Split Thread DEI in the US

[theprestige]

I thought that was what you were going to say.

In other words, the answer is no, you don't understand why women's retreats exist.

I just have very little interest in pseudosocratic dialog. If you have an argument to make, from the necessity of women's retreats of some kind, to a justification of this particular retreat, make it.

 

[d4m10n]

Hopefully someone will be willing to non-Socratically make the case for female-only (or more likely cisgender plus transgender women only) retreats as a useful tool in the DEI toolbox which should not be barred by relevant antidiscrimination laws regarding disparate treatment based on sex.

 

[arthwollipot]

I just have very little interest in pseudosocratic dialog. If you have an argument to make, from the necessity of women's retreats of some kind, to a justification of this particular retreat, make it.

It's never had any effect before, so why should I bother now?

 

[theprestige]

It's never had any effect before, so why should I bother now?

I'm sure you've changed my mind, or at least convinced me to reconsider my position, more than once over the years of our relationship.

But mainly I find it more satisfying to make arguments, than to try to get someone to compliantly follow a series of clever leading questions to unavoidable agreement with the conclusion I haven't argued for. I can look back on the former with a certain amount of pride, even if I don't change anyone's mind.

 

[d4m10n]

Should Race Matter in College Admissions

Conversation between a Latinx man and a Black woman on the topic of promoting diversity in admissions.

 

[theprestige]

Should Race Matter in College Admissions

Conversation between a Latinx man and a Black woman on the topic of promoting diversity in admissions.

Do they come to any interesting conclusions? Do they at least come to an agreement on how to pronounce "Latinx"?

 

[d4m10n]

Only about halfway through, will finish on the afternoon commute.

 

[d4m10n]

Alas, it turns out that episode is skippable. Probably the best argument they made for any program promoting diversity in college admissions was in support University of Texas at Austin policy to offer automatic admission to Texas residents in the top 5% of their high school class, which I would personally count as a form of DEI/AA based on results, but which is so unobjectionable that it is relatively uncontroversial in a state run by Republicans at most levels. They also dumped on Harvard for a bit, but failed to examine similarly situated elite schools which were almost certainly actively suppressing Asian American applicants based on ethnicity.

 

[d4m10n]

Alas, it turns out that episode is skippable.

Upon further consideration, those two unreconstructed neolibs brought up a salient point which probably does fall under the DEI/AA umbrella but which we rarely think about as such: Affirmative Action for men in college admissions.

To take one outstanding example from my favorite metroplex, consider the applicant sex data from U. Chicago, where males are consistently admitted at a rate significantly higher than females (putting non-binary students aside):

 

[jt512]

Upon further consideration, those two unreconstructed neolibs brought up a salient point which probably does fall under the DEI/AA umbrella but which we rarely think about as such: Affirmative Action for men in college admissions.

To take one outstanding example from my favorite metroplex, consider the applicant sex data from U. Chicago, where males are consistently admitted at a rate significantly higher than females (putting non-binary students aside):

Disparity alone does not imply discrimination.

 

[d4m10n]

Disparity alone does not imply discrimination.

Who mentioned discrimination? Typically that word carries connotations of illegality and/or immorality.

 

[jt512]

Who mentioned discrimination? Typically that word carries connotations of illegality and/or immorality.

You called it "DEI/AA," both of which are forms of discrimination. Discrimination: "Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

 

[d4m10n]

You called it "affirmative action," which is discriminatory.

Notice how the dictionary you linked used "racial and religious intolerance" as an example?

That's what I meant by connotations of illegality and/or immorality.

 

[jt512]

Notice how the dictionary you linked used "racial and religious intolerance" as an example?

Notice how the definition how the definition makes no mention of it?

Have you forgotten what this whole thread is about? Everybody except for a few gaslighting progressives recognize that AA and DEI are blatantly discrimination and generally violate Titles VI, VII, and IX.

 

[arthwollipot]

Everybody except for a few gaslighting progressives recognize that AA and DEI are blatantly discrimination and generally violate Titles VI, VII, and IX.

Lol. A clearer demonstration of projection bias and false consensus you could never ask for.

 

[d4m10n]

Notice how the definition how the definition makes no mention of it?

Right, because denotation and connotation are two different things.

Have you forgotten what this whole thread is about?

No. What sort of data would convince you that UChicago is doing the bad kind of discrimination (e.g. AA) regarding the protected trait of sex?

 

[jt512]

Right, because denotation and connotation are two different things.

No. What sort of data would convince you that UChicago is doing the bad kind of discrimination (e.g. AA) regarding the protected trait of sex?

The question is not what data would convince me. The question is what data are necessary to show that women are being discriminated against in favor of men. And that would be data that showed that the admission standards were lower for men than for women. In fact, such data would not only be necessary, they would be sufficient. The admission rates aren't actually relevant.

 

[d4m10n]

The question is not what data would convince me.

Actually that was my question.

The question is what data are necessary to show that women are being discriminated against in favor of men.

Show to whom? (To you, if you're asking me.)

And that would be data that showed that the admission standards were lower for men than for women.

If the men in the UChi applicant pool were ~50% more likely than the women to meet applicable admissions metrics, that alone would explain the admissions gap. Can you think of any alternative hypotheses to systemic male superiority in the candidate pool?

 

[jt512]

The question is not what data would convince me.

Actually that was my question.

I know. My point is that it is the wrong question. The real question is, what evidence is required to show that U–C is discriminating against women applicants.

The question is what data are necessary to show that women are being discriminated against in favor of men.

Show to whom? (To you, if you're asking me.)

No. Not "show," meaning to present to someone. "To show that..." meaning to prove that a hypothesis is true.

If the men in the UChi applicant pool were ~50% more likely than the women to meet applicable admissions metrics, that alone would explain the admissions gap. Can you think of any alternative hypotheses to systemic male superiority in the candidate pool?

There are two reasons that the admission rate is higher among men than women: One, that the men are more qualified; two, that the women are being discriminated against.* A mere difference in admission rates cannot distinguish between these two possibilities. What definitively would distinguish between the two, would be to compare the admission standards for the two groups. If the standards are the same, then the difference in admission rates is due to a difference in qualification levels. If the standards are higher for women, then women are being discriminated against.

*Actually, if we're looking at enrollment rates, rather than offers, the difference could be due to differential acceptance rates.

 

[d4m10n]

One, that the men are more qualified; two, that the women are being discriminated against.

If the men admitted to study at elite schools were actually more qualified to earn an undergraduate degree, why would they consistently lag behind female peers in graduation rates?

Google Search