Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

Paying for a DEI director is just the cost of doing business these days. Total waste of money, but you have to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Paying for a DEI director is just the cost of doing business these days. Total waste of money, but you have to do it.

completely agree

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to see what happens as whites become the minority.

I’m a big supporter of DEI btw, but I also think younger generations raised in liberal areas won’t really need it. They are growing up color blind among mixed peers who accept fluidity and shun labels…which is the polar opposite of the PC some draw lines/label everything approach happening right now.

[Anonymous]

I've been active on this thread defending DE&I. But in thinking about it, I will say that a good amount of DE&I employer programs are pretty bad. My observation is that lots of employers are recognizing the importance of DE&I (whether sincerely or for optics reasons) and are taking a knee-jerk kitchen sink approach. They are mandating all sorts of training on things like implicit bias and microaggression and allyship without doing the work to lay the foundation and make it meaningful. All of those issues are important, but I'm not sure that throwing a bunch of (particularly Zoom) trainings on a calendar isn't going to encourage a lot of progress.

I don't have the answer to that. But the field is evolving quickly, so I'm hoping someone has it or will have it soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been active on this thread defending DE&I. But in thinking about it, I will say that a good amount of DE&I employer programs are pretty bad. My observation is that lots of employers are recognizing the importance of DE&I (whether sincerely or for optics reasons) and are taking a knee-jerk kitchen sink approach. They are mandating all sorts of training on things like implicit bias and microaggression and allyship without doing the work to lay the foundation and make it meaningful. All of those issues are important, but I'm not sure that throwing a bunch of (particularly Zoom) trainings on a calendar isn't going to encourage a lot of progress.

I don't have the answer to that. But the field is evolving quickly, so I'm hoping someone has it or will have it soon.

I agree that it’s somewhat shallow and very likely won’t change what’s in people’s hearts.

But, at the same time, it’s better than nothing. The converse is to never talk about these issues & pretend that these issues don’t exist. Which is exactly what a lot of not-so-well-meaning people - mostly white - want to do. I can’t even imagine what these DEI conversations are like in very homogeneous, conservative areas of the country. Does everyone belittle it? Are they aggressive toward the person leading the discussion? Or are they outwardly respectful?

I work in a very mixed and diverse organization where DEI is taken seriously. The vast majority of people, including whites in leadership, are respectful of the process. We had already gotten rid of most of the dead wood that would’ve complained about DEI efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens as whites become the minority.

I’m a big supporter of DEI btw, but I also think younger generations raised in liberal areas won’t really need it. They are growing up color blind among mixed peers who accept fluidity and shun labels…which is the polar opposite of the PC some draw lines/label everything approach happening right now.

Color blind isn't what the DE&I people want, it is hyper consciousness of color at all times in all things.

Just look at the post a few pages ago about a 100% color-blind audition process that is unacceptable to some precisely because it is color blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been active on this thread defending DE&I. But in thinking about it, I will say that a good amount of DE&I employer programs are pretty bad. My observation is that lots of employers are recognizing the importance of DE&I (whether sincerely or for optics reasons) and are taking a knee-jerk kitchen sink approach. They are mandating all sorts of training on things like implicit bias and microaggression and allyship without doing the work to lay the foundation and make it meaningful. All of those issues are important, but I'm not sure that throwing a bunch of (particularly Zoom) trainings on a calendar isn't going to encourage a lot of progress.

I don't have the answer to that. But the field is evolving quickly, so I'm hoping someone has it or will have it soon.

A huge part of the problem is that DE&I has become a "field," and that it continues to perpetuate the myth that there are racists hiding everywhere responsible for every different disparity. They have invented an entire dictionary of new terms that to any critical thinker outside looking in are just cultish.

What is a company to do?

All of corporate America, government at all levels, and academia are, contrary to the DE&I mantra, absolutely desperate to hire non-Asian "diverse" people.

If you have worked anything related to corporate/government/academic recruitment you know that they talk about almost nothing else.

All of the above have been shoveling obscene amounts of money at DE&I consultants who misdiagnose the problem, tell everyone DE&I is a "process," and wait for next year's fat check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a suggestion: stop asking people what " race " they are on every application, form and survey

Have job applicants apply by initials only with their CV

then have a selection of interviewees and choose.

Someone else can study the impacts, but it should work same way female authors got themselves published the last 100 years.

STOP choosing based on race. It does nothing to match the best qualified to the job

+100

I agree with this. Anonymizing resumes is not a new concept and many places do it. And noting race on applications is used to do analysis AFTER the hire. It is not in most case shared with with the people making the selection (and it is actually prohibited to do so with in most parts of the federal government.)

How do you propose handling the interview though?

The whole point of DE&I is to get people eventually to stop choosing on the basis of race. That is, in fact, the historical problem they are trying to solve for. The point is to attract a diverse applicant pool and to educate people about the subconscious ways preference may play a role in their decisions.

How quaint, the modern DE&I industry is absolutely not about race blind anything. It is all about introducing race into all aspects of hiring to make sure the "right" (not best) people get hired.

For example:

"The city’s Commission on Human Rights decided against the musicians, but found that aspects of the orchestra’s hiring system, especially regarding substitute and extra players, functioned as an old boys’ network and were discriminatory. The ruling helped prod American orchestras, finally, to try and deal with the biases that had kept them overwhelmingly white and male. The Philharmonic, and many other ensembles, began to hold auditions behind a screen, so that factors like race and gender wouldn’t influence strictly musical appraisals.

Blind auditions, as they became known, proved transformative. The percentage of women in orchestras, which hovered under 6 percent in 1970, grew. Today, women make up a third of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and they are half the New York Philharmonic. Blind auditions changed the face of American orchestras.

But not enough.

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.

The status quo is not working. If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks. Blind auditions are no longer tenable.

...

If the musicians onstage are going to better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, the audition process has to be altered to take into fuller account artists’ backgrounds and experiences. Removing the screen is a crucial step.

Blind auditions are based on an appealing premise of pure meritocracy: An orchestra should be built from the very best players, period. But ask anyone in the field, and you’ll learn that over the past century of increasingly professionalized training, there has come to be remarkably little difference between players at the top tier. There is an athletic component to playing an instrument, and as with sprinters, gymnasts and tennis pros, the basic level of technical skill among American instrumentalists has steadily risen. A typical orchestral audition might end up attracting dozens of people who are essentially indistinguishable in their musicianship and technique.

It’s like an elite college facing a sea of applicants with straight A’s and perfect test scores. Such a school can move past those marks, embrace diversity as a social virtue and assemble a freshman class that advances other values along with academic achievement. For orchestras, the qualities of an ideal player might well include talent as an educator, interest in unusual repertoire or willingness to program innovative chamber events as well as pure musicianship. American orchestras should be able to foster these values, and a diverse complement of musicians, rather than passively waiting for representation to emerge from behind the audition screen."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html

OK, so first let me briefly put on my editor hat. What the heck has happened to the NYT?

The basic premise doesn't hold. If there were in fact "remarkably little difference between players at the top tier," as they claim, then there would be more than one black player in the orchestra wouldn't there?

If it was just a coin toss difference between different interchangeable players auditioning then there would end up being roughly the "right" number of black players. (which for some reason they think should match the general population in NYC, even though they provide no evidence that black New Yorkers pursue careers as professional classical musicians at the same rate as other races.)

So the obvious reason black players don't get selected in blind auditions is because they aren't as good as musicians of other races. That means a meritocratic race (and gender) blind system needs to be replaced with a system that can be gamed, even if that means selected less talented musicians for an elite orchestra.

...and for the people here lying about what the DE&I people want, this has nothingto do with anyone who was disadvantaged. This is about picking less talented performers based on race.

Bump, nothing substantive from anyone?

What is the goal here? Clearly it isn't "select the best possible musicians."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens as whites become the minority.

I’m a big supporter of DEI btw, but I also think younger generations raised in liberal areas won’t really need it. They are growing up color blind among mixed peers who accept fluidity and shun labels…which is the polar opposite of the PC some draw lines/label everything approach happening right now.

Color blind isn't what the DE&I people want, it is hyper consciousness of color at all times in all things.

Just look at the post a few pages ago about a 100% color-blind audition process that is unacceptable to some precisely because it is color blind.

I get that.

I believe the DEI approach won’t retain favor for too long because (1) it won’t be necessary and (2) won’t resonate with the younger generation that is colorblind precisely because they don’t embrace labels—they shun them.

Younger people will simply embrace treating everyone with dignity and respect. They won’t need to label everyone and count heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens as whites become the minority.

I’m a big supporter of DEI btw, but I also think younger generations raised in liberal areas won’t really need it. They are growing up color blind among mixed peers who accept fluidity and shun labels…which is the polar opposite of the PC some draw lines/label everything approach happening right now.

Color blind isn't what the DE&I people want, it is hyper consciousness of color at all times in all things.

Just look at the post a few pages ago about a 100% color-blind audition process that is unacceptable to some precisely because it is color blind.

I get that.

I believe the DEI approach won’t retain favor for too long because (1) it won’t be necessary and (2) won’t resonate with the younger generation that is colorblind precisely because they don’t embrace labels—they shun them.

Younger people will simply embrace treating everyone with dignity and respect. They won’t need to label everyone and count heads.

That would be great wouldn't it? Of course that assumes the whole DE&I industry completely fails at changing those views.

Right now the obsession is the exact opposite of what you describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a suggestion: stop asking people what " race " they are on every application, form and survey

Have job applicants apply by initials only with their CV

then have a selection of interviewees and choose.

Someone else can study the impacts, but it should work same way female authors got themselves published the last 100 years.

STOP choosing based on race. It does nothing to match the best qualified to the job

+100

I agree with this. Anonymizing resumes is not a new concept and many places do it. And noting race on applications is used to do analysis AFTER the hire. It is not in most case shared with with the people making the selection (and it is actually prohibited to do so with in most parts of the federal government.)

How do you propose handling the interview though?

The whole point of DE&I is to get people eventually to stop choosing on the basis of race. That is, in fact, the historical problem they are trying to solve for. The point is to attract a diverse applicant pool and to educate people about the subconscious ways preference may play a role in their decisions.

How quaint, the modern DE&I industry is absolutely not about race blind anything. It is all about introducing race into all aspects of hiring to make sure the "right" (not best) people get hired.

For example:

"The city’s Commission on Human Rights decided against the musicians, but found that aspects of the orchestra’s hiring system, especially regarding substitute and extra players, functioned as an old boys’ network and were discriminatory. The ruling helped prod American orchestras, finally, to try and deal with the biases that had kept them overwhelmingly white and male. The Philharmonic, and many other ensembles, began to hold auditions behind a screen, so that factors like race and gender wouldn’t influence strictly musical appraisals.

Blind auditions, as they became known, proved transformative. The percentage of women in orchestras, which hovered under 6 percent in 1970, grew. Today, women make up a third of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and they are half the New York Philharmonic. Blind auditions changed the face of American orchestras.

But not enough.

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.

The status quo is not working. If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks. Blind auditions are no longer tenable.

...

If the musicians onstage are going to better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, the audition process has to be altered to take into fuller account artists’ backgrounds and experiences. Removing the screen is a crucial step.

Blind auditions are based on an appealing premise of pure meritocracy: An orchestra should be built from the very best players, period. But ask anyone in the field, and you’ll learn that over the past century of increasingly professionalized training, there has come to be remarkably little difference between players at the top tier. There is an athletic component to playing an instrument, and as with sprinters, gymnasts and tennis pros, the basic level of technical skill among American instrumentalists has steadily risen. A typical orchestral audition might end up attracting dozens of people who are essentially indistinguishable in their musicianship and technique.

It’s like an elite college facing a sea of applicants with straight A’s and perfect test scores. Such a school can move past those marks, embrace diversity as a social virtue and assemble a freshman class that advances other values along with academic achievement. For orchestras, the qualities of an ideal player might well include talent as an educator, interest in unusual repertoire or willingness to program innovative chamber events as well as pure musicianship. American orchestras should be able to foster these values, and a diverse complement of musicians, rather than passively waiting for representation to emerge from behind the audition screen."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html

OK, so first let me briefly put on my editor hat. What the heck has happened to the NYT?

The basic premise doesn't hold. If there were in fact "remarkably little difference between players at the top tier," as they claim, then there would be more than one black player in the orchestra wouldn't there?

If it was just a coin toss difference between different interchangeable players auditioning then there would end up being roughly the "right" number of black players. (which for some reason they think should match the general population in NYC, even though they provide no evidence that black New Yorkers pursue careers as professional classical musicians at the same rate as other races.)

So the obvious reason black players don't get selected in blind auditions is because they aren't as good as musicians of other races. That means a meritocratic race (and gender) blind system needs to be replaced with a system that can be gamed, even if that means selected less talented musicians for an elite orchestra.

...and for the people here lying about what the DE&I people want, this has nothingto do with anyone who was disadvantaged. This is about picking less talented performers based on race.

Bump, nothing substantive from anyone?

What is the goal here? Clearly it isn't "select the best possible musicians."

I'll bite.

1. I can't access the article you reference, but as far as I can tell, this is one guy's opinion that he got published, not an actual practice of the organization? So I'm not sure why you think this can be generalized to the entire DE&I movement, when very explicitly most DE&I initiatives are advocating for a race/gender blind selection system
2. I think you are overlooking the problem DE&I is trying to solve- underrepresentation. So the bolded illustrates the point. The theory is that no, there are not as many black players as the population. That is because the meritocracy that you envision does not exist. There is a historic preference for non-minority in the system that gets people there. Less access to music training in certain areas, less time to pursue, etc. People who oppose DE&I think that we are already in the place that people advocating for it are trying to get to.

3. Why do you think people are lying? You may disagree with their premise or their proposed solution, but I'm not sure why you have reason to doubt their sincerity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep -- all those adjuncts who make $20,000 a year are suddenly propelled to the lofty heights of university pay because they string together some word salad, show up looking like themselves, and scare the bejesus out of the general counsel's office.

Beats working for a living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens as whites become the minority.

I’m a big supporter of DEI btw, but I also think younger generations raised in liberal areas won’t really need it. They are growing up color blind among mixed peers who accept fluidity and shun labels…which is the polar opposite of the PC some draw lines/label everything approach happening right now.

Color blind isn't what the DE&I people want, it is hyper consciousness of color at all times in all things.

Just look at the post a few pages ago about a 100% color-blind audition process that is unacceptable to some precisely because it is color blind.

I get that.

I believe the DEI approach won’t retain favor for too long because (1) it won’t be necessary and (2) won’t resonate with the younger generation that is colorblind precisely because they don’t embrace labels—they shun them.

Younger people will simply embrace treating everyone with dignity and respect. They won’t need to label everyone and count heads.

That would be great wouldn't it? Of course that assumes the whole DE&I industry completely fails at changing those views.

Right now the obsession is the exact opposite of what you describe.

Yes, I realize that.

My point is that DEI doesn’t sit well with younger people. Once they take over, the pendulum will swing back.

Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with diversity, equity and inclusion. These are good things. Good people operate this way.

But as our melting pot continues to blend and people shun labels, the current DEI approach of sorting people into buckets and promoting narratives that don’t squarely fit will become exhausting.

The coolest people I know are light years ahead on this stuff while grounding it in history: just treat all people with dignity and respect in recognition that we are all the same…human beings living on Mother Earth. Full disclosure: these are mostly indigenous/First Nations people in Canada who think our American fixation on race/labels is dangerously divisive.

If you attempted to say this stuff in America, you would be crucified.

But young people get it. They don’t want to be labeled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a suggestion: stop asking people what " race " they are on every application, form and survey

Have job applicants apply by initials only with their CV

then have a selection of interviewees and choose.

Someone else can study the impacts, but it should work same way female authors got themselves published the last 100 years.

STOP choosing based on race. It does nothing to match the best qualified to the job

+100

I agree with this. Anonymizing resumes is not a new concept and many places do it. And noting race on applications is used to do analysis AFTER the hire. It is not in most case shared with with the people making the selection (and it is actually prohibited to do so with in most parts of the federal government.)

How do you propose handling the interview though?

The whole point of DE&I is to get people eventually to stop choosing on the basis of race. That is, in fact, the historical problem they are trying to solve for. The point is to attract a diverse applicant pool and to educate people about the subconscious ways preference may play a role in their decisions.

How quaint, the modern DE&I industry is absolutely not about race blind anything. It is all about introducing race into all aspects of hiring to make sure the "right" (not best) people get hired.

For example:

"The city’s Commission on Human Rights decided against the musicians, but found that aspects of the orchestra’s hiring system, especially regarding substitute and extra players, functioned as an old boys’ network and were discriminatory. The ruling helped prod American orchestras, finally, to try and deal with the biases that had kept them overwhelmingly white and male. The Philharmonic, and many other ensembles, began to hold auditions behind a screen, so that factors like race and gender wouldn’t influence strictly musical appraisals.

Blind auditions, as they became known, proved transformative. The percentage of women in orchestras, which hovered under 6 percent in 1970, grew. Today, women make up a third of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and they are half the New York Philharmonic. Blind auditions changed the face of American orchestras.

But not enough.

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.

The status quo is not working. If things are to change, ensembles must be able to take proactive steps to address the appalling racial imbalance that remains in their ranks. Blind auditions are no longer tenable.

...

If the musicians onstage are going to better reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, the audition process has to be altered to take into fuller account artists’ backgrounds and experiences. Removing the screen is a crucial step.

Blind auditions are based on an appealing premise of pure meritocracy: An orchestra should be built from the very best players, period. But ask anyone in the field, and you’ll learn that over the past century of increasingly professionalized training, there has come to be remarkably little difference between players at the top tier. There is an athletic component to playing an instrument, and as with sprinters, gymnasts and tennis pros, the basic level of technical skill among American instrumentalists has steadily risen. A typical orchestral audition might end up attracting dozens of people who are essentially indistinguishable in their musicianship and technique.

It’s like an elite college facing a sea of applicants with straight A’s and perfect test scores. Such a school can move past those marks, embrace diversity as a social virtue and assemble a freshman class that advances other values along with academic achievement. For orchestras, the qualities of an ideal player might well include talent as an educator, interest in unusual repertoire or willingness to program innovative chamber events as well as pure musicianship. American orchestras should be able to foster these values, and a diverse complement of musicians, rather than passively waiting for representation to emerge from behind the audition screen."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html

OK, so first let me briefly put on my editor hat. What the heck has happened to the NYT?

The basic premise doesn't hold. If there were in fact "remarkably little difference between players at the top tier," as they claim, then there would be more than one black player in the orchestra wouldn't there?

If it was just a coin toss difference between different interchangeable players auditioning then there would end up being roughly the "right" number of black players. (which for some reason they think should match the general population in NYC, even though they provide no evidence that black New Yorkers pursue careers as professional classical musicians at the same rate as other races.)

So the obvious reason black players don't get selected in blind auditions is because they aren't as good as musicians of other races. That means a meritocratic race (and gender) blind system needs to be replaced with a system that can be gamed, even if that means selected less talented musicians for an elite orchestra.

...and for the people here lying about what the DE&I people want, this has nothingto do with anyone who was disadvantaged. This is about picking less talented performers based on race.

Bump, nothing substantive from anyone?

What is the goal here? Clearly it isn't "select the best possible musicians."

I think you’re missing the point. The lack of black musicians in orchestra is because orchestra members tend to come from affluent backgrounds. Their families can afford to buy or rent their expensive instruments. They can afford expensive private lessons. They have supportive families that encourage them to do well. A poor black kid living in a ghetto is not going to have the same resources and support, period. So the point of the nyt article is that orchestras should seek out black members because of the poverty and systemic racism that is holding them back.

[Anonymous]

I think it's a little simplistic to chalk the orchestra thing up to affluence. I think there's an element of cultural affinity at work there. Money always help -- but it helps with sports too, and there is good representation of black people from non-affluent families in professional sports.

But, it's not just the money. The cultural background in some affluent communities puts a reasonable amount of value on orchestral music. I'd wager that the kid walking around the poor neighborhood with a cello is going to get more static in that neighborhood than in an affluent neighborhood and would get more static in the poor neighborhood carrying the cello than carrying a basketball.

Cultures that value particular activities tend to produce kids who are good at those activities.