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

[Samson]

The NYT seems to condemn DEI in Michigan university. This is terrible for DEI when a major news paper sliding into irrelevance comes back to life.
One DEI employee per 200 students, micro aggressions cited in computer science. And so on.
Sorry to go off piste from the current discussion, but DEI is of course fundamentally why there is a turning of the sociological tide.
I mean rejecting the idiocy, the resulting unintended consequences, and the devil making work for 500 idle hands in Michigan university. (Assuming the DEI department excludes hand amputees).

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/magazine/dei-university-michigan.html?ogrp=ctr&smid=url-share

 

[HansMustermann]

Again with the hyperbolic language! You have to describe everything in the most pornographic way possible, don't you? You just can't help yourself.

Who would benefit from reading Gender Queer? Young, insecure LGBTQIA+ teens, that's who. And I see no reason to engage further with your hyperbole.

AGAIN, you're pretending that it's some dichotomy, where you either don't address it at all, or pictures and graphic descriptions of a minor having sex with an adult are OK. As I keep telling you, you CAN address homosexuality with or without the graphic sex, and with or without including paedophilia. The three are entirely orthogonal.

And EC and virtually everyone else here is objecting to the last two, not to the having something positive for LGBT part.

In effect, you keep pushing a strawman.

 

[Samson]

The 2nd comment that came up from NYT article:

Thus randomized by my reckoning

"Wow. I must say as a graduate of Michigan I did not realize how profoundly this issue has embedded itself into the fabric of my alma mater. It is almost as if my college is unrecognizable from when I attended Michigan as a young Latino student in the early 80’s. Looking back perhaps I can recall one stupid incident that today would be considered a micro aggression. Yet, not for one second did that minor incident affect the perception of my acceptance on campus or the friendships I made. I can say wholeheartedly that I am very proud of my institution and the education it provided me. However, I know now that I could not have survived climate at Michigan where my being a member of a minority group was always going to be front and center in my daily interactions in the classroom. You can certainly understand after reading this article why there’s been such a backlash against DEI throughout the country."

 

[HansMustermann]

@Samson
"Micro-aggression" is another thing that seems to be getting out of hand, lately. And I don't mean just saying something derogatory, but even stuff like denying the supposed extent of widespread systemic and institutional racism, apparently counts as a micro-aggression. Or the cultural disadvantage that some Asians have in academic debates, since they're taught to be more silent than westerners, is somehow a micro-aggression against Asians?

But my recent example that takes the cake is a group of researchers doing a study of pronouns and self-ID among students, who felt aggressed by the number of students (IIRC, a whole 37) who picked silly stuff like identifying as an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter or quite a few other silly things. So not only they ended up writing a whole article about the rise of fascism in US academia (geeze, if fascism were just about students cracking jokes, we could have avoided the last world war), but apparently one of them had to take time off and get counselling after the trauma of that aggression.

 

[Trausti]

But my recent example that takes the cake is a group of researchers doing a study of pronouns and self-ID among students, who felt aggressed by the number of students (IIRC, a whole 37) who picked silly stuff like identifying as an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter or quite a few other silly things. So not only they ended up writing a whole article about the rise of fascism in US academia (geeze, if fascism were just about students cracking jokes, we could have avoided the last world war), but apparently one of them had to take time off and get counselling after the trauma of that aggression.

It's a religion. No different than a priest upset that the children won't take the Mass seriously.

 

[HansMustermann]

I await you propounding a reasoned argument.

You haven't addressed any of it, so did you even read any of that before jumping to hear yourself repeat standard talking points?

If you are so ******* clueless about the level of harassment, bullying and bigotry directed online at young people who are Othered then you need to do some ******* reaseach for yourself.

Ah, so another dodge by way of talking point. What was I expecting? But to spell it out: unless you explain how that harassment, bullying and bigotry is made any better by giving them more access to pornography, that's fully irrelevant.

But here's a summary so far for you, maybe this time you'll actually read: literally NONE of the arguments here about it so far had anything to do with "anti-gay" or "anti-trans." NOTHING even in Florida's pornography law has anything to do with "anti-gay" or "anti-trans.". Literally NOBODY here was proposing to allow straight porn and only ban the gay parts.

Furthermore, here's a repeat AGAIN of my argument, which apparently you think didn't even exist: you don't NEED graphic descriptions of sex, much less illustrations, to have a positive story about a gay teenage romance. Nor does it need to be about minors having sex with adults, as some of these books are.

If you're that lacking in imagination that you can't imagine how you'd do that without the porn... well, that's your problem, not mine.

But here's a helpful hint, then: ask the Japanese how. They've been having a thriving "Boy Love" genre in comics, books, anime, and even video games for over half a century. Like, literally since 1970. You can just go in any manga store and get a comic book or novel or even a dating video game about some highschool gay romance. And most of it tends to do just fine without showing stuff like giving a blowjob, which would make it 18+.

Hell, if you can't even find some author that can do that in the USA, then just translate some from Japanese. I'm sure you can fill several school libraries at this point just with that.

 

[Trausti]

I read somewhere (unless I got it wrong) that the author of Gender Queer said that her book was not for kids.

 

[dudalb]

Outside of compulsory schooling where the children are held as a captive audience, sure.

SO now you hate public education?
Thanks for reminding me why my youthful flirtation with Libertarianism did not last long.
As one ex Libertarain said as to why he quit being a Libertarain; 'Reality mugged me".
And how about Oklahoma, where Religion is about to forced down kids throats with required bible reading? You support that?

 

[Trausti]

SO now you hate public education?
Thanks for reminding me why my youthful flirtation with Libertarianism did not last long.
As one ex Libertarain said as to why he quit being a Libertarain; 'Reality mugged me".

Well, that's an odd take. If you'll recall, the reason there was hubbub about school prayer is that public school is usually compulsory and the kids a captive audience. It's obviously wrong for activists of any stripe to use the compulsory and captive nature of public school to push their ideology.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, anyway, much as I enjoy a good detour, let's return to DEI, and especially the equal outcomes idea of equity.

I already gave the example of male nurses, which are 11.9% of the total nurses.

Let's say I open a new hospital, and need, say, 50 nurses. Going by equal qualifications and skills, that would get me about 6 male nurses, and 44 female nurses. Plus/minus one or two, but still not going to end up 25 and 25, to represent the percentage of males vs females in the general population.

So, how would I go about ensuring those equal outcomes without discriminating against women? Any progressive ideas there?

Well, how about not paying any attention to the percentages and just hiring the qualified people? Giving all people equal opportunity to become qualified and be hired without trying to fill quotas?

Or let's go with another case of unequal outcomes. Blacks represent 53% of the NFL, while being 14.4% of the general population. Aiming for equal outcomes means I would need more whites if I start a football team. How would I achieve those equal outcomes without being racist?

Again, try for equal opportunity, rather than equal outcomes.

If you give $100 to everybody, you have an equal outcome. But the value of that $100 is higher to a minimum wage earner than it is to a billionaire. Equal outcomes does not take into account unequal needs.

 

[HansMustermann]

So basically you're saying I'd be right to stick to the old conservative "equality" instead of the newfangled "equity" that rose in opposition to equality? Yeah, I can happily go with that.

 

[arthwollipot]

So basically you're saying I'd be right to stick to the old conservative "equality" instead of the newfangled "equity" that rose in opposition to equality? Yeah, I can happily go with that.

No, the opposite. Equality means giving everyone the $100 regardless of their needs. Equity means fair treatment of all.

 

[HansMustermann]

Right, so you have to help me out here: how does that translate into my two situations above? Should I hire the poorest people to be nurses, or still go for best qualifications within the wage I'm willing to pay?

 

[arthwollipot]

Right, so you have to help me out here: how does that translate into my two situations above? Should I hire the poorest people to be nurses, or still go for best qualifications?

Give more opportunities for the poorest people to train as nurses, then go for the best qualifications and abilities.

While it is expensive to train as a nurse, and only the richer people can do it, hiring poor people to be nurses doesn't make much sense. Equal opportunity leads to better outcomes.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, but then we're back to equality not equity. That's what "equal opportunity" is about. Regardless of whether that's for employment or education. (I fully support both, btw.) It's not about giving everyone 100$.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, but then we're back to equality not equity. That's what the "equal" in "equal opportunity" is about. Regardless of whether that's for employment or education. (I fully support both, btw.) It's not about giving everyone 100$.

I think you're getting hung up on the words, at the expense of the idea.

ETA: Equal opportunity can lead to equitable outcomes. The use of one word does not preclude the use of the other.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think you're getting hung up on the words, at the expense of the idea.

No, I'm hung up on exactly the idea being pushed. Because words mean stuff. They're how you convey those ideas.

And, again, the idea being pushed is this:
[IMGw=800]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=540&pictureid=14106[/IMGw]

It's quite explicitly, even on the sites of groups pushing equity=good, equality=bad, that some groups (like, say, short people in that pic) can't compete if you just give them equal opportunities. (Same fence, same resources, same chance to find a spot behind that fence.) So you have to distribute stuff unequally to ensure equal outcomes.

 

[jt512]

Well, how about not paying any attention to the percentages and just hiring the qualified people? Giving all people equal opportunity to become qualified and be hired without trying to fill quotas?

That's merit-based, or equal opportunity, hiring. It is the antithesis of DEI, which strives for (at least) equal outcomes for certain identity groups. Merit-based, or equal opportunity, hiring is precisely what everybody opposed to DEI advocates.

Again, try for equal opportunity, rather than equal outcomes.

If you think that people should be given equal opportunity instead of equal outcomes, then you are opposed to DEI. Will you admit that explicitly? I won't gloat. I'll congratulate you on having abandoned a major slice of progressive illiberalism and having come to a morally sound opinion.

 

[dudalb]

Well, that's an odd take. If you'll recall, the reason there was hubbub about school prayer is that public school is usually compulsory and the kids a captive audience. It's obviously wrong for activists of any stripe to use the compulsory and captive nature of public school to push their ideology.

What constitutes ideology?
Is teaching rascism is wrong ideology
Or is ideology anything that does not fit in with your philosophy.

 

[Trausti]

What constitutes ideology?
Is teaching rascism is wrong ideology
Or is ideology anything that does not fit in with your philosophy.

You can teach children about racism without telling children that their race is the most important thing about them. It's patently ridiculous to teach children that upon being born they have greviances against other children for things neither one did to the other.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's merit-based, or equal opportunity, hiring. It is the antithesis of DEI, which strives for (at least) equal outcomes for certain identity groups. Merit-based, or equal opportunity, hiring is precisely what everybody opposed to DEI advocates.

That's not DEI. That's a parody of DEI. That's what the rightist antiwoke anti-social justice marauders say is DEI. It's actually the opposite of DEI, and if some stupid people are implementing this parody of DEI then they're dumb and don't understand what DEI actually is or what it is for.

If you think that people should be given equal opportunity instead of equal outcomes, then you are opposed to DEI. Will you admit that explicitly? I won't gloat. I'll congratulate you on having abandoned a major slice of progressive illiberalism and having come to a morally sound opinion.

Yes, I absolutely oppose what you are describing, which is the opposite of DEI.

 

[jt512]

That's not DEI. That's a parody of DEI.

No, sir. I don't know what planet you're looking at. But preferences for less-qualified, but better-skin-toned candidates are exactly what DEI is all about. It's what Harvard and UNC were doing with admissions that the US Supreme Court recently deemed unconstitutional. It's what Joe Biden in executive orders that I have posted more than once ordered instituted throughout the federal government. It's why white male post-docs are getting routinely passed over for assistant professorships in favor of female or minority candidates that were rated less qualified by their own search committees. This is real-world DEI, not some theoretical DEI that you are imagining because it makes you feel good.

 

[HansMustermann]

That's not DEI. That's a parody of DEI. That's what the rightist antiwoke anti-social justice marauders say is DEI. It's actually the opposite of DEI, and if some stupid people are implementing this parody of DEI then they're dumb and don't understand what DEI actually is or what it is for.

Yes, I absolutely oppose what you are describing, which is the opposite of DEI.

No. I already gave you sources like sites pushing that idea of equity, as well as a survey of hiring managers that says that's exactly what happens in a lot of organizations. It's not even an "if" it's the actual state of affairs. Like people actually responding that they end up passing up more qualified candidates for ones more meeting diversity targets, or fearing for their job if they don't.

At this point you just illustrate what I was saying: you're caught up in defending whatever "progressive" buzzword, even if you have to imagine it means the polar opposite, and deny reality as some kind of anti-woke caricature. In fact, the only caricature so far has been that you've actually consistently espoused exactly the Republican view on the matter, while thinking you're actually on the opposite side.

 

[HansMustermann]

But ok, maybe this time it will stick:

"Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome." (Cf. Marin Health and Human Services, the site with that cartoon. Also quoted verbatim in several other places, like slogans tend to be.)

That's not from some anti-woke think tank, that's how the people pushing for equity define it.

Also, again, the 2022 survey by Resume Builder.

 

[HansMustermann]

It's a religion. No different than a priest upset that the children won't take the Mass seriously.

I still have a problem with describing everything as a religion, when it lacks important parts of what makes a religion.

In this case it's IMHO just the logical results of a cult of playing victim. After a decade and a half of preaching about how even dissenting opinions are a form of aggression or outright fascism, people feeling aggressed by students picking nonsense answers in a survey is exactly what you'd expect.

It's just how culture and enculturation work, if you've read any anthropology. Same as you learn to answer a compliment with another compliment in Arab cultures, or whether to tip the waiter or not in the west. In this case, if you spend a decade in a sub-culture of glorifying victimhood and considering anything else than confirmation to be hate speech and aggression, and in fact trying to spread that culture, of course you learn to act properly aggressed and distressed when that happens. OF COURSE there had to be one researcher, whose learned reaction was claiming to have experienced "significant personal distress" as a result of managing the data (meaning reading a whole 50 joke answers and dissenting opinions) and had to take time off of the project to "heal from traumatic harm."


BTW, the answers they called malicious were not just stuff like helicopters and flapjacks, but even for example one student writing, "While I of course do not condone bullying or discrimination, I wish people in universities (especially the faculty) would not focus so much on gender and identity. That doesn’t matter." And a few more to that same effect. That too counted as malicious.

So of course, for extra nonsense points, the paper they wrote about those "malicious" answers was called "Attack Helicopters and White Supremacy." Because of course they had to use the "white supremacy" buzzword when the survey was about gender, not about race

And of course they had to make it about the (supposedly right wing) helicopter meme, when the helicopters and various aircraft were exactly 6 answers. Had to link it to white supremacy somehow, I guess

Oh, and tried to link it to 6 January too, because of course they did.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, sir. I don't know what planet you're looking at. But preferences for less-qualified, but better-skin-toned candidates are exactly what DEI is all about.

If people are doing that and calling it "DEI", they're idiots.

 

[Trausti]

If people are doing that and calling it "DEI", they're idiots.

Let's all agree that no person should be advantaged or disadvantaged on account of their skin hue. Let's bring back old-fashion liberalism. Please.

 

[jt512]

If people are doing that and calling it "DEI", they're idiots.

Yes. The entire DEI bureaucracy are a bunch of idiots.

 

[Emily's Cat]

SO now you hate public education?

Well that's just blatant and egregious mischaracterization of Trausti's post.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, the opposite. Equality means giving everyone the $100 regardless of their needs. Equity means fair treatment of all.

That's backwards.
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/... each individual or,to reach an equal outcome.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.

 

[Brainster]

If people are doing that and calling it "DEI", they're idiots.

Dingdingding! You are absolutely correct.

 

[Brainster]

The NYT seems to condemn DEI in Michigan university. This is terrible for DEI when a major news paper sliding into irrelevance comes back to life.
One DEI employee per 200 students, micro aggressions cited in computer science. And so on.
Sorry to go off piste from the current discussion, but DEI is of course fundamentally why there is a turning of the sociological tide.
I mean rejecting the idiocy, the resulting unintended consequences, and the devil making work for 500 idle hands in Michigan university. (Assuming the DEI department excludes hand amputees).

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/magazine/dei-university-michigan.html?ogrp=ctr&smid=url-share

What the Times fails to consider is that increased racial tension is the goal of DEI, not some unexpected byproduct.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's backwards.
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/#:~:text=Equality means each individual or,to reach an equal outcome.

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Sorry, it's what you said in that specific post... but it's not what you said previously:

Well, how about not paying any attention to the percentages and just hiring the qualified people? Giving all people equal opportunity to become qualified and be hired without trying to fill quotas?

Again, try for equal opportunity, rather than equal outcomes.

If you give $100 to everybody, you have an equal outcome. But the value of that $100 is higher to a minimum wage earner than it is to a billionaire. Equal outcomes does not take into account unequal needs.

Giving everyone $100 isn't an equal outcome, it's giving everyone the same opportunity. Adjusting for unequal needs is an effort to force equal outcomes.

The first few bits - no quotas, hire qualified people regardless of race or sex or anything other than ability and qualifications, that's equal opportunity. It's absolutely NOT equity, because it gives no ◊◊◊◊◊ about equality of outcome.

 

[dudalb]

Oh yeah, White European Males are so discriminated against in our society.

 

[Trausti]

Oh yeah, White European Males are so discriminated against in our society.

There's this weird signaling on the left where White people get status points by degrading other White people.

 

[Aridas]

Giving everyone $100 isn't an equal outcome, it's giving everyone the same opportunity. Adjusting for unequal needs is an effort to force equal outcomes.

To poke at this bit - this is problematic. Unequal starting conditions means that it would not actually be giving everyone the same opportunity in the real world. Adjusting for unequal needs is a means to reduce the disparity in opportunity that's created by unequal starting conditions. Means to adjust the actual outcome - say, those quotas that you mentioned, would be far better qualified to be said to be about forcing equal outcomes. Those are two notably different concepts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To poke at this bit - this is problematic. Unequal starting conditions means that it would not actually be giving everyone the same opportunity in the real world. Adjusting for unequal needs is a means to reduce the disparity in opportunity that's created by unequal starting conditions. Means to adjust the actual outcome - say, those quotas that you mentioned, would be far better qualified to be said to be about forcing equal outcomes. Those are two notably different concepts.

I get where you're coming from, but I very strongly disagree with the premise.

Yes, people have different starting points - and there's no rational reason to ever expect that everyone should have the same starting point. Trying to overcome the differences in starting point is a fool's errand. Even worse, it has a high likelihood of producing discrimination and removing any semblance of fairness or justice.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh yeah, White European Males are so discriminated against in our society.

Yes, but, as I've said before, isn't that just boiling down to the idea that racism is OK if that group was privileged anyway or otherwise deserves it? I.e., to what every single racist ever thought?

I mean, it's literally what the stereotypical racist grandpa thinks when he tells jokes like "how do you starve an <insert racial group>? Hide his food coupons under his work boots." at the Xmas table. He too thinks that they've been too privileged (e.g., at the welfare) than other groups, innit?

Or as I've said before, it was literally what fuelled the early 20'th century antisemitism: the idea that oh, yeah, they've been so privileged so far, they can't complain if we start discriminating right back. Like, Ford's idea that yeah, it's only right for him to stop hiring Jews, they're already too privileged. He thought he's just correcting the imbalance.

Or, as a history fan, I can't shake the feeling that there's a similarity between those endorsing looting shops to teach whitey a lesson, and police shouldn't intervene and... those who encouraged the Germans to throw stones at Jewish storefronts on Kristallnacht (a.k.a., Night of Broken Glass) in November 1938. And yeah, it too was encouraged by a declaration that the police would not intervene.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh yeah, White European Males are so discriminated against in our society.

Also... which white Europeans exactly?

The Irish, for example, can be whiter than white, but were second class citizens in Britain and discriminated against in the USA too. They were literally classified as "coloured", same as the African-Americans, had to deal with "No Irish Need Apply" in help wanted ads or "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" pub signs as late as the middle of the 20th century, and a few scientists claiming to have proof that the Irish are actually the missing link between apes and blacks. Meaning the Irish were seen as even more ape-like primitive.

So who the <bleep> did those exploit to deserve being discriminated against for looking white?

E.g., I had an Ukrainian coworker in one of the teams, some, oh, 20+ years ago. Yeah, paper white. But who did he or his parents exploit to warrant a discrimination against white Europeans? The dude had been a second rate citizen even in the USSR in his own republic of Ukraine, and his grandparents had survived the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians known as the Holodomor. Look it up.

I had a coworker from Kossovo, survivor of the attempted ethnic cleansing and war by the Serbs in his region in the '90s. Same question. What did THAT dude do to deserve some reverse discrimination? What were his privileges?

I had a coworker who was an ethnic Hungarian from Romania. Not only he was the subject of government propaganda that Hungarians are evil because they took Transylvania some 1000 years earlier, he was a survivor of the crappiest regimes in the Eastern Bloc. See. Ceausescu propped up the standard of living in the capital, to show off, at the expense of the other 90% of the country. (Bucharest literally had 10% of the whole country's population.) The dude had to live on rationed bread. Not in 1944, but in 1989. So, again, what exactly kind of privileges did he have to now be reverse discriminated against?

Etc.