• 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
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

I think you're still missing the point. Strippers are the product. Diversity in the product line isn't the issue. A successful product line is based entirely on what your target customers actually want. "The customer is always right", and all that. Diversity in management is what DEI is aimed at, at least in the US.
How many strip clubs have "management"? As far as I know (and I've never been to one so I don't really know so feel free to correct me) a club usually has an owner, who makes all of the hiring and financial decisions, perhaps with a few employees like bartenders and maybe contracts an external accountant. Could be completely wrong about this, and maybe strip joints have a whole HR section and financial team.

Also, I'd like to say this. All of these arguments are plagued by binary thinking. Either you hire someone because of race, or you don't hire someone because of race. Either a strip club employs men or a strip club doesn't employ men. The Real Worldtm doesn't work like that. These decisions have to be made in context. Which is why this whole discussion is kind of ridiculous in my opinion.
 
Now you're talking about a spherical cow in a vacuum, which is fine for theoretical physics, but people are different from each other. You can't just arbitrarily control for those variables.
Actually, I can, because I just did. It's just a hypothetical, and holding the variables constant except the one in question can be useful for clarifying all sorts of things.

But, as I said, if you don't want to engage with it, that's fine.
 
What if the decision came down to that variable, though? I don't see you can reasonably claim that every case could never come down to a single variable. My hypothetical is exactly that case in which it is largely a matter of a single variable.
Not in this case, no. No two people are absolutely identical except for one variable, especially one as volatile as race.
I'm trying to be as generous as I can to you.
I appreciate that, but I cannot answer your hypothetical as it stands. Sorry.
 
Not in this case, no. No two people are absolutely identical except for one variable, especially one as volatile as race.
I’ve been careful to qualify my statements and to not speak in absolutes, most prominently here:
the decision operationally and functionally comes down to the factors in my original scenario because the others equal out or are so minimally different as to be irrelevant.
my bolding, not in the original
I appreciate that, but I cannot answer your hypothetical as it stands. Sorry.
 
I've metaphorically tossed a coin when the playing field has got down to 2 candidates that I couldn't decide between on any objective measure. In the UK interviewees are entitled to any notes, test results etc. made during the interview process so you wouldn't write down "gave the job to minority X candidate because we have a diversity policy" as that would probably be classed as unlawful discrimination against another candiate. I suppose you could have an "unspoken" policy to do so but that would also be unlawful and could open your company up to multiple employment tribunals.
 
How many strip clubs have "management"? As far as I know (and I've never been to one so I don't really know so feel free to correct me) a club usually has an owner, who makes all of the hiring and financial decisions, perhaps with a few employees like bartenders and maybe contracts an external accountant. Could be completely wrong about this, and maybe strip joints have a whole HR section and financial team.

Also, I'd like to say this. All of these arguments are plagued by binary thinking. Either you hire someone because of race, or you don't hire someone because of race. Either a strip club employs men or a strip club doesn't employ men. The Real Worldtm doesn't work like that. These decisions have to be made in context. Which is why this whole discussion is kind of ridiculous in my opinion.
My wife used to bartend at a jazz club downtown that was in a complex which also contained a dance club and a strip club under the same ownership. I used to come pick her up after work. Since the jazz club closed earlier, I usually had to wait for her in the strip club.

The owner didn't manage. He had a manager for that who oversaw all three bars. Each bar also had its own manager and assistant manager. (The nightclub had multiple assistant managers.) There was also a woman (a former dancer) who managed the dancers, a bar manager, and a kitchen manager. (Yes, apparently some people eat at strip clubs.)

So there as a fair amount of management structure there. This probably varies with the size of the club and how "upscale" it is.

But as theprestige correctly pointed out, the dancers are the product.
 
Let's try to operationalize this. You have in vote in who is going to get hired. It's down to two candidates:

Candidate A: African American, qualified and so will do a perfectly fine job
Candidate B: white, better qualifications than A - not outrageously so, but still clearly better

Maybe play around with whether this job is professional, trade, or menial.

Does some people needing a bigger slice of the pie mean that you go with A? If not, then at what point does that come into play, if at all?
Not addressed to me, but....

The policies that I've encountered have all been of the type to make sure you aren't discounting someone because of their race/sex etc. One of the types of DEI that theprestige outlined earlier. (I suspect this is the most common manifestation.) So I'm not giving someone extra points for their race. Unless there's a real good job related reason to do so, that is. If I'm hiring a coach, for example, I might want to consider how that coach would relate with the kids they will be coaching. Maybe I think there is value in a girls' volleyball coach being female. Not the only consideration, and my daughter's coaches were mostly male, but It's a factor.
 
It's not a code. Read a dictionary.
I'm 100% certain you didn't consult a dictionary before choosing that word. So I'm not interested in an arbitrary dictionary definition. I'm interested in what you think people in this thread are overlooking.

If you won't provide your definition, will you at least provide a specific example of the shortcoming you have in mind?
This conversation.
Thanks.
 
I'm 100% certain you didn't consult a dictionary before choosing that word. So I'm not interested in an arbitrary dictionary definition. I'm interested in what you think people in this thread are overlooking.

I didn't choose that word. It's literally part of the DEI initialism. And I've said all along that my definition is the same as the dictionary definition.

And what people in this thread are overlooking is the fact that "inclusion" means that nobody is excluded, not that some are unfairly privileged over others, which seems to be the predominant interpretation here. It's not about promoting a person arbitrarily, it's about making sure that certain groups of people aren't overlooked.
 
Why don't you ever just answer the question?

Excuse me. I have been answering questions. Some questions do not need to be asked. The definition of the word "inclusion" is one of them. It's not a code. It's not some kind of secret language. The meaning is right there in the dictionary.
 
Sure, it's not the rightist boogeyperson that they refer to as "DEI".
DEI is about race/sex based consideration. I ask you: what is the difference between equal opporunity and DEI? But you, yourself, upthread wrote that it is okay to treat people differently. And for DEI, than means pre-judging people based on race or sex.
 
How many strip clubs have "management"? As far as I know (and I've never been to one so I don't really know so feel free to correct me) a club usually has an owner, who makes all of the hiring and financial decisions, perhaps with a few employees like bartenders and maybe contracts an external accountant. Could be completely wrong about this, and maybe strip joints have a whole HR section and financial team.

Also, I'd like to say this. All of these arguments are plagued by binary thinking. Either you hire someone because of race, or you don't hire someone because of race. Either a strip club employs men or a strip club doesn't employ men. The Real Worldtm doesn't work like that. These decisions have to be made in context. Which is why this whole discussion is kind of ridiculous in my opinion.
Yup, strip joints are sexist and there is not much you can do about it as long a men like to see naked women. And I don't see that changing....
 
DEI is about race/sex based consideration. I ask you: what is the difference between equal opporunity and DEI? But you, yourself, upthread wrote that it is okay to treat people differently. And for DEI, than means pre-judging people based on race or sex.
No, it doesn't. That's just what the rightist Trumpian ◊◊◊◊◊ want you to think it is, because it justifies their belief in white supremacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, it's not the rightist boogeyperson that they refer to as "DEI".
False. As you have been shown over and over again, this version of DEI is precisely leftist, "progressive" DEI. You have no excuse at this point for claiming otherwise.
 
No, it doesn't. That's just what the rightist Trumpian ◊◊◊◊◊ want you to think it is, because it justifies their belief in white supremacy.
A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

For an example of a positive action, if you had two qualified candidates for whom you couldn't decide between - each offered a different mix of advantages, without a clear way to resolve the difference - you could give the job to the candidate who came from a group historically underrepresented in the industry/profession because of past actual discrimination. Would such a strategy fall under DEI in your understanding of it?
 
A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

...snip...
Or you make effort in your initial selection process - it may mean for example in the USA taking adverts out in Spanish to reach an "underrepresented group". In the UK an example is stripping out names during initial screening.
 
Or you make effort in your initial selection process - it may mean for example in the USA taking adverts out in Spanish to reach an "underrepresented group". In the UK an example is stripping out names during initial screening.
Spanish advertisements would be an example of a positive step that goes beyond merely not discriminating but doesn't discriminate against others in return. Stripping out names is an example of something that helps ensure no discrimination.
 
A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

For an example of a positive action, if you had two qualified candidates for whom you couldn't decide between - each offered a different mix of advantages, without a clear way to resolve the difference - you could give the job to the candidate who came from a group historically underrepresented in the industry/profession because of past actual discrimination. Would such a strategy fall under DEI in your understanding of it?
Despite the change in your framing, you're still posing the hypothetical in a single-variable binary choice, and I'm still not going to answer it.

In response to your first paragraph, I think Darat just gave a decent answer.
 
Despite the change in your framing, you're still posing the hypothetical in a single-variable binary choice, and I'm still not going to answer it.

In response to your first paragraph, I think Darat just gave a decent answer.
I don’t want to badger you into answering, so you don’t have to reply, but isn’t it true that sometimes, even in situations that are usually or potentially complex, one might still come across a case that does reduce to a single variable? I don’t see how one could rule that out, to claim it would never happen.

So my question is, in that case, what does DEI say?
 
I don’t want to badger you into answering, so you don’t have to reply, but isn’t it true that sometimes, even in situations that are usually or potentially complex, one might still come across a case that does reduce to a single variable? I don’t see how one could rule that out, to claim it would never happen.

So my question is, in that case, what does DEI say?
No, I don't believe that any complex question can be reduced to a single-variable binary choice.
 
Then it's not DEI.
In the real world, yes it is.

I'd quote policies, but I can't do that without identifying my employer. (Similar to Emily's Cat's concerns in one of the insurance threads.)

What I will say is that I work for an extremely large entity that has multiple DEI officers in multiple departments. I looked at the pages for several of those and none of them say anything about giving advantages to anyone in the hiring process.

Here are a few of the things they have done in the name of DEI:
  • Added menstrual products in all restrooms
  • Created lactation spaces
  • Implemented guidelines for office assignment and remote/hybrid work
  • Hosted a Tamarkoz method workshop
  • Hosted workshop focusing on taking care of self and others
A lot of it seems to be related to helping people with different backgrounds collaborate and work together. (Inclusivity)

How many here have actually been on hiring committees and know how they operate? I have. Many times over my career and, I think three times in the past two years.

In terms of hiring, our efforts for diversity don't go into how resumes or interviews are evaluated. It does play into recruitment, however. By that I mean where we advertise for candidates. Which journals, organizations, etc. we might post an opening in. If we are hiring a chemist, we will reach out to the chemistry departments of nearby universities. For higher level positions, we might also post in journals and professional organizations that have a more national (or even international) reach. This may include professional organizations that serve a particular demographic. (If there's a society of Hispanic Chemists, for example. Don't know if that exists.)

The committees I've been on usually got 20-30 resumes in response. these tend to be pretty diverse. (I've seen people in India with PhDs apply for dishwasher or lab assistant jobs.) But when we evaluate the resumes, we do so based on stated job requirements and preferences (two different categories) and how the resume matches what was requested. Then we interview usually the top three candidates. Again, the interview is graded based on the answers given to questions asked.

Now, could DEI efforts result in an advantage for a minority candidate? Sure. It's possible that someone could be so worried about appearing biased that they unintentionally bias themselves the other way. But the committees have three members (and an HR rep to coordinate, but they don't get a vote), so it's unlikely.

There are efforts to make sure that the search committee has some diversity. (At least one woman or minority.)

In terms of hiring here:

Diversity is addressed by recruiting a diverse pool of candidates.
Equity is unbiased evaluation of candidates.
Inclusion is people of diverse backgrounds working together as an integrated team.

The only system I've ever encountered that gave extra points have been civil service systems. (Not the hiring I'm talking about.) I looked up the extra points for Illinois:
  • Veterans (10 points)
  • Purple heart recipients (10 points)
  • National Guard members (5 points)
  • Surviving spouse of veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)
  • Parent of an unmarried veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)
No points for ethnicity, as far as I can see. Just for veterans.
 
Actually, I can, because I just did. It's just a hypothetical, and holding the variables constant except the one in question can be useful for clarifying all sorts of things.

But, as I said, if you don't want to engage with it, that's fine.

No, I don't believe that any complex question can be reduced to a single-variable binary choice.
I agree that in the real and complex world that simple binary choice would be very unlikely, and probably much more unlikely than a person who sees things in that way would like to believe. That said, I do think that as a pure thought exercise, trying toward a "matched-pair" comparison, and trying to be honest about it might help in clarifying one's own position. I think there are times when imagining such a choice and imagining having to explain it to a third party can be helpful. And if you're honest one of the benefits might be to realize, when the situation arises, how much more complex the real world situation turns out to be than the thought exercise. Thinking about things ahead of time is usually a better choice than not doing so.
 
Last edited:
A (and others), in your understanding of DEI, is it merely a prohibition against discriminating against people historically discriminated against, or is it also (in addition to not discriminating) a group of positive actions that can be taken? If the latter, what are some of the positive actions?

For an example of a positive action, if you had two qualified candidates for whom you couldn't decide between - each offered a different mix of advantages, without a clear way to resolve the difference - you could give the job to the candidate who came from a group historically underrepresented in the industry/profession because of past actual discrimination. Would such a strategy fall under DEI in your understanding of it?
DEI where I work would not guide you towards one candidate or the other. It would suggest you stop and think about your reasoning. This would be an extremely rare situation, however. After interviews there is almost always a clear candidate from those interviewed (or clearly no good candidates, in which case the search is extended).
 
Last edited:
In the real world, yes it is.

I'd quote policies, but I can't do that without identifying my employer. (Similar to Emily's Cat's concerns in one of the insurance threads.)

What I will say is that I work for an extremely large entity that has multiple DEI officers in multiple departments. I looked at the pages for several of those and none of them say anything about giving advantages to anyone in the hiring process.

Here are a few of the things they have done in the name of DEI:
  • Added menstrual products in all restrooms
  • Created lactation spaces
  • Implemented guidelines for office assignment and remote/hybrid work
  • Hosted a Tamarkoz method workshop
  • Hosted workshop focusing on taking care of self and others
A lot of it seems to be related to helping people with different backgrounds collaborate and work together. (Inclusivity)

How many here have actually been on hiring committees and know how they operate? I have. Many times over my career and, I think three times in the past two years.

In terms of hiring, our efforts for diversity don't go into how resumes or interviews are evaluated. It does play into recruitment, however. By that I mean where we advertise for candidates. Which journals, organizations, etc. we might post an opening in. If we are hiring a chemist, we will reach out to the chemistry departments of nearby universities. For higher level positions, we might also post in journals and professional organizations that have a more national (or even international) reach. This may include professional organizations that serve a particular demographic. (If there's a society of Hispanic Chemists, for example. Don't know if that exists.)

The committees I've been on usually got 20-30 resumes in response. these tend to be pretty diverse. (I've seen people in India with PhDs apply for dishwasher or lab assistant jobs.) But when we evaluate the resumes, we do so based on stated job requirements and preferences (two different categories) and how the resume matches what was requested. Then we interview usually the top three candidates. Again, the interview is graded based on the answers given to questions asked.

Now, could DEI efforts result in an advantage for a minority candidate? Sure. It's possible that someone could be so worried about appearing biased that they unintentionally bias themselves the other way. But the committees have three members (and an HR rep to coordinate, but they don't get a vote), so it's unlikely.

There are efforts to make sure that the search committee has some diversity. (At least one woman or minority.)

In terms of hiring here:

Diversity is addressed by recruiting a diverse pool of candidates.
Equity is unbiased evaluation of candidates.
Inclusion is people of diverse backgrounds working together as an integrated team.

The only system I've ever encountered that gave extra points have been civil service systems. (Not the hiring I'm talking about.) I looked up the extra points for Illinois:
  • Veterans (10 points)
  • Purple heart recipients (10 points)
  • National Guard members (5 points)
  • Surviving spouse of veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)
  • Parent of an unmarried veteran who dies or was disabled in service. (10 points)
No points for ethnicity, as far as I can see. Just for veterans.
Universities and the federal government give extra weight (up to 100%) to gender or ethnic group. The State of California has officially tried to do it twice (including for contracts), but it was voted down by referendum both times.
 
Last edited:
Universities and the federal government give extra weight (up to 100%) to gender or ethnic group.
Any evidence for this? Which states? Which Universities? I know that neither answer is "all" or "all public."

I am aware that there have been efforts to prefer minority owned businesses, but I'm talking about hiring.
 
I agree that in the real and complex world that simple binary choice would be very unlikely, and probably much more unlikely than a person who sees things in that way would like to believe. That said, I do think that as a pure thought exercise, trying toward a "matched-pair" comparison, and trying to be honest about it might help in clarifying one's own position. I think there are times when imagining such a choice and imagining having to explain it to a third party can be helpful. And if you're honest one of the benefits might be to realize, when the situation arises, how much more complex the real world situation turns out to be than the thought exercise. Thinking about things ahead of time is usually a better choice than not doing so.
You think I'm being dishonest? My position is clear. I do not answer hypotheticals that boil down to a single variable binary choice, when real world situations are what is actually under discussion. What's unclear or dishonest about that?
 
DEI where I work would not guide you towards one candidate or the other. It would suggest you stop and think about your reasoning. This would be an extremely rare situation, however. After interviews there is almost always a clear candidate from those interviewed (or clearly no good candidates, in which case the search is extended).
DEI means that you do not deny someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. In other words, no "blacks need not apply" signs.
 
Any evidence for this? Which states? Which Universities? I know that neither answer is "all" or "all public."

I am aware that there have been efforts to prefer minority owned businesses, but I'm talking about hiring.
Discriminating on the basis of race or gender in the U.S. is illegal; therefore, universities rarely if ever put these preferences explicitly in writing. But they will tell you things to your face. I have had a chemistry professor tell me that he is only hiring women postdocs this year because "men have had their chance" A provost told me that he has no money for a general faculty search, but he has funds specifically allocated for a DEI hire. And I have heard various accounts of provosts overruling departmental recommendations to hire a candidate who was white or male and selecting a lower-rated minority or female candidate instead.
 
DEI means that you do not deny someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. In other words, no "blacks need not apply" signs.
Unfortunately, it often means no white males need apply.
 
You think I'm being dishonest? My position is clear. I do not answer hypotheticals that boil down to a single variable binary choice, when real world situations are what is actually under discussion. What's unclear or dishonest about that?
I'm not sure why you think I am calling you dishonest, but perhaps I'm being too generous to Paul2 in taking his suggestion just as a way to help organize your own thoughts by testing them in fictitious scenarios where, unlike reality, variables can be controlled. It's possible we are approaching this in opposite directions. If he thinks that a controlled thought experiment will help form a rule to make real world choices easier, I think the opposite. Eliminating many simple but distracting variables leaves you with a choice that is harder, not easier.

I don't think there's a down side to thinking about things, but if the idea was to come up with an answer here, or a rule, or a shortcut to avoid complexity, then forget it. The paradoxical answer to the thought exercise is that it cannot provide answers.
 
I'm not sure why you think I am calling you dishonest, but perhaps I'm being too generous to Paul2 in taking his suggestion just as a way to help organize your own thoughts by testing them in fictitious scenarios where, unlike reality, variables can be controlled. It's possible we are approaching this in opposite directions. If he thinks that a controlled thought experiment will help form a rule to make real world choices easier, I think the opposite. Eliminating many simple but distracting variables leaves you with a choice that is harder, not easier.

I don't think there's a down side to thinking about things, but if the idea was to come up with an answer here, or a rule, or a shortcut to avoid complexity, then forget it. The paradoxical answer to the thought exercise is that it cannot provide answers.
I appreciate your comments. My scenario - I like to think of it as a thought experiment - was framed as a means to help define DEI, not to provide rules per se.
 
DEI means that you do not deny someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Let’s flip that. Does DEI mean that you do not approve someone's candidacy for arbitrary reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation? I suspect not, but I’m asking if you agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom