• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Split Thread] Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

jt512

Illuminator
jt512
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
4,059
jt512 said:
Which begs the question, why do the Democrats continue to alienate their historical base by embracing wildly unpopular policies like poorly controlled borders, DEI, and radical gender ideology?
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
All three of which are Trumpian lies.
Click to expand...


The easiest of the three to show is a Democratic program and not a "Trumpian lie" is DIE. Biden states it plainly in White House press releases. On Biden's first day in office he released the following press release:

Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through the Federal Government

He followed up with:

Today, the White House Office of Presidential Personnel is releasing new data about the historic number and diversity of presidential appointees hired by Day 100 of the Biden-Harris Administration,

and

FACT SHEET: President Biden Signs Executive Order Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Government,

among others.

So the Democrats...at least Biden, but Harris will double down...have embraced DEI.





This is a thread for discussing DEI issues. Split from US Election thread

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371716

keep the discussion of this topic here

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: <jimbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh no, diversity!

ee3aa2ac88391b849d9017b6ea87acd3.jpg
 
Orphia Nay said:
Oh no, diversity!

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240801/ee3aa2ac88391b849d9017b6ea87acd3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


What could possibly go wrong with hiring people because of their skin color instead of their being the most qualified?
 
jt512 said:
What could possibly go wrong with hiring people because of their skin color instead of their being the most qualified?
Click to expand...

nothing.

there is great advantage in diversity - what's the point of hiring another cookie-cutter applicant with exactly the same qualification and ethno-socio-economic background than the dozens that you already have in your organization?

We see the failures of monoculture everywhere in the US economy, from Wall Street to Hollywood to Mainstream Media to Lobbyists and Politicians.

The gain in perspective will far outweigh any perceived lack of qualification, especially when there are already so many people who can do the task, who might not even be aware that there are other qualifications they are lacking but which could greatly benefit their organization.
And, of course, it's unlikely that a candidate of color made it that far in the selection process without being very qualfied.
 
I did a diversity awareness course decades ago, when I was working in the telecoms industry and had just been promoted to team leader, and it was made very clear that the motivation for building diverse teams was not laws and quotas but that such teams were simply more successful. People from different backgrounds with different perspectives, challenging each other and bouncing ideas off each other, is how you get innovation.
 
Pixel42 said:
I did a diversity awareness course decades ago, when I was working in the telecoms industry and had just been promoted to team leader, and it was made very clear that the motivation for building diverse teams was not laws and quotas but that such teams were simply more successful. People from different backgrounds with different perspectives, challenging each other and bouncing ideas off each other, is how you get innovation.
Click to expand...


That claim is made all the time, but there is little if any good data to support it. There are also contradictory studies that have found that homogenous groups to be more productive.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
That claim is made all the time, but there is little if any good data to support it.
Click to expand...

Work done at the company in question has resulted in ten Nobel prizes and five Turing awards, so they must be doing something right.
 
Pixel42 said:
Work done at the company in question has resulted in ten Nobel prizes and five Turing awards, so they must be doing something right.
Click to expand...


Okay, but was it diversity?

And were the Nobels in STEM? I am involved in a so-far months-long systematic review of evidence supporting the claim that diverse teams do better science, and so far we have found zero such evidence.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
That claim is made all the time, but there is little if any good data to support it. There are also contradictory studies that have found that homogenous groups to be more productive.
Click to expand...
We have only your word on that. I don't believe you.
 
Pixel42 said:
No way to know, of course, but it doesn't look like it did any harm. :)

ETA to answer question added after I posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs#Nobel_Prize,_Turing_Award,_IEEE_Medal_of_Honor
Click to expand...


The company is Bell Labs? My impression is that they have historically been one of the most merit-driven science and technology institutions in the country. I predict that if they are introducing DEI considerations in the hiring of their scientific workforce, it will diminish the quality of their scientific and technological output. For each position, you can either hire the best and the brightest without regard to the candidate's identity characteristics, or you can prioritize identity characteristics in the job search, in which case you will not always be hiring the most-meritorious candidate for the job.

I note most of the actual recipients were white men.
Click to expand...


As they would have to have been, as, until recently, almost all science and engineering was done by white males.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
We have only your word on that. I don't believe you.
Click to expand...


Newsflash: I don't care if you believe me. I'm currently a co-investigator on a systematic review of evidence supporting the claim that diverse teams do better science. We haven't found any evidence of it yet, but it is a work in progress. I'll have a definitive answer in a few months. But you have also said you don't believe that I do scholarly work in this area. That, again, is your problem. Not mine. I don't care.
 
jt512 said:
The company is Bell Labs? My impression is that they have historically been one of the most merit-driven science and technology institutions in the country. I predict that if they are introducing DEI considerations in the hiring of their scientific workforce, it will diminish the quality of their scientific and technological output. For each position, you can either hire the best and the brightest without regard to the candidate's identity characteristics, or you can prioritize identity characteristics in the job search, in which case you will not always be hiring the most-meritorious candidate for the job.

As they would have to have been, as, until recently, almost all science and engineering was done by white males.
Click to expand...

Do you think that's because those white men were the brightest and best, or could there have been other factors involved?
 
jt512 said:
I predict that if they are introducing DEI considerations in the hiring of their scientific workforce, it will diminish the quality of their scientific and technological output.
Click to expand...

I worked there from 1988 - 2001, as I said I did that diversity training decades ago. It was within my first year, so encouraging diverse recruitment has been their company policy for at least 30 years (assuming it hasn't significantly changed since I left). So if you were right, that diminishment would already be evident.

Just to be clear: merit was always the first consideration when recruiting new staff. Building a diverse team was secondary, so only if it was necessary to choose between two equally qualified candidates did it become a consideration.

I must have recruited at least thirty new staff during my time there, many of them with a heritage different to my own, and the results always seem to me to support the effectiveness of the policy.
 
jt512 said:
Newsflash: I don't care if you believe me. I'm currently a co-investigator on a systematic review of evidence supporting the claim that diverse teams do better science. We haven't found any evidence of it yet, but it is a work in progress. I'll have a definitive answer in a few months. But you have also said you don't believe that I do scholarly work in this area. That, again, is your problem. Not mine. I don't care.
Click to expand...
So you say, but you have yet to provide evidence of any of that. For all I know you're a pimply 14-year old ****-posting from his mum's basement.

At your request I have stopped asking for evidence that you are an academic of any kind, because it was a reasonable request. But it doesn't make you any more credible.
 
Pixel42 said:
Just to be clear: merit was always the first consideration when recruiting new staff. Building a diverse team was secondary, so only if it was necessary to choose between two equally qualified candidates did it become a consideration.
Click to expand...


That was the way it started out. If there are two equally qualified candidates, hire the minority. That was something that just about everybody agreed with. I can't speak for Bell Labs, but that's no longer how it usually if ever works. There are simply de facto quotas, or positions that are open only to minorities.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
What could possibly go wrong with hiring people because of their skin color instead of their being the most qualified?
Click to expand...

Let's see, slavery, feudalism, racism, rampant inequ...

Oh wait, you're one of those people who think cis het white men are better at everything than everybody else.
 
zooterkin said:
Do you think that's because those white men were the brightest and best, or could there have been other factors involved?
Click to expand...


Sometimes Black people are picked for high positions even though they definitely aren't the best and the brightest. Joseph Ladapo, for instance.
But on the other hand, there is no reason to suspect that Ladapo was hired because of the color of his skin. He was not a DEI pick. I think they chose him exclusively because of his merits and qualifications:
He has been warned by the CDC for promoting COVID-19 misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, and opposing various measures to control COVID-19. "This has led to unnecessary death, severe illness and hospitalization."
Joseph Ladapo (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...
 
jt512 said:
What could possibly go wrong with hiring people because of their skin color instead of their being the most qualified?
Click to expand...

And this is why you get it so wrong about DEI. You see it as just about skin colour.

And also, nice of you to admit you think someone with coloured skin can't be qualified.
 
arthwollipot said:
So you say, but you have yet to provide evidence of any of that. For all I know you're a pimply 14-year old ****-posting from his mum's basement.
Click to expand...

That's your problem, not mine.

At your request I have stopped asking for evidence that you are an academic of any kind, because it was a reasonable request. But it doesn't make you any more credible.
Click to expand...


I never requested that of you. I said that I will not cite my papers on internet forums, because they are (obviously) written in my own name, which I prefer to keep off of internet forums. You said you would honor that, which I appreciate.

But nobody, least of all me, cares about whether you believe what I say.
 
jt512 said:
What could possibly go wrong with hiring people because of their skin color instead of their being the most qualified?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the US but in the UK, where I work, it is absolutely not about taking someone with lower qualifications but about working out what it is that stops people, with the relevant qualifications / experience, from minority groups, applying or being successful in getting a post and removing those, often unconscious, barriers.

Some of it is as simple as the language used. For example, if you ask for someone who is an 'expert' in x or y, typically (not universally, but typically) a male will see that and think 'Yup, I'm an expert' and a female with the same qualifications and experience will think 'Well I wouldn't really consider myself an expert' so you replace with 'qualified to x level in y and with at least z years of experience' and voila, both apply instead of just the male.

Anyway, this is becoming a bit of a derail...
 
Orphia Nay said:
And this is why you get it so wrong about DEI. You see it as just about skin colour.
Click to expand...

It's about race, gender, and so on. What's your point?

And also, nice of you to admit you think someone with coloured skin can't be qualified.
Click to expand...


It's nice of you to admit that you can't read, because I neither said nor implied that.
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
I can't speak for the US but in the UK, where I work, it is absolutely not about taking someone with lower qualifications but about working out what it is that stops people, with the relevant qualifications / experience, from minority groups, applying or being successful in getting a post and removing those, often unconscious, barriers.

Some of it is as simple as the language used. For example, if you ask for someone who is an 'expert' in x or y, typically (not universally, but typically) a male will see that and think 'Yup, I'm an expert' and a female with the same qualifications and experience will think 'Well I wouldn't really consider myself an expert' so you replace with 'qualified to x level in y and with at least z years of experience' and voila, both apply instead of just the male.
Click to expand...


That is definitely not what DEI is in the US. That sort of training is the kind of thing that would make DEI (as it is implemented in the US) unnecessary. In fact, my girlfriend has been a leader in helping female scientists to overcome those sort of unconscious behaviors that disadvantage them when competing with males in the scientific workforce, so that they can be hired or promoted on their merits as opposed to their identity.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
You have the right to speak for yourself, but not for other people.
Click to expand...


I have the right to express my opinion, even if that involves speculating about other people.* And, for the record, I don't believe that you don't believe me. I think your claiming you don't is just a cheap ploy.


*And, besides, do you seriously think that anybody here cares what you think about me?
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
That is definitely not what DEI is in the US. That sort of training is the kind of thing that would make DEI (as it is implemented in the US) unnecessary. In fact, my girlfriend has been a leader in helping female scientists to overcome those sort of unconscious behaviors that disadvantage them when competing with males in the scientific workforce, so that they can be hired or promoted on their merits as opposed to their identity.
Click to expand...

Good stuff.
 
can the racists start their own thread on DEI and why blacks aren't qualified for anything?
 
jt512 said:
What could possibly go wrong with hiring people because of their skin color instead of their being the most qualified?
Click to expand...

You mean like JD Vance as the choice for Trump's VP? You would have to admit that Kamala was way more qualified to be chosen than Vance.
 
a_unique_person said:
That's not what DEI is.
Click to expand...
One might have thought that actual diversity, equity and inclusion should be default values, but trust conservatism to tell us they are wrong and radical. Discrimination, inequity and exclusion worked just fine. No doubt those pesky progressives have embraced the equally odious concepts of social justice and virtue. Next thing you know they'll try to convince you that war is not peace, freedom is not slavery, and truth is not lies.
 
Pixel42 said:
Work done at the company in question has resulted in ten Nobel prizes and five Turing awards, so they must be doing something right.
Click to expand...

jt512 said:
Okay, but was it diversity?

And were the Nobels in STEM?
Click to expand...

jt512 said:
As they would have to have been, as, until recently, almost all science and engineering was done by white males.
Click to expand...


Supposing it is true that, until recently, almost all science and engineering was done by white males, wouldn't that be evidence that society was, until recently, making it easier for white males to do science and engineering?

The Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to:
  • Anne L'Huillier (2023)
  • Syukuro Manabe (2021)
  • Andrea M Ghez (2020)
  • Donna Strickland (2018)
  • Takaaki Kajita (2015)
  • Shuji Nakamura (2014)
  • Hiroshi Amano (2014)
  • Isamu Akasaki (2014)
  • Charles K Kao (2009)
  • Yoichiro Nambu (2008)
  • Toshihide Maskawa (2008)
  • Makoto Kobayashi (2008)
  • Masatoshi Koshiba (2002)
  • Daniel C Tsui (1998)
  • Steven Chu (1997)
  • Subrahmanyan Chandrasehkar (1983)
  • Abdus Salam (1979)
  • Sin-Itiro Tomonaga (1965)
  • Maria Goeppert Mayer (1963)
  • Chen Ning Yang (1957)
  • Tsung-Dao (T D) Lee (1957)
  • Hideki Yukawa (1949)
  • Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman (1930)
  • Marie Curie (1903)
None of those were white males. Although I may have missed some others who were not white males, it does indeed appear that white males were over-represented prior to the late 1990s.

ETA: As an example of why white males have been over-represented in the field of mathematics, consider the distinguished career and notorious racism of Robert L Moore:
Wikipedia said:
Moore's record as a teacher of mathematics has been tarnished by his racism towards black students....African-American students were prohibited from even enrolling at the University of Texas until the late 1950s, and Moore himself was strongly in favor of segregation. After the University of Texas began admitting African-American students, he refused to allow them into his classes, even for mathematics graduate students such as Vivienne Malone-Mayes. He told another African-American mathematics student, Walker E. Hunt, "you are welcome to take my course but you start with a C and can only go down from there"....

Moore was also known for repeatedly claiming that female students were inferior to male students, and, though "less pronounced than his racism", for his antisemitism. However, while Moore's racism is confirmed by several first-hand accounts of his refusal to teach African-American students, the often-repeated description of him as a misogynist and antisemite is based largely on his oral remarks. Some of the sources reporting these remarks, such as Mary Ellen Rudin, also point out that in fact he encouraged females who showed mathematical talent and that he had Jewish students, such as Edwin E. Moise...and Martin Ettlinger, and close colleagues, such as Hyman J. Ettlinger. His encouragement of Rudin and other white female students is documented and between 1949 and 1970 (the earliest period when national data are known) 4 of Moore's 31 doctoral students (13%) were female, while nationally 175 were female out of 2646 doctoral graduates in mathematics and statistics (7%) .
Click to expand...
The part I highlighted suggests that R L Moore, for all his self-proclaimed sexism, might well have been less sexist than many of his contemporaries.
In the early 1970s, the newly constructed "Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy" building at the University of Texas was renamed to Robert Lee Moore Hall. In 2020, petitioners protesting the naming of that building for a racist convinced the university to revert to the building's original name.

Personal anecdote: R H Bing, one of R L Moore's most accomplished students, taught using the Moore method. I was lucky to have taken two semesters of graduate-level point set topology from Bing, in that PMA building.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom