Split Thread DEI in the US

[d4m10n]

My wrong indeed.

 

[arthwollipot]

So they're both hammers, right? And in fact, they're both sledge-type hammers. But you wouldn't use a sledgehammer for a task for which a lump hammer is suited, would you? They're both hammers, which means that they are both suited to the purpose of hammering things. But they are best suited for different kinds of hammering.

In this analogy, DEI is "hammer". AA is "lump hammer". They're both hammers, but there are a variety of different hammers that can be used for hammering things, of which a lump hammer is one specific type.

Right?

 

[d4m10n]

I am persuaded that the hammers are indeed different types of hammers, but unpersuaded by analogy from the hammers to AA & DEI.

Suppose someone described efforts to "identify, select, and train potentially qualified minorities and women" as DEI rather than AA, and someone else said those are classic AA.

Is there some way to say who is correct?

 

[arthwollipot]

I am persuaded that the hammers are indeed different types of hammers, but unpersuaded by analogy from the hammers to AA & DEI.

Turns out that no metaphor is perfect.

Suppose someone described efforts to "identify, select, and train potentially qualified minorities and women" as DEI rather than AA, and someone else said those are classic AA.

Is there some way to say who is correct?

Define "correct".

 

[d4m10n]

adjective: Free from error; true; accurate.

 

[arthwollipot]

adjective: Free from error; true; accurate.

And who decides what is "true" or "accurate" in this context? Is there an objective unquestionable canon that lays out the precise and exact definitions of all the terms, indisputably and authoritatively, that is unambiguous and acceptable to all? No. Why should there be?

In your example,

Suppose someone described efforts to "identify, select, and train potentially qualified minorities and women" as DEI rather than AA, and someone else said those are classic AA.

I'd say that this statement is both, since AA is also DEI, but DEI is not always AA.

 

[d4m10n]

And who decides what is "true" or "accurate" in this context?

The question was addressed to you, so…choose your own adventure.

AA is also DEI

If AA is also DEI, then I can rest assured that any discussion of Affirmative Action programs is on topic here and probably won't get AAH binned for derailing.

DEI is not always AA

Just out of curiosity—now that both are on topic—what would be a practical example of DEI that wasn't performed under the aegis of AA?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Just out of curiosity—now that both are on topic—what would be a practical example of DEI that wasn't performed under the aegis of AA?

I have already given examples of a university's effort to increase the diversity of its student body without creating any particular policy of affirmative action that would favor any particular group of applicants. Without getting into the details of particular applications, I can state (as an example) that (as a member of the admissions committee) I saw an application from some apparent redneck whose essay was riddled with grammatical and spelling errors being taken more seriously than an application from a big-city person of color whose perfectly grammatical and perfectly spelled essay generated concerns that the essay was not actually written by someone with that individual's test scores.

I apologize for responding with an example that's on topic.

 

[d4m10n]

I have already given examples of a university's effort to increase the diversity of its student body without creating any particular policy of affirmative action that would favor any particular group of applicants.

Efforts to increase the diversity of any group of people requires identifying specific groups which are underrepresented and then taking some (affirmative) actions to remedy imbalances which are considered worth addressing. The example you gave doesn't seem to be about that, unless your institution was worried about having too few students of rural extraction.

 

[arthwollipot]

If AA is also DEI, then I can rest assured that any discussion of Affirmative Action programs is on topic here and probably won't get AAH binned for derailing.

Of course. Why would it?

Just out of curiosity—now that both are on topic—what would be a practical example of DEI that wasn't performed under the aegis of AA?

I've already linked to it many times.

 

[d4m10n]

You linked to an official website which discussed the same sorts of efforts mentioned in the Affirmative Action wiki which I linked to earlier.

I even gave examples of parallel language and goals at the top of page 32.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Efforts to increase the diversity of any group of people requires identifying specific groups which are underrepresented and then taking some (affirmative) actions to remedy imbalances which are considered worth addressing. The example you gave doesn't seem to be about that, unless your institution was worried about having too few students of rural extraction.

It sounds as though you weren't there, so you don't have any idea of what my institution was worried about.

Not that you care, but one of the several things my institution was worried about was the preponderance of Asians among our MS students. (Undergraduate admissions were handled by the university, but graduate admissions were the responsibility of colleges and departments.) Indians accounted for the vast majority of applications, and for a majority of admissions. They tended to pay their own way, so the college had a financial incentive to admit a lot of them, but there were drawbacks. When it was observed that Indian students accounted for a number of academic honesty cases out of proportion to their numbers, it became a problem recognized by the honest majority of Indian students themselves; they wanted us to crack down on the cheaters lest it create a stigma against which they would have to struggle. (That was a legitimate concern, as you can tell from this paragraph.) One of the faculty conducted a quasi-quantitative study to see whether we were admitting so many Indian students because they were better than non-Asian students, or for other reasons (e.g. financial). When it turned out that the admissions committee's ratings of Indian applicants tended to be over-optimistic, the committee began to take a more skeptical view of such applicants. That de-affirmative action had the effect of creating more room for non-Asian applicants, resulting in greater diversity among the population of MS students.

That increase in diversity appeared to be welcomed even by Indian students, because it cut down on the number of weak students who were trying to get through the program by cheating. The increased diversity seemed to make the non-Asian minority happier as well.

I emphasize again that the great majority of Indian students were honest. They were so honest they wanted us to act against the minority of Indian students who were cheating. That led, very indirectly, to recalibration of admissions standards, partly by ways of a more informed evaluation of what the degrees and grades given by Indian universities really mean, and by a better appreciation of which Indian universities have a record of turning out good students and which don't.

One of the reasons I'm using this as an example is that some have suggested universities discriminate against Asian applicants. As a general rule, generalizations are ill-informed and/or over-broad.

 

[jt512]

It sounds as though you weren't there, so you don't have any idea of what my institution was worried about.

Not that you care, but one of the several things my institution was worried about was the preponderance of Asians among our MS students. (Undergraduate admissions were handled by the university, but graduate admissions were the responsibility of colleges and departments.) Indians accounted for the vast majority of applications, and for a majority of admissions. They tended to pay their own way, so the college had a financial incentive to admit a lot of them, but there were drawbacks. When it was observed that Indian students accounted for a number of academic honesty cases out of proportion to their numbers, it became a problem recognized by the honest majority of Indian students themselves; they wanted us to crack down on the cheaters lest it create a stigma against which they would have to struggle. (That was a legitimate concern, as you can tell from this paragraph.) One of the faculty conducted a quasi-quantitative study to see whether we were admitting so many Indian students because they were better than non-Asian students, or for other reasons (e.g. financial). When it turned out that the admissions committee's ratings of Indian applicants tended to be over-optimistic, the committee began to take a more skeptical view of such applicants. That de-affirmative action had the effect of creating more room for non-Asian applicants, resulting in greater diversity among the population of MS students.

That increase in diversity appeared to be welcomed even by Indian students, because it cut down on the number of weak students who were trying to get through the program by cheating. The increased diversity seemed to make the non-Asian minority happier as well.

I emphasize again that the great majority of Indian students were honest. They were so honest they wanted us to act against the minority of Indian students who were cheating. That led, very indirectly, to recalibration of admissions standards, partly by ways of a more informed evaluation of what the degrees and grades given by Indian universities really mean, and by a better appreciation of which Indian universities have a record of turning out good students and which don't.

One of the reasons I'm using this as an example is that some have suggested universities discriminate against Asian applicants. As a general rule, generalizations are ill-informed and/or over-broad.

Nice story. Has nothing to do with DEI, but, still, nice story.

 

[arthwollipot]

You linked to an official website which discussed the same sorts of efforts mentioned in the Affirmative Action wiki which I linked to earlier.

I even gave examples of parallel language and goals at the top of page 32.

Did you read any of the bits that weren't parallel to the wiki article?

 

[d4m10n]

That de-affirmative action had the effect of creating more room for non-Asian applicants, resulting in greater diversity among the population of MS students.

If the point of the excercise was to increase racial and/or ethnic diversity by changing the admissions process, that still falls under the rubric of Affirmative Action.

 

[d4m10n]

Did you read any of the bits that weren't parallel to the wiki article?

I clicked around a bit and didn't find any.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Just out of curiosity—now that both are on topic—what would be a practical example of DEI that wasn't performed under the aegis of AA?

When I gave a practical example of DEI that (as it seemed to me) wasn't performed under the aegis of AA, my example was disputed by two of this thread's participants:

Nice story. Has nothing to do with DEI, but, still, nice story.

If the point of the excercise was to increase racial and/or ethnic diversity by changing the admissions process, that still falls under the rubric of Affirmative Action.

If it were possible to take both @jt512 and @d4m10n seriously, my story would be an example of AA that has nothing to do with DEI.

It is true that an example of (1) AA that has nothing to do with DEI is not an example of (2) DEI that has nothing to do with AA. I believe my story fell into category (2). @jt512 and @d4m10n apparently think my story falls into category (1).

It is also possible that @d4m10n does not take @jt512 seriously, or vice versa. I'll leave that for them to sort out.

 

[d4m10n]

my story would be an example of AA that has nothing to do with DEI.

"DEI policies include Affirmative Action," he said, quoting from the wiki yet again.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

"DEI policies include Affirmative Action" he said, quoting from the wiki yet again.

So it is @d4m10n who does not take @jt512 seriously. Glad we got that sorted.

 

[d4m10n]

How weird to believe that anyone who was wrong about anything at any time cannot be taken seriously.