Split Thread DEI in the US

[wareyin]

It's good to hear from people who admit that they don't know the difference between things that have been repeatedly explained in this thread. Why, the opinion of someone who can't be bothered to read the thread AND admits he doesn't know what he is talking about when he gives this vague story of a conversation he had 51 years ago tells me I don't even need to pay any attention to it.

Beyond that, using a story from 1975 to critique modern DEI is intellectually lazy. That was an era when the environment in medical schools was notoriously hostile toward women. Attributing those failures to a lack of merit while ignoring the systemic alienation and lack of support they faced at the time just shows you do not understand the history any better than you understand the terminology.

 

[Trausti]

I am not sure of any difference between DEI and affirmative action, but I suspect this applies to both.

I would think the difference is that with DEI there is racial animus against White people (especially males). Affirmative Action was about set asides and quotas, not a religion where being White is an irredeemable original sin.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am not sure of any difference between DEI and affirmative action, but I suspect this applies to both.

Affirmative action can be a part of DEI, but it doesn't have to be.

I would think the difference is that with DEI there is racial animus against White people (especially males). Affirmative Action was about set asides and quotas, not a religion where being White is an irredeemable original sin.

You're just wrong.

Affirmative action means that you go out of your way to offer opportunities to people who were never getting them before.

 

[Trausti]

You're just wrong.

Affirmative action means that you go out of your way to offer opportunities to people who were never getting them before.

No. Affirmative action means set asides based on race or sex without any consideration of individual circumstances.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. Affirmative action means set asides based on race or sex without any consideration of individual circumstances.

No, that's wrong. That's a lie told to you by rightist propagandists.

Why aren't you angry about being lied to? You're being treated like a fool - a tool in the culture war. That should upset you.

 

[Trausti]

No, that's wrong. That's a lie told to you by rightist propagandists.

Why aren't you angry about being lied to? You're being treated like a fool - a tool in the culture war. That should upset you.

I'm not wrong. The winning factor is always the person's race. The one who has been lied to is you. There's no other explanation for this:

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not wrong. The winning factor is always the person's race. The one who has been lied to is you. There's no other explanation for this:

The explanation for that is that historically minorities have been under-represented in the medical profession due to discrimination. Now that they are no longer discriminated against, they are able to enter into these schools like they were always supposed to.

This graph is from 2016 - the beginning of Trump's first presidency and ten years ago. Do you have any more up-to-date data? Does it show the reversion back to the pre-affirmative action numbers, where white people dominated and minorities were almost nonexistent?

 

[Trausti]

The explanation for that is that historically minorities have been under-represented in the medical profession due to discrimination.

Maybe it's worth recalling that Affirmative Action in the US was blessed by the 1978 Bakke decision. SCOTUS then said it was okay to deny admission to the qualified White medical school applicant, Allen Bakke, in favor of lesser qualified non-White candidates to promote diversity. Bakke was unable to become a doctor. The non-White applicant who was chosen over him at that time, Patrick Chavis, did become a doctor. His medical license was later revoked due to gross incompetence (he was quite terrible). SCOTUS has since changed its view.

 

[Trausti]

This graph is from 2016 - the beginning of Trump's first presidency and ten years ago. Do you have any more up-to-date data? Does it show the reversion back to the pre-affirmative action numbers, where white people dominated and minorities were almost nonexistent?

I believe that since the 2023 SCOTUS opinion, the numbers are different, yes.

 

[arthwollipot]

Maybe it's worth recalling that Affirmative Action in the US was blessed by the 1978 Bakke decision. SCOTUS then said it was okay to deny admission to the qualified White medical school applicant, Allen Bakke, in favor of lesser qualified non-White candidates to promote diversity. Bakke was unable to become a doctor. The non-White applicant who was chosen over him at that time, Patrick Chavis, did become he doctor. His medical license was later revoked due to gross incompetence (he was quite terrible). SCOTUS has since changed its view.

I've read about the decision, and two things stand out to me:

1. Bakke was rejected because of age, not because he was white. Medical schools practiced age discrimination at the time, and though he was qualified, he was 33 when he applied, which was above the limit at at least two institutions.
2. Chavis had a successful 15-year career as an Ob/Gyn and only declined in competence after changing specialities to cosmetic surgery. He was not underqualified when he was admitted.

I don't think this case is the slam-dunk you present it as.

 

[Trausti]

I've read about the decision, and two things stand out to me:

1. Bakke was rejected because of age, not because he was white. Medical schools practiced age discrimination at the time, and though he was qualified, he was 33 when he applied, which was above the limit at at least two institutions.
2. Chavis had a successful 15-year career as an Ob/Gyn and only declined in competence after changing specialities to cosmetic surgery. He was not underqualified when he was admitted.

I don't think this case is the slam-dunk you present it as.

If that were true, then he wouldn't have needed special admission.

 

[arthwollipot]

If that were true, then he wouldn't have needed special admission.

He didn't. He just needed an opportunity to open up.

 

[Walter]

It's good to hear from people who admit that they don't know the difference between things that have been repeatedly explained in this thread. Why, the opinion of someone who can't be bothered to read the thread AND admits he doesn't know what he is talking about when he gives this vague story of a conversation he had 51 years ago tells me I don't even need to pay any attention to it.

Beyond that, using a story from 1975 to critique modern DEI is intellectually lazy. That was an era when the environment in medical schools was notoriously hostile toward women. Attributing those failures to a lack of merit while ignoring the systemic alienation and lack of support they faced at the time just shows you do not understand the history any better than you understand the terminology.

Wonderful response. I suspect the effects are similar even if defined differently, but that would be intellectually lazy.

I suspect my friend had a vague understanding of the history of medicine, her father being an ophthalmologist.

Was my friend's anger justified? I think it was.

How do you respond to the fact that she had no choice but to be a member of the failing demographic? If based on merit, there would have been no demographics. The percentage of females would have been lower, but all qualified.

 

[arthwollipot]

Beyond that, using a story from 1975 to critique modern DEI is intellectually lazy. That was an era when the environment in medical schools was notoriously hostile toward women. Attributing those failures to a lack of merit while ignoring the systemic alienation and lack of support they faced at the time just shows you do not understand the history any better than you understand the terminology.

Additionally, the 1970s were a time when the basic concepts of affirmative action were only just beginning to flicker into peoples' minds. Of course there were hiccups and missteps.