Split Thread DEI in the US

[arthwollipot]

To be "diverse" you must purposely exclude.

That is perverse and ridiculous, and goes contrary to every dictionary definition ever. You're not even speaking English now. You're speaking Oppositish.

 

[arthwollipot]

I mean seriously, how can a purportedly intelligent person claim that "Diversity is defined as exclusion" with a straight face? Next you'll be saying "war is peace" and "ignorance is strength".

 

[Trausti]

What dictionary are you using?

View attachment 69033

DIVERSE Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

DIVERSE definition: of a different kind, form, character, etc.; unlike. See examples of diverse used in a sentence.

www.dictionary.com

You're missing the point. Who gets to make that determination? A person makes that determination. Everyone will have a different bias as to what that means. You're assuming everyone will have the same answer; they don't and won't. But to get to subjective "diversity," others must be excluded. There's no other way. And basing that exclusion on race or sex is wrong.

 

[Trausti]

I mean seriously, how can a purportedly intelligent person claim that "Diversity is defined as exclusion" with a straight face? Next you'll be saying "war is peace" and "ignorance is strength".

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse. What counts as "diverse"? Do I, Trausti, get to be the decider? How many of this or that race gets us to the promised land of "diversity"?

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse. What counts as "diverse"? Do I, Trausti, get to be the decider? How many of this or that race gets us to the promised land of "diversity"?

You're asking irrelevant questions. Worse, you're asking questions designed to shed the worst possible light on the concept of diversity. You're poisoning the well in the worst possible way. You're poisoning it with racism.

Diversity means that whoever is qualified gets the job. The "decision" to recruit someone is made without reference to the candidates race, gender, religion, sexuality or anything else but their qualification. Diversity comes naturally when you stop actively trying to make it exclusive.

Unless you think that people in certain demographic groups are less qualified simply because they are members of those demographic groups. Do you think that? I don't think that. You know who does think that? Far-right pundits and commentators think that. Racists, sexists, white supremacists, homo/transphobes, and authoritarian dictators think that.

Seriously, Trausti, we're both literally arguing for the same thing. We both think that race, sex, or whatever should not be taken into account. It's just that I'm honest enough to call that "diversity" whereas you have this pants-on-head bonkers idea that "diversity" means discrimination when it actually means the opposite of that. Where on dog's green earth did you get that from?

Oh yes. I remember now. You got it from the racist, sexist, white supremacist, homo/transphobic far-right authoritarian liarsphere.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're asking irrelevant questions. Worse, you're asking questions designed to shed the worst possible light on the concept of diversity. You're poisoning the well in the worst possible way. You're poisoning it with racism.

Diversity means that whoever is qualified gets the job. The "decision" to recruit someone is made without reference to the candidates race, gender, religion, sexuality or anything else but their qualification. Diversity comes naturally when you stop actively trying to make it exclusive.

Unless you think that people in certain demographic groups are less qualified simply because they are members of those demographic groups. Do you think that? I don't think that. You know who does think that? Far-right pundits and commentators think that. Racists, sexists, white supremacists, homo/transphobes, and authoritarian dictators think that.

Seriously, Trausti, we're both literally arguing for the same thing. We both think that race, sex, or whatever should not be taken into account. It's just that I'm honest enough to call that "diversity" whereas you have this pants-on-head bonkers idea that "diversity" means discrimination when it actually means the opposite of that. Where on dog's green earth did you get that from?

Oh yes. I remember now. You got it from the racist, sexist, white supremacist, homo/transphobic far-right authoritarian liarsphere.

@Trasti has been writing as though he has little if any personal experience with DEI, and is simply parroting what's he's heard from racist, sexist, white supremacist, phobic far-right sources.

My own experience with DEI comes from dozens of review panels and program committees, and from years of serving on admissions committees, including experience as chair of such committees.

In my experience (which may not be entirely typical, but it's more real than @Trausti's), DEI means we don't automatically favor the grant proposal written by the guy whose PhD was awarded by an Ivy League school. It means we don't automatically disfavor the applicant who's about to receive her bachelor's degree from a Christian college. It means we don't automatically prefer the black woman who grew up in New York City over the white male who grew up in some redneck town, when the two of them scored the same on their entrance exams, the black woman's essay reads as though it was written by a pro or AI, while the white male's essay reads as though he's trying hard to overcome the prejudices of his local culture.

We ended up with a diverse and inclusive group of grant recipients or students, and reasonably objective measures (e.g. citation counts, graduation rates) say it's as equitable as it would have been absent DEI.

@Trausti would have you believe otherwise. I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Blank]

In my experience (which may not be entirely typical, but it's more real than @Trausti's), DEI means we don't automatically favor the grant proposal written by the guy whose PhD was awarded by an Ivy League school.

Well, I worked as a hiring manager for a big IT company. The internal DEI policy didn't "force", but seriously encouraged us to hire teams with varying gender/ethnicity distribution from a pool of pre-vetted people who filled the technical qualifications for the job. In the end the policy didn't discriminate against white but rather against Indian/Bangladeshi since the teams ended having tons of employees from there with massive amounts of applications from said nationalities and thus recruits from that area ended up in a weird limbo. Fancy theories and all aside, it had absolutely nothing to do with anything else that nationality at a company level, academia might be different.

As for the encouragement.. Our DEI target meant that our yearly bonus was determined by the team structure. Not a massive bonus amount, but still.

 

[wareyin]

You're not trying to stop discrimination at all. You're promoting that view that's okay to deny someone opportunity because of their sex or race. How do yo not see that?

You aren't being "denied opportunity." Full stop. You're simply no longer getting an unfair advantage by denying others the opportunity.

 

[wareyin]

Well, I worked as a hiring manager for a big IT company. The internal DEI policy didn't "force", but seriously encouraged us to hire teams with varying gender/ethnicity distribution from a pool of
pre-vetted people who filled the technical qualifications for the job. In the end the policy didn't discriminate against white but rather against Indian/Bangladeshi since the teams ended having tons of employees from there with massive amounts of applications from said nationalities and thus recruits from that area ended up in a weird limbo. Fancy theories and all aside, it had absolutely nothing to do with anything else that nationality at a company level, academia might be different.

As for the encouragement.. Our DEI target meant that our yearly bonus was determined by the team structure. Not a massive bonus amount, but still.

Regarding the highlighted: are you sure about that? Because the totally not white supremacist crowd keeps telling us that DEI completely removes all qualifications or lowers all standards so that people who don't have the qualifications for the job are somehow favored.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You aren't being "denied opportunity." Full stop. You're simply no longer getting an unfair advantage by denying others the opportunity.

Every accusation...

 

[Blank]

Regarding the highlighted: are you sure about that? Because the totally not white supremacist crowd keeps telling us that DEI completely removes all qualifications or lowers all standards so that people who don't have the qualifications for the job are somehow favored.

Positions were mostly low-entry level positions at floor level production in a cleanroom, so the qualifications could be summarized as - knew decent english and had a pulse. Any applying woman was pretty much selected, since out of 100 (5 teams of 20) we basically had just 10 women.

 

[wareyin]

Positions were mostly low-entry level positions at floor level production in a cleanroom, so the qualifications could be summarized as - knew decent english and had a pulse. Any applying woman was pretty much selected, since out of 100 (5 teams of 20) we basically had just 10 women.

You've probably hired far more than I have, but our process is a little different. We still follow the same procedure, but the higher ups no longer call it DEI now due to the political climate. Ours is more focused on removing our own biases in the hiring process by ensuring that we don't automatically throw out a qualified applicant's resume simply on the basis of their name or sex.

We also use pre approved questions and a script for all candidates. In our last two hiring bouts, we had a panel of four to six people from different backgrounds conducting the interviews, with each person grading the applicant's answers on a spreadsheet individually. While those ratings are still based on human judgment, having a structured framework and multiple perspectives helped dilute any one person's subconscious bias. It moved us away from just going with a gut feeling and toward a more consistent way of comparing candidates.

It is also quite revealing that even though you say women were basically automatically hired, they still only made up 10 percent of your team. If the qualifications were truly just English and a pulse, which roughly half the population meets, that 10 percent result shows that even with a perceived advantage, women were still nowhere near a 50/50 representation. This highlights that the "advantage" or "discrimination" people complain about often fails to even scratch the surface of existing imbalances, which is exactly why DEI is necessary.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Fancy theories and all aside, it had absolutely nothing to do with anything else that nationality at a company level, academia might be different.

Academia is different for a couple of reasons.

• F-1 student visas are quite different from the various work visas.
• Asian (especially Indian) students are disproportionally welcome at many universities. They often do not qualify for financial aid made available to US students, so they (or their families or governments) generally pay their own way, and end up subsidizing US students.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Focus on the individual? Regardless of our sex or race, each of us is unique. None of us should have our uniqueness disregarded because our race or sex is disfavored.

Again, you aren't actually outlining a policy. How would we measure if a company is "focusing on the individual" and is not taking people's race/sex or other protected traits into account?

 

[d4m10n]

Diversity comes naturally when you stop actively trying to make it exclusive.

I am somewhat skeptical of this claim, having seen a blind audition process result in a violin section composed (almost) entirely of Asian American females on more than one occasion. It seems likely you've smuggled in a premise here about how people from diverse groups are equally interested and motivated to join up regardless of the endeavor.

 

[Brainster]

I am somewhat skeptical of this claim, having seen a blind audition process result in a violin section composed (almost) entirely of Asian American females on more than one occasion. It seems likely you've smuggled in a premise here about how people from diverse groups are equally interested and motivated to join up regardless of the endeavor.

Indeed, the classical music critic for the New York Times opined that while the blind audition process had resulted in increased representation by women in orchestra, it did not appear to be working for minorities, and so he recommended scrapping it:

American orchestras remain among the nation’s least racially diverse institutions, especially in regard to Black and Latino artists. In a 2014 study, only 1.8 percent of the players in top ensembles were Black; just 2.5 percent were Latino. At the time of the Philharmonic’s 1969 discrimination case, it had one Black player, the first it ever hired: Sanford Allen, a violinist. Today, in a city that is a quarter Black, just one out of 106 full-time players is Black: Anthony McGill, the principal clarinet.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am somewhat skeptical of this claim, having seen a blind audition process result in a violin section composed (almost) entirely of Asian American females on more than one occasion. It seems likely you've smuggled in a premise here about how people from diverse groups are equally interested and motivated to join up regardless of the endeavor.

Indeed, the classical music critic for the New York Times opined that while the blind audition process had resulted in increased representation by women in orchestra, it did not appear to be working for minorities, and so he recommended scrapping it:

Really? A process that resulted in more women in orchestras than there were before is seen as not resulting in diversity?

Are you people being serious right now?

 

[Brainster]

Really? A process that resulted in more women in orchestras than there were before is seen as not resulting in diversity?

Are you people being serious right now?

Take it up with the NY Times' classical music critic, he's the one who pointed it didn't result in racial diversity. And there is at least an argument that the increasing representation of women in symphonies just reflects the increasing representation of women elsewhere in society, like law firms and executive suites.

 

[novaphile]

Take it up with the NY Times' classical music critic, he's the one who pointed it didn't result in racial diversity. And there is at least an argument that the increasing representation of women in symphonies just reflects the increasing representation of women elsewhere in society, like law firms and executive suites.

An argument that collapses, because the increasing ratio of women in orchestras has only happened, in many orchestras (particularly in the USA), after the introduction of 'blind auditions'.

 

[arthwollipot]

Take it up with the NY Times' classical music critic, he's the one who pointed it didn't result in racial diversity. And there is at least an argument that the increasing representation of women in symphonies just reflects the increasing representation of women elsewhere in society, like law firms and executive suites.

Yes. There are more kinds of diversity than just racial diversity. Do you know the ratio of men to women in orchestras before blind auditions were brought in?

Saying that diversity isn't worth it because every possible form of diversity aren't enacted is the perfect being the enemy of the good. You might as well say diversity is useless because blind auditions didn't increase the number of blind people in orchestras!