Aw come on, this is low effort. You guys are not too ignorant to know correlation does not equal causation. In all caps when there are an entire world of factors influencing results.
You don't think telling people they should hold grievances against other people might have ill effects? And as Zigguart pointed out, clearly DEI has no benefit in helping race relations. But it lines the pockets of the race husksters so they'll fight like hell to keep it.
This is a much stronger argument to make. To the point I was considering an edit to that post to say, one conclusion you'd be justified in reaching based on that graphic, is that CRT has not solved the problem.
There are a bunch of fallacies made there, after all. It would be a pain to run through them all and require waaaaay more effort than was spent typing out that inanity.
The first major problem with your question is that you didn't show that in the first place. At very best, you are relying upon the correlation equals causation fallacy here and utterly ignoring everything else going on during that time period. It is indeed possible that DEI has had a net negative effect on said views overall, but it's hardly the only thing of relevance to the issue - and is unlikely to be of significant effect overall even if there's a net negative effect. Speaking of inconvenient for preferred political narratives, though, you seem to be eager to ignore a lot of stuff in service to your preferred political narrative here. When the Republican Party's racist dog whistling has become foghorning in more recent years, with their screaming about CRT as an easy example of how bad it has become, that's fairly certainly had an effect. When the Republican Party made a huge deal about how it isn't against the rules to rig the system against black people under the excuse that their actions were all about rigging the system against Democrats, that fairly certainly had an effect. When the Republican Party scorned black people and passed laws to make it easier to murder peaceful protestors for being very unhappy about police brutality and lack of accountability, that fairly certainly had an effect. Plenty more could be said on that front, really, but that's hardly the only other front in play. To poke at a couple other fronts, an increase in awareness about various past horrors, like the Tulsa Massacre, fairly certainly played a part, as well as ongoing efforts by the US' enemies to stoke tensions further.
Because for at least a couple of decades, a small selection of disconnected academics have been invested in making money from instilling interracial hatred and distrust.
despair.com
Recognizing that there are extremely disparate rates of sexual offending and taking reasonable steps to mitigate the risks doesn't mean that I dislike or distrust all males. I've been married for nearly 30 years, and I appreciate huge numbers of males in my life.
Ugh, that's depressing.
Kudos for the despair.com reference! Discovered them - what? - 16 years ago? Just broke my despair.com glass coffee mug with the line around it half-way up and the caption, "half-empty."Consulting
If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem. There’s nothing wrong with paying people to listen to your problems and give you obvious advice. That’s what bartenders are for. PERFECT FOR: The nine people in America who understand what it is...
Some of it's getting better. Adjustable desks help a lot, and many office chair designers have started providing a larger range of adjustability. Some cars now have sliders for seatbelts so they can be more useful for females. It's a slow process, and retrofitting the entire world isn't something that can happen quickly. As more consideration is given to the reality that females and males are quite different, we adapt.
Probably a much greater contributor to the graph/poll in question is a slew of high profile events in which police (at least appear to) be more abusive towards black people than white people. (Michael Brown, George Floyd, etc.)
You sure it was DEI training? Because DEI training isn't synonymous with anti-discrimination training. Did it have that stupid graphic of three people of different heights trying to look over a wall at a baseball game?
Yes. I double checked. It's the training to be on a search committee and talks about things like implicit bias. Basically, make sure you evaluate each application by the same metric. there is no push to find bias that doesn't exist, just caution to be aware. It's not all about race and ethnicity. For example, there's can be bias in favor of (or against) a candidate you find physically attractive, or with whom you share common interests that are unrelated to the position. Or I might favor a candidate who I find to be a Rush fan or plays Dungeons and Dragons because we connected on a personal level unrelated to the job.
Implicit bias (not to be confused with unconscious bias) is bull ◊◊◊◊. I believe even one of the original authors of the implicit bias study has basically said that it's not rigorous. And implicit bias is part of DEI. But...
That's not really DEI. For DEI, you're not supposed to evaluate everyone by the same metric. You're supposed to give disfavored groups a leg up.
Yeah, that's not sounding like DEI to me, just ordinary anti-discrimination. Which has been around for a few decades now, well before DEI.
It's his usual nonsense.
Did you somehow miss that companies have been shedding their DEI departments and diversity hiring in the past couple years? No one really wants to pay the Woke tithe.
Probably because they've been interpreting and implementing DEI so ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
No I didn't see this, because (unlike you) I actually work in the Real World where diversity is a major and increasingly important matter.
Indeed. I've been at two recent events where this was a significant topic, one relating to Talent Acquisition and one to the Future of Work. Some fascinating trends.
Yeah, I'm the one in an echo chamber
Which are mainly quoting alleged rumours.
I didn't say that. But DEI isn't anti-discrimination. DEI is very much pro discrimination, it just needs to be the right kind of discrimination. That's the whole point.
The implicit assumption, which you seem to accept, is that diversity in the workplace is only possible if those workplaces pay for training from specialists on how to do diversity the 'right' way.
My brother, you have access to internet search. Willful ignorance is sus.
And you think it doesn't apply to you? When have you acknowledged your racism?
You do a lot of poking!
I would point out ('cause I'm a pointer not a poker) that McKinsey just kinda made up the "diversity is good for business" line to sell DEI trainings to businesses. Try to find anyone replicating that. And I don't mean the diversity of experience / skill which is obviously useful. But that diversity of skin color or sexual proclivities clearly has no bearing on merit. If it were true that "DEI boosts the bottom line," how could companies possibly have been profitable before the DEI discrimnation was imposed? How can Samsung or LG make so much $$$ with such a homogenous workforce? And where are all these new billion-dollar startups with DEI owners/founders? DEI is a luxury that already profitable companies engage in for public relations. Once that starts to cut into profit, DEI is on the chopping block.
They seem to be assuming causation when they observe a correlation. If diversity is a side effect of other factors which make a company successful, then efforts to produce diversity purely for the sake of diversity will not actually help performance.
Oh, no problem. I'm sure if you paid enough money a consulting company could give you the report you want.
As we have seen, different people and different organisations have vastly different ideas on what DEI is or is supposed to achieve.
motte and bailey?
I think he's just saying that he has no idea if any definition of DEI succeeds at any stated purpose. Sort of a negative space "no true Scotsnonbinaryperson".
I'm saying that some people and organisations have a definition of "DEI" that is so far removed from the ideal that those people and organisations refuting it is not all that surprising.
Maybe so. I doubt you'd get an objection in this thread on equal opportunity. But once we start judging people (for good or bad) by their sex, race, sexual orentiation, etc., that's where many of us (I presume) say no.
