Split Thread DEI in the US

[Trausti]

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?

Well, for a start, see if the company has DEI hiring. Then there'd be a good chance it discriminates based on race and sex.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

The argument from the pro-DEI crowd is that gender (sex) diversity isn't enough, so they are going to need to take factors like racial or ethnic background into account rather than relying on a race-blind process.

 

[Trausti]

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!

LOL. You're making a value judgment on what diversity counts as "good." That's kinda of the whole problem with DEI.

 

[Trausti]

The argument from the pro-DEI crowd is that gender (sex) diversity isn't enough, so they are going to need to take factors like racial or ethnic background into account rather than relying on a race-blind process.

One would think arriving at a race-blind process is good. Finally, judging by ability and talent and not skin tone. But you'd be wrong.

 

[Brainster]

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'.

A more perfect statement of the post hoc fallacy would be hard to imagine.

 

[novaphile]

A more perfect statement of the post hoc fallacy would be hard to imagine.

Well, they were saying, we only select men, because men are always better.

That continued until they started doing blind auditions.

Suddenly, men weren't always better.

 

[arthwollipot]

The argument from the pro-DEI crowd is that gender (sex) diversity isn't enough, so they are going to need to take factors like racial or ethnic background into account rather than relying on a race-blind process.

Whataboutism is an utterly vacuous argument, no matter what subject it is applied to.

LOL. You're making a value judgment on what diversity counts as "good." That's kinda of the whole problem with DEI.

On the contrary, I'm calling all diversity good, regardless of whether or not it covers all possible bases. That's your fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

When you say that diversity of gender is bad because it is not simultaneously diversity of race, and diversity of physical ability, and diversity of sexuality, and diversity of religion, and diversity of whatever your next bugbear happens to be, then you do not understand diversity at all. But heck, we already knew that.

Elimination of one form of discrimination is good. That it doesn't simultaneously eliminate all forms of discrimination doesn't make it not so. Other forms of discrimination can be dealt with at other times. We don't have to fix everything all at once.

 

[d4m10n]

Whataboutism is an utterly vacuous argument, no matter what subject it is applied to.

DEI covers race as well as sex, so it's hard to see what you're on about here.

If it were actually true that "Diversity comes naturally when you stop actively trying to make it exclusive" then it seems difficult to explain why diversity only improved on one of the major axes covered by DEI programs after orchestra auditions stopped seeing all of them. It is also hard to explain why DEI conscious folks are arguing against blind auditions these days In favor of more affirmative action.

 

[Horhang]

Because people have always been treated with discrimination and inequity based on race and sex, and it's time to redress that.

When your goal is an equal mix of green and purple, if your bowl already has a lot more green than purple, you need to add more purple to reach the goal. That's not discrimination, that's equity.

Just reading through this today. Got to the end and since no one has responded to this: why should your goal be an equal mix of green and purple? I see no reason for that to be a goal.

 

[arthwollipot]

DEI covers race as well as sex, so it's hard to see what you're on about here.

Oh, so you've taken care of sex discrimination. Whatabout race discrimination?

Straight out of the freaking textbook.

If it were actually true that "Diversity comes naturally when you stop actively trying to make it exclusive" then it seems difficult to explain why diversity only improved on one of the major axes covered by DEI programs after orchestra auditions stopped seeing all of them.

Well, I dunno, maybe there are some other factors involved? Like, for example, socioeconomic situations that mean minorities have less access to music education and are less able to afford expensive instruments? How do blind auditions affect that?

Oh look, a one-sentence parenthetical aside that almost starts to think about the possibility of addressing that:

(The heavy costs associated with auditions disproportionately affect younger musicians of color; if you can’t afford to buy many flights and hotel rooms each year, it doesn’t matter how well you play.)

Apart from that one sentence, the whole article screams "prestige" and "privilege".

She added that any of those young artists would soon be worthy of entrance to an elite conservatory and, in just a few years, ready for top-tier auditions.

Give me a break.

It is also hard to explain why DEI conscious folks are arguing against blind auditions these days In favor of more affirmative action.

I think this is vastly exaggerated. One article by one reporter from the NY times interviewing one person, who expresses an opinion that is obviously biased towards the privileged, and this is now mainstream?

 

[arthwollipot]

Just reading through this today. Got to the end and since no one has responded to this: why should your goal be an equal mix of green and purple? I see no reason for that to be a goal.

On its own, without any context, of course there's no reason for that to be a goal. There's no reason for anything to be a goal when you're working at this level of abstraction. It's an analogy.

 

[Horhang]

Whataboutism is an utterly vacuous argument, no matter what subject it is applied to.


On the contrary, I'm calling all diversity good, regardless of whether or not it covers all possible bases. That's your fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

When you say that diversity of gender is bad because it is not simultaneously diversity of race, and diversity of physical ability, and diversity of sexuality, and diversity of religion, and diversity of whatever your next bugbear happens to be, then you do not understand diversity at all. But heck, we already knew that.

Elimination of one form of discrimination is good. That it doesn't simultaneously eliminate all forms of discrimination doesn't make it not so. Other forms of discrimination can be dealt with at other times. We don't have to fix everything all at once.

Blind auditions make the hiring decisions based solely on musicality. The fact that this did not result in a more racially diverse symphony became a reason to object to blind auditions and seek racial consideration. This is the definition of rejecting a purely quality based system in favor of a system which has a race based component.

 

[Horhang]

On its own, without any context, of course there's no reason for that to be a goal. There's no reason for anything to be a goal when you're working at this level of abstraction. It's an analogy.

So pointless.

 

[arthwollipot]

Blind auditions make the hiring decisions based solely on musicality. The fact that this did not result in a more racially diverse symphony became a reason to object to blind auditions and seek racial consideration. This is the definition of rejecting a purely quality based system in favor of a system which has a race based component.

Well, I dunno, maybe there are some other factors involved? Like, for example, socioeconomic situations that mean minorities have less access to music education and are less able to afford expensive instruments? How do blind auditions affect that?

So pointless.

In its context as an argument, not so much. When you pull it out and quote it as if it's the only thing I've ever said on the subject, dishonest.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Yes. I wonder how the racial composition would be affected by blind auditions for a jazz or hip hop ensemble instead of a symphony orchestra.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Classical music is not a job you can just decide you want to try. There are no entry level positions, no apprenticeships. Your parents have to pay for your music lessons, like many sports, you have to excel as a child to become a professional. It is not only very dependant on parental culture and aspirations but also class. Law, medicine, accountancy, engineering don't demand any special childhood competency. If you can get into college you can end up in the job. Construction doesn't demand that you have spent hundreds of hours during school practicing your brick laying.

 

[Blank]

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.

Pre-screening had a requirement of a minimum of a Bachelors in some STEM field or relevant work experience from cleanroom R&D. It had absolutely no relevance to the job at hand but it was there, normal candidate pool of CVs that ended up to my table was like 50% Masters/PhDs, 35% Bachelors and rest with "enough work experience"

We routinely bypassed recruits with higher credentials (i.e Masters or PhD vs Bachelors) to fill out our diversity target. Getting a CV from a woman was just so rare we actually ended up recruiting some with nurses papers. As said the work was not super complex and as R&D goes, you'll never find people the exact experience with the tools and processes used.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

There are all values that threaten White Supremacy, which is the reason people like Trausti hate it.

Yeah if white men who fail at everything weren't given all the chances, Trausti would have no chance at all.

 

[catsmate]

You are relaying a hearsay story from 50 years ago that predates DEI by decades. Why should anyone respond to an ancient anecdote from someone who admits they do not even understand the concepts being discussed?

In 1975, medical schools were notoriously hostile to women. Those students were likely set up to fail by the institution itself rather than a lack of merit. Your assumption that a meritocracy would naturally result in fewer women just reveals your own bias. Using this third hand story to judge modern professional standards is exactly the kind of intellectual laziness you claim to avoid.

Here medical students are 44% male. No discrimination needed.

 

[catsmate]

When your default for "merit" is "white cishet male", and anyone else is a "DEI Hire", yeah it's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ racist. Also sexist and homophobic.

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/