Split Thread DEI in the US

[Safe-Keeper]

I think it's encouraging that they have to keep rebranding the bugbear, it shows it's not working. I wonder what the next iteration will be?

As another poster remarked, the masks are coming off now. They won't bother to do the kind of lazy bad-faith arguing/trolling BS you're seeing in this thread for much longer. They just have to keep moving the Overton window steadily farther and farther right, and you'll have people ranting in public about the [n-words] in no time.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How would you solve the problem I outlined above? The goal is an equal mix of green and purple.

For a lot of people the actual goal is to just have green, by getting rid of the purple. Most of them don't admit it, though, and take great offense at the suggestion that such a possibility even exists.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Good grief, I simply put a search term in an found an article on a subject I already knew. What the hell does the history of that publication have to do with anything other than your handwaving. It referenced this abstract https://econjwatch.org/file_download/1296/GreenHandMar2024.pdf?mimetype=pdf.

That links to the full paper, not just to an abstract. From that fact, I infer you didn't read the paper either.

The authors of that paper describe their study as a "quasi-replication" of McKinsey's study, using a different data set. What they found is a very small advantage for the DEI firms, too small to be statistically significant. Then they extended McKinsey's methodology a bit, finding that "The mean industry-adjusted EBIT margin in the top racial/ethnic diversity quartile is 1.9 percent vs. 0.8 percent in the bottom quartile." In other words, they found another very small advantage for the DEI firms, but again it was too small to be statistically significant.

In short, I see two tentative conclusions to be drawn from the paper by Green and Hand:

• They were unable to confirm the statistically significant DEI advantage reported by the McKinsey study.
• Their paper adds one more data point in support of the opinion that DEI has little if any deleterious effect on a corporation's bottom line.

Their own conclusions differ slightly from the two I stated immediately above. Their two conclusions are

• "First, we conclude that caution is warranted in relying on McKinsey’s findings..."
• "Second, we conclude that...there is great value in future research that would seek to empirically test for the presence, sign, magnitude, and direction of any causal relations that exist."

That second conclusion is important to the authors. As is evident from their ResearchGate pages (Jeremiah Green, John R M Hand), they are frequent co-authors (all 7 of Green's most recent publications were co-authored with Hand), and their recent research is heavily tilted toward DEI and diversity of ethnicity and race at the executive level. Several of those publications are billed as a "quasi-replication", and it appears most of those quasi-replications find statistically insignificant results that call for more research of the kind they like to do.

Really, if all you can do is question motivations rather than address an argument, you must have nothing at all.

I gather you object to arguments of this kind.

 

[dirtywick]

Argumentum ad Hitlerium? I expected better.

you'd have to remind me which side of the dei debate has an actual nazi problem

 

[Trausti]

As another poster remarked, the masks are coming off now. They won't bother to do the kind of lazy bad-faith arguing/trolling BS you're seeing in this thread for much longer. They just have to keep moving the Overton window steadily farther and farther right, and you'll have people ranting in public about the [n-words] in no time.

Indeed. We're seeing who makes excuses for discrimination and who doesn't.

 

[Trausti]

I gather you object to arguments of this kind.

He wasn't ascribing a bad motivation to you, just refuting your argument.

 

[Trausti]

you'd have to remind me which side of the dei debate has an actual nazi problem

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I gather you object to arguments of this kind.

He wasn't ascribing a bad motivation to you, just refuting your argument.

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following who says what in this thread.

@jt52 wasn't making any kind of attempt to refute any argument I had made. When he wrote that, he was responding to @wareyin, not me, and the two of them were discussing a paper by Epimov et al. and responses to that paper written by John M Herbert.

I agree, however, that he was not ascribing a bad motivation to me. What @jt52 wrote in that post had absolutely nothing to do with me or with anything I had written. What he wrote didn't even have much to do with what Herbert wrote in the comments he was attacking. What he wrote was an excellent example of attacking someone's argument because he simply disagreed with that argument and disliked the person making the argument. To remind you, because you don't seem to be paying attention, here are the remarks you mischaracterized as a refutation of my argument:

And those two supposed "takedowns" of Epimov (1984) were written by John Herbert, whom I know quite well—he is a radically progressive activist. Every time somebody publishes an article criticizing how science has become politicized, John publishes two articles defending the politicization of science. He has even published articles defending cancel culture. John knows damn well—and was pleased, I'm sure—that grants during the Biden administration had DEI requirements.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

They way to address discrimination is to stop discrimination, not promote it.

How? I'm genuinely interested how you'd stop discrimination.

 

[Resume]

As another poster remarked, the masks are coming off now. They won't bother to do the kind of lazy bad-faith arguing/trolling BS you're seeing in this thread for much longer. They just have to keep moving the Overton window steadily farther and farther right, and you'll have people ranting in public about the [n-words] in no time.

Reminds me of this woman.
Are you white?

Or this woman.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997224523179938271

https://fox11online.com/news/local/...fter-deeply-troubling-video-circulates-online
This what happens when your racist president decides to vilify a group of people, and his idiot cultists respond.

ASHWAUBENON, Wis. (WLUK) - A woman working at the Cinnabon stand in Bay Park Square has been fired after an online video showed her calling customers a racial slur and telling them that she is racist.

A post on X with the video says a couple from Somalia walked up to the Cinnabon counter to buy food and the employee started making fun of the woman's hijab. The post says the couple started recording the interaction with their phone. Then the employee called them the N-word and called herself a racist. The couple called the employee an idiot, a motherf----- and said the employee was ruining her life and would be fired. The employee continued with more derogatory comments directed at the couple and gave them two middle fingers.

 

[wareyin]

You assume that simply being a white male means a person has advantages. That's definitely racist; making a judgment about someone based solely on the hue of their skin. So to you, Malia Obama is disadvantaged while some trailer park White kid is advantaged. Insane. And BTW, "unconscious bias" is woo, it doesn't replicate.

Not so. It is not racist to be aware of the well-documented advantages that white men have in American society. I have already provided two studies that substantiate this finding.

 

[wareyin]

Why should someone's race or sex matter at all?

If it did not, you would not be fighting so hard to maintain the demonstrated advantages that white men have.

 

[wareyin]

They way to address discrimination is to stop discrimination, not promote it.

DEI does not promote discrimination.

 

[wareyin]

In light of the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that what your organization calls "DEI" is an outlier, it is your obstinance that is laughable.

If you had mountains of evidence, now would be a great time to provide some.

 

[wareyin]

The authors of that paper have spent their careers in academic STEMM and have written scores of federal grants.

Oh, look, appeal to authority. They still misrepresent the grant process, which given your claim of having written scores can't be down to an honest mistake.

Furthermore, the article quotes and links to both the presidential executive orders that required all federal science funding agencies to implement DEI requirements in grant applications and the funding agencies' own DEI requirements that they implemented in response. These requirements were instituted by the Biden administration and (thankfully) revoked by Trump on his first day in office. Within days, the funding agencies notified scientists in writing that they should cease submitting DEI plans with their grant applications, and DEI plans of already-submitted applications will not be taken into account in funding decisions. It is unequivocally true that DEI plans were required for grants during the Biden era.

And those two supposed "takedowns" of Epimov (1984) were written by John Herbert, whom I know quite well—he is a radically progressive activist. Every time somebody publishes an article criticizing how science has become politicized, John publishes two articles defending the politicization of science. He has even published articles defending cancel culture. John knows damn well—and was pleased, I'm sure—that grants during the Biden administration had DEI requirements.

Dismissing John Herbert as an "activist" is an ad hominem. His politics are irrelevant; the only question is whether his fact-checking of the original paper's citations holds up.

On the subject of grants, you are simply incorrect. There was no blanket mandate requiring DEI plans to be tied to federal funding. The claim that the Biden administration instituted an ideological prerequisite for all federal grants is a mischaracterization of administrative policy. The agencies simply expanded existing criteria like the NSF's "Broader Impacts" to address equity goals. No such DEI mandates were required for grants during that time.

 

[jt512]

If you had mountains of evidence, now would be a great time to provide some.

I already did, as you would know if you had read the peer-reiviewed paper I linked to.

 

[jt512]

On the subject of grants, you are simply incorrect. There was no blanket mandate requiring DEI plans to be tied to federal funding.

For the last time: The paper quotes and links to the Biden EOs that mandated those DEI requirements, and the paper quotes and links to the funding agencies' own DEI mandates that they put in place in response to those EOs. That is, the paper literally proves that those DEI requirements were in place during the Biden administration, no matter how many times you repeat "no they weren't," "no they weren"t," "no they weren't."

QED.

 

[Trausti]

How? I'm genuinely interested how you'd stop discrimination.

You don't treat people differently based on their race or sex. Really not that hard. Treat people as individuals.

 

[Trausti]

DEI does not promote discrimination.

Of course it does; otherwise, it wouldn't be obsessed with race.

 

[arthwollipot]

You don't treat people differently based on their race or sex. Really not that hard. Treat people as individuals.

And what do you do for the people who systematically and for generations have been treated differently because of their race or sex?