it's always been ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, and it will continue to be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. But it's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that a huge number of people, including people here on this forum, have swallowed uncritically.

Here is a partial list of the evidence that DIE is discriminatory that I have "uncritically" accepted:

• Executive orders from Biden mandating racial preferences in hiring and grant funding in the federal government.
• An article in which a NASA administrator announcing that NASA will consider grant applications from minority scientists that do not meet the minimum score for funding.
• A statistical analysis of admissions to Harvard showing that admissions rates were as much as nine times higher for black applicants than for Asian applicants.

Arth has never even acknowledged this evidence, much less refute it.

In addition, I personally know of more instances that I can enumerate where lab supervisors, deans, or department chairs would only consider female or minority candidates for positions.

 

[jt512]

As did I yours.

My source claims that academics have been warning against the current backlash against DEI for decades, and lists over 80 examples of those warnings. That those warnings were made are verifiable facts.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here is a partial list of the evidence that DIE is discriminatory that I have "uncritically" accepted...

Nice typo there jt. At least I'm not dishonest enough to try to claim that it was some kind of Freudian slip.

Timestamps suggest otherwise.

Okay, you got me, I skimmed it. I came across the first AI-generated image and didn't think the rest would be worth a deep dive.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here is a partial list of the evidence that DIE is discriminatory that I have "uncritically" accepted:

• Executive orders from Biden mandating racial preferences in hiring and grant funding in the federal government.
• An article in which a NASA administrator announcing that NASA will consider grant applications from minority scientists that do not meet the minimum score for funding.
• A statistical analysis of admissions to Harvard showing that admissions rates were as much as nine times higher for black applicants than for Asian applicants.

Arth has never even acknowledged this evidence, much less refute it.

What justification do you have in framing these issues as "discrimination" and not "affirmative action"? Oh wait, do you believe that affirmative action is discrimination? You probably do, don't you? Do you even understand the reasoning behind affirmative action?

In addition, I personally know of more instances that I can enumerate where lab supervisors, deans, or department chairs would only consider female or minority candidates for positions.

That's nice. You realise your anecdotes are worthless, right? Especially given your demonstrated propensity to frame reasonable programs as the worst kind of discriminatory practice, as the Yearslong Campaign has trained you to do.

I challenge you to present one - just one - piece of actual evidence for a lab supervisor, dean, or department chair with a documented policy of only considering female or minority candidates for positions. Show me the policy that states it clearly: "Only female or minority candidates will be considered for this position". Show me that there is no justifiable reason for that policy. Or do you think that men are better candidates than women for positions in a Womens' Studies faculty? That white people are better candidates for a Black History course?

 

[arthwollipot]

My source claims that academics have been warning against the current backlash against DEI for decades, and lists over 80 examples of those warnings. That those warnings were made are verifiable facts.

Indeed. A Yearslong Campaign of warning against DEIA. I'm not denying that the warnings were made. I'm saying that the warnings have been part of a dedicated and deliberate campaign to discredit DEIA in order to circumvent civil rights and promote white cis hetero male supremacy.

 

[jt512]

Nice typo there jt. At least I'm not dishonest enough to try to claim that it was some kind of Freudian slip.

Probably not what you meant to imply, I'm guessing.

 

[arthwollipot]

Probably not what you meant to imply, I'm guessing.

I was actually referring to someone else, who a short while ago did not imply but stated outright that a typo on my part was a slip that showed I really believed the opposite of what I was professing. Not in this thread.

 

[jt512]

Indeed. A Yearslong Campaign of warning against DEIA. I'm not denying that the warnings were made. I'm saying that the warnings have been part of a dedicated and deliberate campaign to discredit DEIA in order to circumvent civil rights and promote white cis hetero male supremacy.

I am a co-author of several of the works Lee Jussim cites, and I know many of the other aurhors. I can assure you that neither I nor anyone I know among those authors has been a part of any sort of dedicated or deliberate campaign to discredit DEI, circumvent civl rights, or promote "white cis hetero male supremacy."

 

[arthwollipot]

I am a co-author of several of the works Lee Jussim cites, and I know many of the other aurhors. I can assure you that neither I nor anyone I know among those authors has been a part of any sort of dedicated or deliberate campaign to discredit DEI, circumvent civl rights, or promote "white cis hetero male supremacy."

So you say, but have not provided any evidence. And I have agreed that I will not ask you for evidence of your co-authorship of anything. But I will say this:

Not knowingly. But they, and you, have been manipulated into that position by the tremendously successful Yearslong Campaign to discredit and demonise DEIA.

Now, while it is fun to sit here and trade barbs with you, I do have to eat and sleep sometime. So I'm going to do that now. See you tomorrow.

 

[jt512]

What justification do you have in framing these issues as "discrimination" and not "affirmative action"?

They are considered discrimination under U.S. civil rights law, in particular, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I challenge you to present one - just one - piece of actual evidence for a lab supervisor, dean, or department chair with a documented policy of only considering female or minority candidates for positions. Show me the policy that states it clearly: "Only female or minority candidates will be considered for this position".

https://ca.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=2e83b0ceb74e46de&from=serp&vjs=3

Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering (Univ. of British Columbia): "Pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights Code,
this search will be restricted to qualified Black scholars."

Show me that there is no justifiable reason for that policy. Or do you think that men are better candidates than women for positions in a Womens' Studies faculty? That white people are better candidates for a Black History course?

This example (one of many) is for a civil engineer.

 

[jt512]

Not knowingly. But they, and you, have been manipulated into that position by the tremendously successful Yearslong Campaign to discredit and demonise DEIA.

That claim ought to help your credibility around here.

 

[Hercules56]

I want to try to be clear here, because I get that it's easy to misunderstand and make bad assumptions.

Yes, the US has a history of slavery and discrimination. But this gets treated as if it's something unique to the US, as if it didn't have any effects anywhere else. It's very frustrating. There's no scrutiny toward the Netherlands, Spain, France, or England - all of which were the dominant traders in slaves by Europeans, and all of which made a LOT of money off of it. And that's only addressing the caucasians involved, that's completely overlooking the Arabic and African nations that profited off of slavery for centuries before Europeans even started taking part.

And it handwaves away the fact that the US had strong factions opposing slavery from before we were even a country, with a pretty high number of Barkers and Quakers speaking out against it from the start while they were being actively persecuted and silenced for opposing it in European nations. It ignores that parts of Central and South America continued to have active slavery after it was abolished in the US. There are many parts of the world where segregation and legal discrimination continued concurrently with what happened in the US.

Slavery is bad, racial discrimination is bad. Yes, absolutely. But why is it that America ends up being the sole focus on this topic? Why is this somehow framed as something that doesn't happen elsewhere, sometimes much more blatantly and for longer?

We live in America, so we focus on America. The USA allowed racist, violent slavery to exist for almost 100 years after we proclaimed that all men were created equal and have the right to Liberty.

For 100 years after slavery ended, we allowed a terrible system of second class citizenship for millions of people where they suffered terrible discrimination and persecution.

We have never really truly tried to fix a problem that we created and we own.

The legacy of slavery and segregation is still very alive in the USA and if we don't really try to fix it that legacy will last another 100 years.

 

[theprestige]

The DEI-hostile crowd are still falsely framing equity and inclusion as discrimination.

No. We're correctly framing DEI programs and policies in the US as increasingly discriminatory, while hiding behind noble words to fool well-meaning laypeople.

 

[theprestige]

Here is a partial list of the evidence that DIE is discriminatory that I have "uncritically" accepted:

• Executive orders from Biden mandating racial preferences in hiring and grant funding in the federal government.
• An article in which a NASA administrator announcing that NASA will consider grant applications from minority scientists that do not meet the minimum score for funding.
• A statistical analysis of admissions to Harvard showing that admissions rates were as much as nine times higher for black applicants than for Asian applicants.

Arth has never even acknowledged this evidence, much less refute it.

In addition, I personally know of more instances that I can enumerate where lab supervisors, deans, or department chairs would only consider female or minority candidates for positions.

Don't forget the explicitly discriminatory hiring practices for air traffic controllers, resulting in short staffing and overworked staff.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The DEI-hostile crowd are still falsely framing equity and inclusion as discrimination.

It would be really refreshing if you would actually bother to read and understand what's being said instead of resorting to ad-hominem.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's because that's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that inclusion is justifiable.

You can rename racial discrimination whatever you like, but it's still racial discrimination, and you still aren't able to justify it.

Racists think that this means that white people get shorted by black people being included.

I think that white people get shorted when white people aren't included. Which is happening under DEI. And which you refuse to actually address.

If you really think discrimination is bad, then you should be full-throated in supporting DEIA programs.

Given that DEI explicitly engages in racial discrimination, why on earth would I support it?

Instead, you fixate on those cases where DEIA was used by bad-faith actors

They aren't bad-faith actors. They're enacting DEI as it was meant to be enacted.

"Reverse discrimination" is an easier soundbite than "intersectional approach to cultural and systems change" for those who think it's too hard to understand words.

"Inclusion" is a nice euphemism for racial discrimination for those who think they can disguise the truth.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Is so!"
"Is not!"

How many rounds before y'all realize you disagree on a premise and nobody can be convinced to change their mind simply by being told "no, that's wrong!" I'm betting fifty more pages at least.

I dunno, I hear you... but I'm inclined to keep arguing until our interlocutors stop resorting to the sophomoric tactic of insinuating that we're all evil bigots that just want to hurt brown people. It's a stupid, thoughtless, vapid argument, and it's pretty blatant mischaracterization and strawmanning. If that would cease, and we could have a reasonable interaction in good faith, I'd be happy to agree to disagree.

But if you go back through this, you'll see that those of us who aren't all ga-ga about DEI policies agree that racism and bigotry does exist and should be combatted, all have a pretty strong commitment to evaluating people on the basis of their skills, competency, and character without any consideration of their race, sex, or orientation... or any other surface-level difference that has no bearing on them as an individual. We pretty much all agree that the intention is well-meaning, but the execution is fundamentally wrong and is inherently discriminatory.

On the other hand... those who are all in for DEI haven't provided any recognition of the intentions or values we hold, and have instead repeatedly fallen back on childish assertions that we want all the jobs to go to white males and we are just boorish racists who want brown people to suffer and be excluded.

One of these groups presents well-reasoned arguments with an eye to long-term equality of opportunity; the other presents insults and name-calling dressed up in virtue.