Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[Ziggurat]

Good, because that does not happen.

You can deny it happens, but it does. Quite often. Do you really need more examples?

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.

Maybe you can find such a person, but that doesn't change anything. Race-based admissions to Harvard violate merit-based decision-making. Race-exclusive scholarships and programs violate merit-based decision-making. Pretending they don't happen won't make them not happen.

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.

The intent is not the issue (and people can lie about that anyways). The actual facts on the ground are. When you have a race-exclusive scholarship, that's racial discrimination. That's not merit based.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Does this apply to sports?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.)

Realistically, having someone of "Native American" background as a priority when trying to get a study done in the Navajo Nation is kind of overlooking some reality. I mean, "Native American" is a really big category... it's like saying "Someone of Asian Ancestry" to do a study on Korean restaurants - Mongolians, Sri Lankans, and Indonesians are all "asian", but are not useful when you're talking to people who are Korean. Sending in a Seminole or an Inuit is probably worse than sending in some run of the mill researcher who happens to be low on melanin.

More importantly, however, is that there's genuinely no need to have someone of "Native American" background at all. What you *do* need is to coordinate with the Bureau or Indian Affairs and the Navajo Tribal Council to get approval.

[generalized gripe]​

It really irritates me when the proponents of DEI and all sorts of other approaches to minority advancement make the supremely short-sighted mistake of just assuming people can be easily slipped into a categorical group based on their skin color, and absolutely fail to grasp the importance of culture and tradition that really ought to be foremost. FFS, I live in an area with a high "hispanic" population... but they're not all the same, and in many cases they have long-standing gripes with each other. It's useful to know whether you're talking to people with a Mexican background or a Guatemalan background. If you live in South Florida, you sure as hell better be able to adapt and switch between culturally appropriate behaviors for Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Colombians, as well as be able to grasp that Brazilians don't even speak ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ spanish!​

​

Seriously, the way some of you white people casually group together all black people, as if "black people" is some useful characterization that has meaning beyond the superficiality of skin color is really frustrating. High melanin people with roots in Atlanta are not identical to those with roots in Detroit, who are not identical to those with roots in LA. And not a one of those bears any meaningful similarity to people who are first or second generation immigrants from Senegal!​

​

Some of the people most obsessed with DEI are the absolute worst about putting people into neatly labeled little boxes with no actual understanding of those people at all. It's sorting by largely superficial means and it's incredibly discriminatory - all in the name of opposing discrimination. Even all white people end up lumped together into one huge pile without any actual knowledge being employed, as if someone from Appalachia and someone from San Francisco are totally the same, let alone someone from Nova Scotia or Minnesota.​

​

DEI-advocates really need to stop pre-judging people based on their surface-level attributes​

[/generalized gripe]​

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.

That would be awesome if it were reasonable. Part of what we're seeing is that some people refuse to make the distinction at all, and just assume that anything that calls itself DEI is definitionally good and noble.

 

[Emily's Cat]

People who take a DEI policy of not having bias and apply bias in another direction are not following the policy against bias.

You're assuming that all DEI programs have a policy of not having bias and not applying bias - but this is demonstrably not the case. There are DEI programs that have a policy of explicitly applying bias in a particular direction... and they're absolutely following policy when they do so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.”

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

I detest malicious compliance, it's childish.

That said... I'm also pretty sure that this chairman didn't go home and have a complete meltdown and feel like they'd been abused and harmed by it. More likely just left thinking "what a twat".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Yes

Denied a bank loan?

Several times

Asked to leave the pool area?

Yep

Nah; only happens to brown people, and thus, DEI policies are justified.

False.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Race-exclusive scholarships and programs violate merit-based decision-making.

FWIW, I have no objection to PRIVATE scholarships using whatever exclusionary criteria they want to. I have serious problems with PUBLIC funding or entities doing so.

 

[Andy_Ross]

At Apple's 2025 annual meeting of shareholders today, proposal entitled “Request to Cease DEI Efforts" by right-wing National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) is rejected by shareholders.

Apple board: “Apple has a well-established compliance program and the proposal inappropriately attempts to restrict Apple’s ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies."

The same NCPPR proposal was also rejected by Costco shareholders 98-2 percent just recently. 19 Republican attorneys general sent a letter to Costco demanding the company repeal its DEI practices following the vote.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Does this apply to sports?

Yes.

As would be the case in an idealized Olympics (eg. equal training facilities even in tiny nations), you get a skewed result in medals based on physical traits which correlate strongly with athletic performance in any given sport (eg. only certain body types are optimal for distance running). A broad, diverse and inclusive selection of the world's population results in the best athletes winning (merit), provided the sample size is sufficient and enough trials are run, even if the end results are seemingly ironically skewed(!). This is naturally so, as body type impacts performance strongly, and sports favor rare physical extremes within those groups. (There is a question as to whether or not Olympic sports test all possible forms of physical prowess, meaning some excellence goes unrecognized, further skewing results toward only certain groups.)

This is why you need DEI programs, which, like an ideal Olympics, ensure the sample size is great enough such that merit wins the day, which owing to structural and cultural reasons, may otherwise be artificially restricted, artificially skewing results.

How this works out when any given group is not provided equal opportunity at early and successive developmental stages, especially over generations, is a matter of remedial policy... in order to restore meritocracy. Huh? Why is this not a contradiction?

Successive denial of opportunity is self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating, particularly in shaping expectations, a powerful motivator affecting whether and how parents engage with the very young, in turn affecting learning and effective IQ performance (acquired algorithms, Flynn effect). Remedial action is justified on the basis of the long term result, ie, a population which, after such redress, maximizes its natural talent and potential across the board, the now common and shared expectation being that hard work and talent are fairly rewarded. Failure or lesser performance can be properly assigned to oneself, not circumstance. (ETA: Like the Olympics, economic life does not test all manner of human capacity, and therefore there can be much of great worth that is not valued.)

TL;DR: Affirmative action is a corrective measure to restore normalcy over time to the general population, allowing better performance results, all else being equal. (May result in flurries and melting snowflakes, YMMV.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Tim Cook statement following the vote


I see there's a question here about inclusion and diversity at Apple, so let me talk a little bit about how we see things here.
We've never had quotas or targets for Apple. Our strength has always come from hiring the very best people and then providing a culture of collaboration, one where people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives come together to innovate and create something magical for our users time and time again. Our unique culture enables us to create the best products and services in the world.
Now, as the legal landscape around these issues evolves, we may need to make some changes to comply. But our North Star of dignity and respect for everyone, and our work to that end will never waver. We'll continue to work together to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work, and we'll remain committed to the values that have always made us who we are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

At Apple's 2025 annual meeting of shareholders today, proposal entitled “Request to Cease DEI Efforts" by right-wing National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) is rejected by shareholders.

Apple board: “Apple has a well-established compliance program and the proposal inappropriately attempts to restrict Apple’s ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies."

The same NCPPR proposal was also rejected by Costco shareholders 98-2 percent just recently. 19 Republican attorneys general sent a letter to Costco demanding the company repeal its DEI practices following the vote.

Well that's dumb. Private companies can have whatever programs they want, provided they don't run afoul of actual laws. But there aren't any laws pertaining to DEI training and education, even if it's poorly thought out and divisive training and education.

Public entities, or use of public funds... that's a different matter altogether.

 

[arthwollipot]

I saw this on my social media and couldn't help thinking of this thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well that's dumb. Private companies can have whatever programs they want, provided they don't run afoul of actual laws. But there aren't any laws pertaining to DEI training and education, even if it's poorly thought out and divisive training and education.

Public entities, or use of public funds... that's a different matter altogether.

One of Trumps first EOs on day one was to make a list of the largest private entities and corporations that have DEI policies and make them drop them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

deleted

 

[Emily's Cat]

One of Trumps first EOs on day one was to make a list of the largest private entities and corporations that have DEI policies and make them drop them.

Are you talking about this?

Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:Section 1. Purpose.

www.whitehouse.gov

It doesn't include a list of private entities, nor does it make anyone drop any DEI policies that they have - provided those policies do not violate civil rights laws. The closest it comes to your framing is to ask each federal agency to identify the most egregious entities within their jurisdiction that is engaged in illegal discrimination or preferencing, so that civil rights enforcement policies can be developed.

 

[theprestige]

One of Trumps first EOs on day one was to make a list of the largest private entities and corporations that have DEI policies and make them drop them.

This never happened. Stop telling lies.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, glad that Musk and Trump have replaced nagging overbearing HR departments who are constantly singling out particular groups of people to justify their existence with.... making sure that everyone gets a nagging overbearing HR department demanding employees justify their existence.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Executive Order 14173:​

Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity​

Document by the Executive Office of the President on 01/31/2025​

Section Sec. 4/b

A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars

(v) Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and

(vi) Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

 

[theprestige]

Executive Order 14173:​

Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity​

Document by the Executive Office of the President on 01/31/2025​

Section Sec. 4/b

A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars

(v) Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and

(vi) Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

Which is not what you described.

 

[Trausti]

Successive denial of opportunity is self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating, particularly in shaping expectations, a powerful motivator affecting whether and how parents engage with the very young, in turn affecting learning and effective IQ performance (acquired algorithms, Flynn effect). Remedial action is justified on the basis of the long term result, ie, a population which, after such redress, maximizes its natural talent and potential across the board, the now common and shared expectation being that hard work and talent are fairly rewarded. Failure or lesser performance can be properly assigned to oneself, not circumstance. (ETA: Like the Olympics, economic life does not test all manner of human capacity, and therefore there can be much of great worth that is not valued.)

It's entirely unclear why a person's race or sex should have anything to do with equal opportunity. You can't measure opportunity by outcomes.