Split Thread DEI in the US

[SpuriusMaximus]

DEI in action.

No, not really. It's more like the H1B in the US. You can get cheaper workers from abroad.

And, as I was saying, they didn't need any extra mentoring or opportunities or any other resources, so it's more like equality not equity.

 

[plague311]

I'm surprised that, with all of those people you mentioned, you were able to learn and retain the history of all of their lives, including how they got into the positions they were in. That's pretty impressive.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I use the words exactly as the dictionary defines them. You don't.

White Supremacists often try to "shame" those who criticize them by accusing the critics of being racists against white people.

 

[theprestige]

Merit is the whole reason for DEI existing. Historically, positions of power, prestige, and high pay have been reserved for white men. They hire other white men, network with other white men, and white men recommend each others for prestigious positions. Recently, white women have managed to claw their way into these positions, too, only to 'pull the ladder up after them' and exclude non-white women from those same positions. Given time, various minorities too, like brown men and women, will be a natural part of these environments and recruitment will be gender- and colour-blind, but right now, as we all know, networks play a huge part in who get hired. Rules that ensure diversity in workplaces just accelerates the process, with all the benefits that come with that diversity.

The analogy with the crates and the fence is actually really fitting here --the smaller kids will eventually grow tall enough to look over the fence, but giving them crates to stand on means they'll get to watch baseball games right now.

Cool. So let the government or the school system provide the crates.

But at least we agree that some part of the population is arriving to the workforce underqualified, and that hiring them anyway necessarily means spending money on training programs for them, just to bring them up to a level where hiring them is actually a net benefit for both parties.

What we don't agree on is whether the solution is to make employers hire unqualified candidates anyway, and try to qualify them at their own expense, if the candidate has a certain skin color or ethnic background.

If black people are arriving to the workforce under-qualified, that's not the result of racist hiring practices. That's the result of an education system that has utterly failed black people. The solutions will be found in education system reform, not in DEI hiring policies.

Also, how are you, as an employer, supposed to mentor unqualified black employees into mutually beneficial workplace performance, when they're being told things like expecting black people to be on time to work is racist, by the very educational institutions that are supposed to be preparing them to contribute to civil society? Even if you hired an unqualified "engineer", you can't mentor him into STEM sufficiency on the job if he's already internalized the message that literacy and numeracy are tools of racist oppression.

Across the pond, Jason Arday gives us an excellent case study about how nobody - not even staunch DEI believers like the Cambridge Education Department - actually believes in mentoring under-qualified candidates into the full qualifications of the job they've been hired to (not actually) do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

US attempts at equitable education have simply resulted in all students getting shoes that don't fit.

Evidence?

 

[theprestige]

Evidence?

NCLB

 

[thaiboxerken]

NCLB

GTFO

 

[jt512]

But at least we agree that some part of the population is arriving to the workforce underqualified, and that hiring them anyway necessarily means spending money on training programs for them, just to bring them up to a level where hiring them is actually a net benefit for both parties.

...

Across the pond, Jason Arday gives us an excellent case study about how nobody - not even staunch DEI believers like the Cambridge Education Department - actually believes in mentoring under-qualified candidates into the full qualifications of the job they've been hired to (not actually) do.

The effects of DEI cannot always be offset by additional training or mentoring, as you say. No amount of mentoring would have made Jason Arday a competent academic. He, of course, is an extreme example. The more common case in academia is rejecting the top candidates for a position in order to hire a lesser candidate who ticks a DEI box for the department. In the post–George-Floyd era it has been nearly impossible for white, male science PhDs to find entry-level tenure-track jobs in university science departments, even if they were the best-qualified, most-talented candidates. They were systematically passed over for less-talented candidates who had the preferred skin color, reproductive organs, or blue hair. This has happened (and is still happening) on a massive, nationwide scale.

Note that white males are not uniquely talented in science—it's a numbers game: most candidates for these jobs are white males, so most of the top candidates are as well.

But you cannot turn a mediocre scientist into a great one by mentoring—they've either got what it takes to make great scientific discoveries, or they don't. The consequences of DEI ideology for American science is that it has been weakened.

Worse yet is that these gifted white guys do one of two things. The first is that they accept lesser jobs in industry or national labs, where their full potential will never be realized. The second is that they take their talent overseas to countries, such as China (our adversary), that only want to hire the best. Either way, American science loses, often to the direct advantage of other countries, including hostile ones.

 

[Trausti]

Broken record.

I guess so. It's like repeatedly call out to see if Bueller is present and getting no response. Because he's not there.

 

[Trausti]

Discrimination isn't always bad.

Yeah, so long as it's against people you don't like.

Yes, when you deny opportunities to people for arbitrary reasons it's bad, but sometimes you want to discriminate between different groups. If you're studying sickle cell disease, you absolutely want to discriminate between people of African descent and people of European descent, because the disease itself affects different groups differently.

That is about the dumbest analogy in this discussion there is.

Those who equate DEI with discrimination only ever equate it with the bad side of discrimination, and therefore the whole thing is bad. Yes - some discrimination is good, when you're dealing with different groups where things affect them differently. African and Latin Americans trend on the poor side, with fewer opportunities and a history of the bad kind of discrimination. To treat these diverse groups equitably, you have to discriminate and give them opportunities that they have historically been denied.

That just doesn't make any sense. How has a White or Asian child born TODAY denied and discriminated against Black or Latino children also born today?

That's not a Bad Thing - that's a Good Thing.

Unless you're the one born with a skin color that Art doesn't like.

It includes them in social and employment situations that they were historically less able to access, and makes those situations more diverse.

How does this argument work with first, second, or third generation immigrants? How were they or their ancestors denied access in a country they didn't even live in?

I've said it before. If you don't support diversity, equity, and inclusion, then you are accepting monoculture, discrimination for arbitrary reasons, and exclusivity.

LOL - you're the one making excuses for good discrimination against people with skin color you don't like. So ridiculous.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, so long as it's against people you don't like.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's a malicious misrepresentation of everything I've been saying.

That just doesn't make any sense. How has a White or Asian child born TODAY denied and discriminated against Black or Latino children also born today?

So history means nothing to you? The now is the only thing that exists and historical systematic discrimination just didn't exist?

Go back to school sometime.

Unless you're the one born with a skin color that Art doesn't like.

Again, these accusations of false racism are exactly out of the White Supremacist playbook. Did the Proud Boys loan you theirs?

 

[Trausti]

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's a malicious misrepresentation of everything I've been saying.

No, it isn't. You say that DEI is about inclusivity then give excuses whey discriminating against people with ugly skin color is good.

So history means nothing to you? The now is the only thing that exists and historical systematic discrimination just didn't exist?

I love history. And if that's our source to discriminate in the present day, then everyone gets to gripe. Everyone gets to discriminate against everyone else for some perceived historical grievance. I think my ancestor was mistreated by someone who had skin color like you - so discrimination against you is okay. But that's terrible way to run policy. Everyone has ancestors who did bad things. Even you.

Go back to school sometime.

LOL.

Again, these accusations of false racism are exactly out of the White Supremacist playbook. Did the Proud Boys loan you theirs?

Hey, everyone! Saying that no one should be discriminated against because of their skin color is WHITE SUPREMACY! I learn that in college. I am smrt.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's a malicious misrepresentation of everything I've been saying.

Is it? Your argument so far was literally that you think discrimination is good if it's for the reasons you like. Do I need to quote your message saying literally that?

So history means nothing to you? The now is the only thing that exists and historical systematic discrimination just didn't exist?

Go back to school sometime.

Your answer has nothing to do with his answer. Something happening 200 years ago has no bearing on what's happening today. I mean, Asians were literally argued to be low IQ even after WW2, and the Irish as unable to integrate even a decade later than WW2. The Vietnamese arrived after 1975 with just the shirt on their back and a negative opinion of them after the war. Yet today nobody proposes to pay THEM reparations or give them preferential treatment today. Nor do they ask for any.

Again, these accusations of false racism are exactly out of the White Supremacist playbook. Did the Proud Boys loan you theirs?

That's at best association fallacy, and at worst just garden-variety whataboutism.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, tell me that you didn't read what I wrote without telling me that you didn't read what I wrote.

I've never seen arguments more ideologically biased than in this thread. Okay, maybe in the "Woke" thread.

I argue for the literal dictionary meanings of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and am accused of being a racist.

Read a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ book some time.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, tell me that you didn't read what I wrote without telling me that you didn't read what I wrote.

I've never seen arguments more ideologically biased than in this thread. Okay, maybe in the "Woke" thread.

I argue for the literal dictionary meanings of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and am accused of being a racist.

You literally wrote that it is good to discriminate against people based on their skin color. Come on, man.

 

[arthwollipot]

You literally wrote that it is good to discriminate against people based on their skin color. Come on, man.

[reply deleted]

 

[Trausti]

nvm

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anyone who doesn't believe that DEI means diversity, equity and inclusion is in error, and anyone who is against it is de facto a white supremacist.

How about those who accept that diversity, equity, and inclusion are what the letters in DEI stand for, but recognize that in the US it almost never actually seems to accomplish that goal? How about those who believe the letters mean those words, but that trying to force such an outcome is counterproductive to both tolerance and viewpoint diversity?

Go ahead and tell me that my black father was a white supremacist. And my brother. Go on then.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Equality is ensuring everyone recieves size 10 shoes. Equity is ensuring everyone receives shoes that fit their feet.

On the other hand, Equal Opportunity is giving everyone $30 to get whatever pair of shoes in whatever style and size they want. And if someone decides they'd rather have a hat than a pair of shoes, well, that's their choice to make.

Equal Opportunity is a great thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

DEI isn't the problem. People who believe that DEI is not about inclusivity are the problem. If we could just get rid of everybody who interprets DEI as reverse racism or whatever, the problem would be solved. The world would be more diverse, equitable, and inclusive, and that would be a Good Thing.

So... if only you were allowed to be as exclusionary as you want to be, everything would be great? It would be a Good Thing if you could intentionally get rid of diverse views that you don't like, dispense with equitable treatment for those you despise, and remove inclusivity to ensure conformity?

Buddy, I'm not so sure you know what DEI is supposed be about.