• 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

Thank you. It's nice to actually have some genuine insight as well as evidence of what firefighters need to be able to do. This is much more useful than a priori armchair surmising of what people on the internet think firefighters should be able to do.
I think some posters may have been looking at too many firefighter calendars…
 
All firefighter candidates must pass the CPAT test. It's basically an obstacle course while carrying weights and wearing a weighted vest made up of activities meant to simulate the physical needs of the job. The parameters and criteria are the same for all candidates. Here is the test requirement described for Los Angeles.
https://personnel.lacity.gov/exams/FirefighterCPATInformation.pdf
For the record, I was somewhat surprised. I expected to see different weights or time requirements for women.
It would be interesting to see pass rates by sex, right? No, because they passed.
 
Apple pushes back on call to end diversity programme

Apple's board has asked its investors to vote against a proposal to end its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programmes.

It comes after a conservative group, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), called on the technology giant to abolish its DEI policies, saying they expose firms to "litigation, reputational and financial risks

Full article


".
 
Aside from the question of whether that's an apt comparison regarding who wants to do what, and how opportunity works in the world, I think you may have skipped over the second part of my question. It does not appear that firefighters, on average, are paid quite the same as doctors.
I don't know what you think your point is. Firefighters don't make as much money as doctors... therefore we should loosen the physical requirements associated with being a firefighter so that more people who want to be firefighters can do so, regardless of whether they can actually do the job of saving people from dying in a fire?
 
It would be interesting to see pass rates by sex, right? No, because they passed.
I don't have a link, but one source I read when I was looking that up was that the passing rate was fairly similar: 70% for females and 75% for males.
But that in itself means little because the vast majority of candidates are male. People know about (and prepare for) this test. People of either sex who cannot pass generally filter themselves out before taking it. It's not free, so if you don't think you can pass, you don't try.

By the way, what I read was that you have to have passed the test before you reach any other consideration stages (interview, etc.) Possibly before actually submitting an application.

ETA: I also recall reading that nationwide, about 95% of firefighters are male. I think that's consistent with the expectation of who is able to pass the test.
 
Last edited:
Look, I get the desire to just be snippy with someone you feel you're not making headway with... but in this case, you really aren't being clear at all.

Genuinely... you appear to have made the assertion that blind auditions didn't address the damage done to orchestras from discrimination, and thus to support the elimination of blind auditions in order to facilitate a more "hands-on" way of addressing discrimination. But at the same time, you seem to acknowledge that blind auditions resulted in a higher portion of female musicians being hired... and that is clearly addressing the issue of discrimination.

Your arguments seem to be contradictory on the surface. Perhaps you have something more nuanced in mind, but you're not communicating it well at all.

So instead of just handwaving it away and insisting that your interlocutor is just being difficult, how about you try to explain your position better?

When does one stop feeding trolls, though? Much of the obfuscation is directly due to Zig choosing to act exceedingly badly, after all. From the start, when he chose to throw out a point that I had made and addressed right after what he quoted of what I said as if I hadn't and that it totally contradicted what I said, it was apparent that he had little interest in addressing what was actually said. His repeated refusal to understand the English language in how he chose to argue further solidified this. His history of doing similar counts against him, as well. Had he not been actively obfuscating, well... you would be very unlikely to even be asking.

First, that point that I made and addressed at the start that was in my response to you, no less, and that Zig utterly ignored all along? To restate, again, I specifically said that I do approve of the blind auditions as a measure to address the issue and do not approve of later calls to eliminate them in favor of a more heavy-handed approach to create some arbitrary final composition. Zig decided to both utterly ignore the latter and to actively seek to accuse me of supporting racial discrimination, despite his claim being in direct opposition to what I had actually said. I saw little point in reiterating what he had so blatantly refused to acknowledge in the first place and moved on to pointing out a couple fundamental problems in his attempted argument. Naturally, he handled what I said with as much honesty as he had engaged with all along and you seem to have fallen for his distortion.

To clarify an example of a nuance that should have been perfectly clear from what I actually said, the damage done was not solely to the orchestra. Actually rectifying the damage already done, whether it be to the orchestra, the individuals actually harmed, or to the groups harmed is distinctly different than correcting course and moving forward in a manner that doesn't continue to do that damage. The latter, I'm certainly in support of. The former? That's quite the can of worms that would be extremely difficult to actually achieve a result that would meaningfully be considered just.

Why the holy hell is it always self-styled progressives who feel entitled to toss out racial epithets and insulting labels with abandon?

I seem to have an impression of Roger making virtually the same complaints as he bashed people that he claimed were Progressives who disagreed with him.

So what exactly is the economic argument for DEI programs? Does it improve the recruitment and retention of top talent? Does it increase productivity? Lower costs? Improve customer satisfaction? Contribute to better regulatory compliance?

It's a broad, hand-wavy claim. Every time we try to nail it down, we get told "that's not the claim". So what is the claim @bruto? And why should we accept it?

Every time? How about this somewhat general and limited assessment -

There are two major areas that DEI policy, as businesses actually practice it, can meaningfully address. Internally and externally. There's some overlap, of course, because that's an arbitrary separation, but it's good enough to work with. Internally, it's how it affects employees. Externally, it's largely the PR effects. There's overlap when it comes to the PR effects on employee matters and sales, of course, but moving on.

As linked to by me before, the most common reasons for DEI in that survey, worldwide, are about employee satisfaction. It was only about 2/3 of the total, of course, so it's not even remotely a universal thing. It's no large stretch to make some reasonably safe assumptions about there being a very real connection between the diversity in both the potential and actual pools of employees and whether DEI would increase overall employee satisfaction. I, at least, certainly wouldn't expect DEI to benefit all companies on this front, depending on the specifics there. For businesses with a larger range of business locations, though, it makes more sense to lean harder into measures to reduce internal friction of all kinds, whatever the label slapped onto such efforts may be. That, in particular, may well be the most major factor in that correlation between companies with higher profits and DEI efforts. It's not really some grand leap to suggest that businesses successful enough to succeed worldwide, which measures to reduce internal frictions of all kinds are quite relevant to, are likely to generally outperform those that aren't. Of some note, the second most common reason was that DEI played a notable role in employees actually getting fair pay. Honestly, that alone virtually guarantees that the right-wing propaganda network would go insane in opposition to DEI, given its nature, and so it has.

Externally, I think I'll poke at two factors related to PR effects briefly. Customers and legal dangers. For the former, creating cause to claim that "we're good people" is generally a positive thing for sales. A number of companies have rather blatantly tried to exploit DEI for this purpose. Many succeeded, at least temporarily, at last check, though some did not. At last check, the ones that did not were largely the ones reliant on customer bases swayed heavily by right-wing media as they quite predictably leaned hard into attacking DEI. The broader effects of that assault are fairly certainly ongoing, either way, as it continues. As for legal dangers, once more, the rise in business DEI was largely a result of trying to take measures that would reduce or avoid legal expenses. Whatever theories were invoked and how effective they may or may not be is of little immediate relevance compared to that bottom line. As right-wing groups have increased their litigation against DEI lately, the calculations about how best to reduce or avoid legal expenses have naturally been altered.

To poke at the overlap momentarily, seriously, is there any good reason to doubt that understanding the intended customer base intimately is a distinct benefit to making effective sales pitches?

With all that said, you seem to be complaining about broad brushes while trying to demand that especially broad brushes be employed to answer, rather than accepting that there are a number of factors that quite meaningfully affect what effect it even can actually have on a particular company and whether the effects would be positive or negative.
 
Last edited:
When the King names his son as his designated successor you'll be eating those words.
*IF* Trump magically overturns the entire country, all of the constitutionalists, and the entirety of the military and police forces of the US in order to proclaim themselves king, I'll happily eat a plate of crow.

Until that time, it's disinformation. It's fearmongering and inciteful.
 
If we're in the Trump thread, then I have a prediction to make. I think of the Trump family as being similar to the Roy family in Succession. Some of that is probably not exactly accidental, but they were based more on the Murdochs than the Trumps. The kids will be squabbling over who gets what when the patriach dies, but really they are not that skilled and definintely don't have the same charisma (*charisma is a weird thing, of course because plenty of people claim Donald Trump has none, yet he seems to have a huge hold over a lot of people and if that's not charisma, I don't know what is). When the old man is gone, Junior will be treated as seriously as people treat Kendall Roy. He'll almost certainly be outmaneouvred by smarter people with more charisma and influence.

Anyway, back to DEI, ha! Look at the guys Trump is picking for his cabinet. I mean he has a truly diverse collection of nutjobs. Not just someone with NO qualifications for being in charge of health, Donald Trump has chosen a former heroin addict and person AGAINST anything remotely related to healthcare to be in charge of HHS. That is DEI in action!

And who has he chosen to be in charge of intelligence? A Russian spy! Wow! DEI!

And who is in charge of the military? A drunken Fox News TV and likely criminal.

It's nice that Donny T is giving these reprobates a shot at big jobs. Proving that you don't need to have qualifications, experience or principles to work for the big man.
 
Anyway, back to DEI, ha! Look at the guys Trump is picking for his cabinet. I mean he has a truly diverse collection of nutjobs. Not just someone with NO qualifications for being in charge of health, Donald Trump has chosen a former heroin addict and person AGAINST anything remotely related to healthcare to be in charge of HHS. That is DEI in action!

Heh, just came here to mention that the surest sign DEI is a dead letter is that liberals are now referring to Pete Hegseth as a DEI hire.
 
Heh, just came here to mention that the surest sign DEI is a dead letter is that liberals are now referring to Pete Hegseth as a DEI hire.
That could well be true. But it is a premise of the anti-DEI argument that well-qualified people are being overlooked in order to get in people who have the right skin tones or the right genitalia (or believe they have the wrong genitalia, etc...), but who have lower qualifications.

So, it makes sense to at least be able to point out the irony of this complaint coming from supporters of the hiring of absolute lunatics to serious organizations.

DEI or no DEI, there is no excuse for candidates like this....

Considering Hegseth, election denier Attorney General Pam Bondi, WWE exec Linda McMahon for secretary of education, and vaccine denier, brain-worm victim Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Health and Human Services, one must conclude Republicans are not sending us their best. (Or, the more alarming alternative…they are sending their best.)
What is the argument that any of these people really should be in charge of important government bodies?
 
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.
Let's talk about diversity, for example. Suppose you look around your office and see that you have a bunch of highly intelligent and motivated people. Is this an indication you should be hiring stupid and lazy individuals to diversify?
 
Let's talk about diversity, for example. Suppose you look around your office and see that you have a bunch of highly intelligent and motivated people. Is this an indication you should be hiring stupid and lazy individuals to diversify?
Who's saying that it is?
 
Dial down the bickering and personalisation, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Who's saying that it is?
That's the question. The point is to try map the contours of your principles on this topic. Your answer seems to suggest you believe that competence trumps diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring and contracting. It also seems to suggest that you're reluctant to say so plainly. Refusal to clearly answer clarifying questions tends to reinforce the perception that DEI is a bad faith proposition.
 
Last edited:
That's the question. The point is to try map the contours of your principles on this topic. Your answer seems to suggest you believe that competence trumps diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring and contracting. It also seems to suggest that you're reluctant to say so plainly. Refusal to clearly answer clarifying questions tends to reinforce the perception that DEI is a bad faith proposition.
I have been very clear, and you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I have not said that competence trumps jack. I have said that arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation should not be enough to exclude competent individuals from consideration.
 
I have been very clear, and you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I have not said that competence trumps jack. I have said that arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation should not be enough to exclude competent individuals from consideration.
Who's saying they are?

It may surprise you to learn that here in America, it's been illegal for many years already, to exclude someone from employment consideration because of those things.
 
Last edited:
Who's saying they are?

It may surprise you to learn that here in America, it's been illegal for many years already, to exclude someone from employment consideration because of those things.
It may surprise you to learn that there in America, it still happens a lot more than it should.
 
It may surprise you to learn that there in America, it still happens a lot more than it should.
Evidence needed, assuming you mean that anyone other than white males are still discriminated against in this country.

I've already provided you with ample evidence that women and minorities are currenty given preferential treatment to the detriment of white males. Of course, the beginning of the end of that is just a few hours away.
 
Last edited:
It may surprise you to learn that here in America, it's been illegal for many years already, to exclude someone from employment consideration because of those things.
Not for all of them in all places in the US. Skin color yes, but you can still discriminate in hiring based on sexual orientation -- not every state has laws against that. Some cities have them where their state doesn't. But there's no federal law against it. As for "gender identity" discrimination, discriminating based on sex is illegal but that doesn't include everything under the banner of "gender identity": you can still discriminate in hiring against trans people, depending on your location.


eta: for example, my state (Missouri) "prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, and places of public accommodations based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age (in employment only), and familial status (in housing only)." Which means it's down to the city/county ordinances whether my employer can fire me for being gay, or my landlord can evict me for it. Sure it would be bad PR...but they could do it.

Too many people thought "oh, the gays are on TV, everything is fine now" back in the 90s.
 
Last edited:
Evidence needed, assuming you mean that anyone other than white males are still discriminated against in this country.

I've already provided you with ample evidence that women and minorities are currenty given preferential treatment to the detriment of white males. Of course, the beginning of the end of that is just a few hours away.
You need evidence that people other than white males are discriminated against???

I'm surprised you're willing to admit that in public.
 
You need evidence that people other than white males are discriminated against???

I'm surprised you're willing to admit that in public.
You can certainly find examples of discrimnation for pretty much any group. I think this issue in this thread is that DEI excuses some racial or sex discrmination as good.
 
It’s official. DEI has been banned in the federal government. Trump has rescinded (on Day One, as promised) Biden’s two executive orders (EO13985 and 14095) that mandated DEI throughout the federal government. Trump further ordered that

The heads of each agency shall take immediate steps to end Federal implementation of unlawful and radical DEI ideology.​

All US science funding agencies (NSF, NIH, NASA, etc.) were subject to the aforementioned Biden executive orders, which meant that, as a requirement for funding, applicants had to demonstrate that their research would advance DEI ideology. The funding agencies themselves were required to advance DEI, which meant that they gave preference in funding to minority applicants.

With the stroke of a pen, all this is over. The funding of fundamental research that has no connection to DEI will no longer be threatened, and research proposals will be funded on the basis of their scientific merit without regard to the applicant’s skin color.
 
Last edited:
Yay, it's about time that the women, darkies, non-straight and poor are removed from the US government and army again. How dare they think they could contribute to aiding society or the army like normal white men.
 
Yay, it's about time that the women, darkies, non-straight and poor are removed from the US government and army again. How dare they think they could contribute to aiding society or the army like normal white men.
Ya see? DEI is about the good racism against While people. Treating people equally and according to merit is bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom