• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

TomB said:
There are some people who see the one above and decide instead to favor a minority. These people are not following the DEI policy.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. You're doing a no true Scotsman here. Maybe not all DEI is racially discriminatory, but some of it absolutely 100% is.
TomB said:
There are some posters on this board who may say some of the things I listed are not DEI because it doesn't match up with what they consider to be DEI. Those posters are incorrect. There are many ways in which DEI have been implemented.
Click to expand...
This is a bit ironic, since you're trying to deny that DEI policies can be racially discriminatory because you don't consider that to be DEI. But they can be, and in numerous cases they are. Those cases aren't one-offs either, they're pretty common.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, they are. You're doing a no true Scotsman here. Maybe not all DEI is racially discriminatory, but some of it absolutely 100% is.

This is a bit ironic, since you're trying to deny that DEI policies can be racially discriminatory because you don't consider that to be DEI. But they can be, and in numerous cases they are. Those cases aren't one-offs either, they're pretty common.
Click to expand...
To the first point, you are simply wrong. People who take a DEI policy of not having bias and apply bias in another direction are not following the policy against bias. I’m not doing a “No true Scotsman” because I’m pointing out a specific policy and a specific violation. I’m not saying that DEI for bias isn’t a form of DEI. It’s covered in another point.

To the second, try reading for comprehension. Where have I said or tried to deny that DEI policies can be racially discriminatory? They absolutely can. But not always.

Please try to respond to what I actually say, rather than what you want to argue against.

Refraining from snarky comment about bias and assumptions in reading posts. Or maybe not.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Sigh. I'm not familiar with the work you're probably referencing but I can extrapolate what it's about, and --another sigh-- you missed the point. Othello's race is central to the character and the plot of the play, it is a necessary characteristic. The historical Anne Boleyn happened to be white, sure, but it's not central to her character in a fictionalized representation of history, even an accurate one, is it? Did the historical Anne Boleyn make a big deal of being white? Was it a thing about her that was a big deal, and affected what happened to her?

eta: and to forestall: yes, it works for white people too. A "King and I" production where the main character isn't foreign to Siam wouldn't make sense. Another "Dances With Wolves" isn't going to cast a Native American for the Kevin Costner role because that wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Anne Boleyn was a real person. There are portraits of her. She wasn't make believe.
 
TomB said:
I caught the tail end of an interview with the director of the Illinois State Police last night on NPR. He was asked about the "30 by 30" program in light of the anti-DEI initiatives. ("30 by 30" is an objective that females make up 30% of new recruits by the year 2030. I didn't hear the full answer, but the this is the gist I got:
  • The "30 by 30" initiative has nothing to do with DEI. It has to do with addressing needs to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement.
  • There are a lot of different groups of people in Illinois.
  • Law enforcement needs an extensive toolset in order to effectively deal with the various groups.
  • He talked about building trust a lot.
  • It's a useful tool for law enforcement to be made up of these various groups. (I didn't hear past this point, but I assume it made it easier to build trust, which facilitates communication and cooperation.)
Not mentioned in the part of the interview that I heard, but an example I extrapolate from that is that female officers are likely to be more effective at interviewing rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence victims.

Similarly, extending to the field, I'm in, an argument that sometimes one's demographics can be a tool that assists in other areas, such as data collection. Supposes I want to run a drinking and well water study on a Navajo Reservation. I can't do it, if I can't get people to voluntarily let my sample collector onto their property and into their home. It might be of value to specifically prefer someone of native American background when making the hire. It's an additional qualification. (Now, we've never made such a consideration, but in retrospect such a consideration probably would have helped improve access and the amount and quality of data we were able to collect.) (And, no we haven't collected data from a Navajo reservation. But we have in minority communities in Chicago.)

There are some places that do DEI by giving an advantage in hiring. If there is no benefit to doing so, I disagree with that.

There are some places (here) that do DEI by trying to ensure that everyone gets fair consideration by warning about biases. I agree with that.

There are some people who see the one above and decide instead to favor a minority. These people are not following the DEI policy.

There are some places (here) that do DEI by trying to advertise so that the applicant pool is as diverse as possible, but give no preference in the hiring process. I agree with that.

There are some places (here) where DEI does things like provide for feminine needs in bathrooms. I agree with that.

There are some places (here) where a major DEI function is to make sure that all employees have a non-hostile work environment. I agree with that.

There are some posters on this board who may say some of the things I listed are not DEI because it doesn't match up with what they consider to be DEI. Those posters are incorrect. There are many ways in which DEI have been implemented. Those posters are not the arbiters of the definition, and neither are the authors they cite as examples. Looking at the real world, DEI is a broad concept that includes some good implementations and some bad. Go after the bad implementations, but don't punish the good ones in the process.
Click to expand...
At this point, I think the label DEI itself is the problem, because it is too associated with the bad DEI of Robin DiAngelo and her ilk. Personally, I agree with you on each of the "There are some places" examples.
 
arthwollipot said:
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".
Click to expand...
jt512 said:
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."
Click to expand...
No response from Arth. I guess I should have said, "Show you one example of 'Only female or minority candidates will be considered for this position' and you'll do what? Admit I've been right about what real-life DEI looks like?"
 
Last edited:
Brilliant, give it back to them.

Mister Madame Chairman isn't happy

Wyoming

“Thank you, Madam chairman.”
“I prefer ‘Mister’ chairman.”
“Well you all voted preferred pronouns cannot be compelled speech.”

bsky.app

The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social)

WYOMING: “Thank you, Madam chairman.” “I prefer ‘Mister’ chairman.” “Well you all voted preferred pronouns cannot be compelled speech.”
bsky.app bsky.app
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Brilliant, give it back to them.

Mister Madame Chairman isn't happy

Wyoming

“Thank you, Madam chairman.”
“I prefer ‘Mister’ chairman.”
“Well you all voted preferred pronouns cannot be compelled speech.”

bsky.app

The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social)

WYOMING: “Thank you, Madam chairman.” “I prefer ‘Mister’ chairman.” “Well you all voted preferred pronouns cannot be compelled speech.”
bsky.app bsky.app
Click to expand...
Notice how the chairman didn't threaten to kill himself
 
arthwollipot said:
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I do wish you'd stop doing that.
Click to expand...
It's where your arguments lead. They're objectively pro-racism.

Every time you get pressed on this point, you affect confusion about terminology, or resort to vile name-calling. Just once I'd like to see you own your argument, end to end.
 
Today I learnt that some people think that politely stating a preference can be spoken of in the same breath as threatening suicide, involving the police and human resources and upending someone's life.
 
At the CPAC conference today, Trump blamed our massive deficit and debt on govt funding for transgender treatment.
 
Emily's Cat said:
This seems to contradict your argument tough. NFL (or MLB for that matter) didn't institute any policies in order to focus on black (or any other race) and make sure they were represented. They didn't implement any "DEI" policies, or any "antiracist" approaches. All they did was literally stop discriminating and look at skill alone. That's all.
Click to expand...
Formal policies and informal policies are different in that the latter are purely cultural and a matter of habit (bias and resulting discrimination). Both can do harm, the latter via oppressive memes that lower children's and others' expectations of themselves.

DEI itself can be understood as a proper derivation following from arguments for political equality, and is thus an informal, personal understanding. DEI as law or regulation should be understood as the policy means for achieving political equality, justified by that personal understanding becoming common and shared.

Mistaken or overbearing policies relating to DEI do not invalidate its foundational underpinnings in political philosophy, but those few (assumed) cases have no real bearing on foundational issues.

As used in current American political discourse, DEI is taken to mean "systemic White oppression", a laughable proposition. Ever get pulled over for driving while White? Denied a bank loan? Asked to leave the pool area? Nah; only happens to brown people, and thus, DEI policies are justified.
 
Ziggurat said:
The children of poor white trash parents don't need to be discriminated against even if their ancestors were slave owners.
Click to expand...
Good, because that does not happen.

The assumption that DEI policy violates merit-based decision-making is not valid. I can find an African mathematician right now who will beat 99.99% of all potential candidates. Ditto a materials scientist from London by way of Lahore. Meritocracy is a guarantor of DEI, properly implemented. The only thing fouling it up is the existence of artificial national boundaries in restraint of free trade, restricting local talent pools at times and in places.

Bottom line, it is exceedingly difficult to make the argument that DEI is intended to do anything more than level the playing field and make the "teams in play" representative of the general population.

As for back holler bozos, ancestry is only one of their problems, though certainly a big one, genetically speaking. Case in point: Kentucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom