Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

I think the fact this specific thread has ranked near the top of DCUM political discussion threads for the past few days shows that it's a political wedge issue.

If Democrats embrace this DE&I ideology in its current state, they will start losing elections. Remember: Biden just barely beat Trump in 2020.

What's really sad is that some conservatives, most independents, and many liberals support many of the Democrat's main policy positions. It's the identity politics stuff that really turns off a decent chunk of the electorate.

There's a reason why Nixon embraced affirmative action policies back in the 197s: these wedge issues work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Plenty get it, but the ones most concerned about “fairness” tend to be the most mediocre and stand to lose a lot once they no longer have the white guy privileges"

Nice of you to throw it that put down simply because I believe in fairness. What would you call it if someone said something similar about a person of a different race that also wanted to be treated fairly? That's what I thought.

The funny thing is, I've only ever been involved in an interview process one time, mainly just to talk about the job position to the candidates who were replacing me. All the applicants were white except for one. And all four interviewers were white. And you know what? We selected the only non-white candidate, and it had nothing to do with race. And it was an immediate consensus - basically all 4 of us looked at each other and said "That's our guy." Because he did the best job in the interview. It was eye opening for me because I saw that if you have good social skills and can make good conversation, you really stand out. Several candidates had the skills, but the guy we selected stood out because the conversation was so relaxed and enjoyable. People liked him so they wanted to hire him. How's that for "bias"?

You’re kind of proving my point here, Buddy. Most of the time, a white panel consisting of white men will choose a white male applicant because that’s who they “like”. In your case you chose an extroverted non-white man you liked, and not necessarily the best one for the job. Cultural “fit” is a big driver of discrimination because guess who doesn’t fit?

NP. At large companies and law firms, I can’t conceive of hiring panels that would not have diverse representation. These entities are going to all lengths possible to diversify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact this specific thread has ranked near the top of DCUM political discussion threads for the past few days shows that it's a political wedge issue.

If Democrats embrace this DE&I ideology in its current state, they will start losing elections. Remember: Biden just barely beat Trump in 2020.

What's really sad is that some conservatives, most independents, and many liberals support many of the Democrat's main policy positions. It's the identity politics stuff that really turns off a decent chunk of the electorate.

There's a reason why Nixon embraced affirmative action policies back in the 197s: these wedge issues work.

Agreed.

Nobody likes to be labeled or “othered”… nobody.

That’s why I think the pendulum will swing the other way. I’m just not sure if it will take another wake-up call with a conservative President before the Dems will adjust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Plenty get it, but the ones most concerned about “fairness” tend to be the most mediocre and stand to lose a lot once they no longer have the white guy privileges"

Nice of you to throw it that put down simply because I believe in fairness. What would you call it if someone said something similar about a person of a different race that also wanted to be treated fairly? That's what I thought.

The funny thing is, I've only ever been involved in an interview process one time, mainly just to talk about the job position to the candidates who were replacing me. All the applicants were white except for one. And all four interviewers were white. And you know what? We selected the only non-white candidate, and it had nothing to do with race. And it was an immediate consensus - basically all 4 of us looked at each other and said "That's our guy." Because he did the best job in the interview. It was eye opening for me because I saw that if you have good social skills and can make good conversation, you really stand out. Several candidates had the skills, but the guy we selected stood out because the conversation was so relaxed and enjoyable. People liked him so they wanted to hire him. How's that for "bias"?

You’re kind of proving my point here, Buddy. Most of the time, a white panel consisting of white men will choose a white male applicant because that’s who they “like”. In your case you chose an extroverted non-white man you liked, and not necessarily the best one for the job. Cultural “fit” is a big driver of discrimination because guess who doesn’t fit?

NP. At large companies and law firms, I can’t conceive of hiring panels that would not have diverse representation. These entities are going to all lengths possible to diversify.

Well, law firms needed to.

The legal profession has lagged in terms of diversifying. And, many diverse law grads don’t opt for Big Law anyway.

But firms represent clients/corporations who demand diversity at firms. I remember a law school buddy reporting on their summer associate experience commenting they were among the “diversity” year of recruits clearly required by the firm. A partner literally told my friend that the ball was in her court when it came to negotiations for the eventual offer (the partner and my friend were the same race/ethnicity/gender, and the partner was clearly looking out for them; the partner was also wooing clients and growing a portfolio that relied on adding another person with the same cultural ties).

At the end of the day, business interests were driving the diversity effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact this specific thread has ranked near the top of DCUM political discussion threads for the past few days shows that it's a political wedge issue.

If Democrats embrace this DE&I ideology in its current state, they will start losing elections. Remember: Biden just barely beat Trump in 2020.

What's really sad is that some conservatives, most independents, and many liberals support many of the Democrat's main policy positions. It's the identity politics stuff that really turns off a decent chunk of the electorate.

There's a reason why Nixon embraced affirmative action policies back in the 197s: these wedge issues work.

Agreed.

Nobody likes to be labeled or “othered”… nobody.

That’s why I think the pendulum will swing the other way. I’m just not sure if it will take another wake-up call with a conservative President before the Dems will adjust.

+100

[Anonymous]

Where does cultural assimilation fit into this? Because I think that's part of going on with the issue of "fit."

What if a group doesn't care a bit about race but very much insists that everyone who works with that group observe the social conventions of that group? You'll have to assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that the group really is focused on the social conventions and that this isn't a pretext for excluding people from particular races.

Is it permissible to insist that you're going to speak a certain way, you're going to dress a certain way, you're going to interact with the group in a certain way -- not because we have anything against a different group of people -- but because the business works more productively, more efficiently, with less friction, and thereby produces a more sought after service or product?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact this specific thread has ranked near the top of DCUM political discussion threads for the past few days shows that it's a political wedge issue.

If Democrats embrace this DE&I ideology in its current state, they will start losing elections. Remember: Biden just barely beat Trump in 2020.

What's really sad is that some conservatives, most independents, and many liberals support many of the Democrat's main policy positions. It's the identity politics stuff that really turns off a decent chunk of the electorate.

There's a reason why Nixon embraced affirmative action policies back in the 197s: these wedge issues work.

Agreed.

Nobody likes to be labeled or “othered”… nobody.

That’s why I think the pendulum will swing the other way. I’m just not sure if it will take another wake-up call with a conservative President before the Dems will adjust.

I actually think that success in DE&I looks like DE&I initiatives no longer being required. If done right, it is not here to stay for generations. It requires the focus and intentional effort now because we do not currently live in a color-blind meritocracy.

The difference I think between both "sides" is a fundamentally different view of society as it stands today. Those in favor of DE&I still see the results of decades of injustice and exploitative systems at play and are want to eradicate it. Those against view current day as just fine as it is...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where does cultural assimilation fit into this? Because I think that's part of going on with the issue of "fit."

What if a group doesn't care a bit about race but very much insists that everyone who works with that group observe the social conventions of that group? You'll have to assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that the group really is focused on the social conventions and that this isn't a pretext for excluding people from particular races.

Is it permissible to insist that you're going to speak a certain way, you're going to dress a certain way, you're going to interact with the group in a certain way -- not because we have anything against a different group of people -- but because the business works more productively, more efficiently, with less friction, and thereby produces a more sought after service or product?

I think you've touched on something, and a point I am trying to make. DE&I is not about race alone. The I is for "inclusive". So no, without judging it- DE&I initiatives would tell you that a workplace should be accepting and welcoming of all points of view, and social conventions.

[Anonymous]

I thought DE&I had to do with white people feeling threatened for their lives when Black Lives Matter protests started getting very volatile last summer. Are we supposed to believe now that employers are just doing all of this DE&I out of the kindness of their hearts? I thought it was to stop black people from burning down cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So I have bolded a few thing. Your first assertion is false. Modern DE&I is not advocating for race-blind anything. Just as one example multiple universities have gone to court in recent years to defend their racial preferences in their admissions process. In one of its court filings Harvard revealed that according to their own internal numbers:

"“And we have seen the damage that has been done when race is not allowed to be considered. So from a statistical perspective, it is clear,” added Yang, referencing the numbers that show if Harvard abandoned the consideration of race in its application process, African American and Hispanic enrollment would decline from 14 percent to 6 percent and 14 percent to 9 percent, respectively. " https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/05/harvard-argues-admissions-suit-isnt-worthy-of-supreme-court-review/

That is to say that more than half of the African American students at Harvard would not have gained admission in a race-blind process.


The second thing I bolded, "underrepresentation," how do you measure that? Why assume an orchestra should have a "correct" number of black musicians and who determines that number? How do we know there is simply less interest in classical music among some populations than others?

Certainly this doesn't show that "meritocracy doesn't exist," it is a completely color blind process. If there were black players above the bar they would be selected.


Trying another analogy:

A. The US Olympic track and basketball teams are overwhelmingly black in a country that is majority white.

B. The US Olympic swimming team is overwhelmingly white.

C. The US Olympic badmitton team is 100% Asian.




Which one of these teams is evidence of racism and needs to be corrected?

Onto which of these teams would you preferentially put someone who could not qualify in a merit-based race-blind process?

Once again, Crickets.

How do we know when DE&I Is no longer necessary?

Is it when students at veterinary schools are 50% male?

How do we know the "correct" ratio of races, sexes, etc, for an employer or activity?

If there aren't enough black orchestra players, how many should there be?

Is the "correct" ratio of black orchestra players the same as for blues or jazz?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought DE&I had to do with white people feeling threatened for their lives when Black Lives Matter protests started getting very volatile last summer. Are we supposed to believe now that employers are just doing all of this DE&I out of the kindness of their hearts? I thought it was to stop black people from burning down cities.

The adults are talking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is the idea that we have had a meritocracy anywhere in this country is laughable.

I mean come on. Raise your hand if you've ever worked somewhere where the most capable people (usually women in my experience) were overlooked for promotions in favor of inexperienced, incompetent candidates (usually men in my experience, yours might be different).

So many uninspiring incompetent upper management / admin staff pulling the big bucks while the sharper worker bees who know what they’re doing get nothing. Meritocracy has nothing to do with it.

I think you make a good point. People are framing it as though DE&I initiatives are moving us further from a meritocracy, as though we are anything close to that. In fact, to answer the OP's question, maybe the "long term goal" of DE&I is to create the meritocracy that has never existed...

That is exactly the goal of D&I initiatives. In the old system all the competitors lined up on the starting line, the gun was fired, and people finished in the order they finished.

Now with D&I, we are expected to assume that if the race of the winners doesn't match expectations we have to simply select winners based on their race. (or game the rules of the race enough that we get the outcome we want.)

Can you cite specific examples of this? Not theoretical, but real life examples where you have seen this happen. Thanks.

“Ap for all classes” at Wilson and other schools. Basically everyone gets in to an ap class now out of fairness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact this specific thread has ranked near the top of DCUM political discussion threads for the past few days shows that it's a political wedge issue.

If Democrats embrace this DE&I ideology in its current state, they will start losing elections. Remember: Biden just barely beat Trump in 2020.

What's really sad is that some conservatives, most independents, and many liberals support many of the Democrat's main policy positions. It's the identity politics stuff that really turns off a decent chunk of the electorate.

There's a reason why Nixon embraced affirmative action policies back in the 197s: these wedge issues work.

Agreed.

Nobody likes to be labeled or “othered”… nobody.

That’s why I think the pendulum will swing the other way. I’m just not sure if it will take another wake-up call with a conservative President before the Dems will adjust.

I actually think that success in DE&I looks like DE&I initiatives no longer being required. If done right, it is not here to stay for generations. It requires the focus and intentional effort now because we do not currently live in a color-blind meritocracy.

The difference I think between both "sides" is a fundamentally different view of society as it stands today. Those in favor of DE&I still see the results of decades of injustice and exploitative systems at play and are want to eradicate it. Those against view current day as just fine as it is...

Ah, but how will you know when they are no longer "required?" How many black players should there be in the orchestra? 5% 10% 25%?

Of course you are also misstating the position of those opposed to the current wave of D&I thought. This isn't a question of "eradicating" "exploitative systems" or "fine as is."

Discrimination based on race or other immutable factors is immoral. If you want to advocate for programs for the poor, or aspiring [fill in the blank], then count me in, but that isn't what current DE&I is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact this specific thread has ranked near the top of DCUM political discussion threads for the past few days shows that it's a political wedge issue.

If Democrats embrace this DE&I ideology in its current state, they will start losing elections. Remember: Biden just barely beat Trump in 2020.

What's really sad is that some conservatives, most independents, and many liberals support many of the Democrat's main policy positions. It's the identity politics stuff that really turns off a decent chunk of the electorate.

There's a reason why Nixon embraced affirmative action policies back in the 197s: these wedge issues work.

Agreed.

Nobody likes to be labeled or “othered”… nobody.

That’s why I think the pendulum will swing the other way. I’m just not sure if it will take another wake-up call with a conservative President before the Dems will adjust.

I actually think that success in DE&I looks like DE&I initiatives no longer being required. If done right, it is not here to stay for generations. It requires the focus and intentional effort now because we do not currently live in a color-blind meritocracy.

The difference I think between both "sides" is a fundamentally different view of society as it stands today. Those in favor of DE&I still see the results of decades of injustice and exploitative systems at play and are want to eradicate it. Those against view current day as just fine as it is...

Ah, but how will you know when they are no longer "required?" How many black players should there be in the orchestra? 5% 10% 25%?

Of course you are also misstating the position of those opposed to the current wave of D&I thought. This isn't a question of "eradicating" "exploitative systems" or "fine as is."

Discrimination based on race or other immutable factors is immoral. If you want to advocate for programs for the poor, or aspiring [fill in the blank], then count me in, but that isn't what current DE&I is about.

I don't think I misstated anything. I posited something.

"Underrepresented" generally means not present proportional to the presence in the general population. There are differences in how the general population is defined- country, local area, local area with appropriate background, etc. I don't propose quotas so I can't give you a number.

[Anonymous]

Two wrongs don’t make a right.