Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity does not result in equality. Equity is subjective, while equality is objective. This is why sports are the great equalizer. Either you win or you don't. The ball doesn't care what race you are.

That's an interesting point. Do we find that black people tend to have better representation in sports where there are objective victory criteria (e.g. score the most goals, cross the line first, throw the furthest) versus those with subjective victory criteria (e.g. sports with judges)?

Ice skating is probably a subjective sport. If you saw the movie I, Tanya the ice skater Tanya Harding wasn't refined enough for some judges. The judges liked the ballerina ice skaters, not the power skaters like Tonya Harding.

It really is about culture and not race.

[Anonymous]

While all of you have been obsessed about keeping black and brown people in their place, you haven’t noticed how much young women have surpassed young men. Quiet affirmative action has been put in place for males throughout academia and in professions based on academic achievements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While all of you have been obsessed about keeping black and brown people in their place, you haven’t noticed how much young women have surpassed young men. Quiet affirmative action has been put in place for males throughout academia and in professions based on academic achievements.

You start your post out with a lie then want to be taken seriously....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While all of you have been obsessed about keeping black and brown people in their place, you haven’t noticed how much young women have surpassed young men. Quiet affirmative action has been put in place for males throughout academia and in professions based on academic achievements.

Except no one here was advocating for keeping black and brown people “in their place”. Some people may be concerned about the possibility of quotas over merit however. Things like TJ ending a race neutral entrance exam etc. which actually ends up discriminating against Asian people, but you go ahead and throw out your nonsense accusation of racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity does not result in equality. Equity is subjective, while equality is objective. This is why sports are the great equalizer. Either you win or you don't. The ball doesn't care what race you are.

That's an interesting point. Do we find that black people tend to have better representation in sports where there are objective victory criteria (e.g. score the most goals, cross the line first, throw the furthest) versus those with subjective victory criteria (e.g. sports with judges)?

Ice skating is probably a subjective sport. If you saw the movie I, Tanya the ice skater Tanya Harding wasn't refined enough for some judges. The judges liked the ballerina ice skaters, not the power skaters like Tonya Harding.

It really is about culture and not race.

I think there is a black gymnast who’s done well- I want to say Biles? She won a tonne of medals and those sports are judged by people.

I’ve also seen many marvelous African Americans excel in the arts which are entirely subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting the rarified, tiny world of competitive and pro athletics is a consolation prize that evens out the gross socio-economic disparities between races in the US? A consolation prize that equals out the much lower household income of blacks and Hispanics? That makes up for the underrepresentation of those groups in positions of power and decision making and workforce in general?

No one is making that argument and it's rather telling that you are the one to suggest that anyone would consider this a "consolation prize". The argument here is that seeking proportional representation is something pursued by those who refuse to acknowledge facts and use rational logic because people make different choices in life and often those choices are affected by cultural preferences that have a correlation with the color of someone's skin.

And you are refusing to acknowledge the fact that white men are overrepresented in positions of socio-economic power and it has nothing to do with them being so much more capable. You are he one refusing to acknowledge that centuries of legalized oppression leave a mark on people that doesn't just disappear some few decades after being overturned by the judicial system. Yes, "cultural preferences that have a correlation with the color of someone's skin" - are you applying that to whites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While all of you have been obsessed about keeping black and brown people in their place, you haven’t noticed how much young women have surpassed young men. Quiet affirmative action has been put in place for males throughout academia and in professions based on academic achievements.

Except no one here was advocating for keeping black and brown people “in their place”. Some people may be concerned about the possibility of quotas over merit however. Things like TJ ending a race neutral entrance exam etc. which actually ends up discriminating against Asian people, but you go ahead and throw out your nonsense accusation of racism.

The opposition to diversity is always about keeping people in their place. You immediately bringing up TJ shows how narrow your interests are. An elite magnet school is great for the group of parents who worship that status but it really is of negligible interest to the broader discussion. My point is that while you are worried about any attempt to remedy the discrimination embedded in every facet of society, the boys of all ethnic groups have been surpassed academically by the girls, by a large margin. For example, in 2019, 507,000 women earned master’s degrees in the U.S. compared to 326,000 men. This has been going on for a few decades and the transition is evident everywhere in government and the economy if you look for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no answer here? I find that telling.

Are you suggesting the rarified, tiny world of competitive and pro athletics is a consolation prize that evens out the gross socio-economic disparities between races in the US? A consolation prize that equals out the much lower household income of blacks and Hispanics? That makes up for the underrepresentation of those groups in positions of power and decision making and workforce in general?

Way to miss the point. No, this isn't about athletics or consolation prizes. If you had read the post you were responding to you would have seen that this started with a discussion about orchestras.

The point that you seem to have missed is that the DE&I crowd is extremely selective about when and where they "value" diversity. If an orchestra doesn't have enough black members, as determined by a standard nobody here has been able to provide, then that is a problem. If blues bands don't have enough white players they would never care.

Different groups of people are actually different, tautological I know, but it is those differences, and dare I say "diversity" that result in different outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no answer here? I find that telling.

The makeup of the Olympic team shakes out the way it does not because of pure talent but because of access to opportunity. Black athletes dominate sports like track because track it costs a lot less money to run track than it does to learn ice skating or cross country skiing. Fix the access problem, and the rest will fix itself as well.

An interesting theory, that unfortunately doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

Basketball and soccer are both cheap sports, but one has a huge over representation of black players while the other doesn't.

Football is an extremely expensive sport, and it has a huge over-representation of black players while cross country running (an extremely cheap sport) does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no answer here? I find that telling.

The makeup of the Olympic team shakes out the way it does not because of pure talent but because of access to opportunity. Black athletes dominate sports like track because track it costs a lot less money to run track than it does to learn ice skating or cross country skiing. Fix the access problem, and the rest will fix itself as well.

How do you make that argument for badmitton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no answer here? I find that telling.

The makeup of the Olympic team shakes out the way it does not because of pure talent but because of access to opportunity. Black athletes dominate sports like track because track it costs a lot less money to run track than it does to learn ice skating or cross country skiing. Fix the access problem, and the rest will fix itself as well.

An interesting theory, that unfortunately doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

Basketball and soccer are both cheap sports, but one has a huge over representation of black players while the other doesn't.

Football is an extremely expensive sport, and it has a huge over-representation of black players while cross country running (an extremely cheap sport) does not.

+1
I've always wondered why sports like badminton and ping pong are dominated by Asians.
Are they expensive to train for (compared to say basketball)?

[Anonymous]

It’s how we got this joke of a VP. In the White House

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no answer here? I find that telling.

The makeup of the Olympic team shakes out the way it does not because of pure talent but because of access to opportunity. Black athletes dominate sports like track because track it costs a lot less money to run track than it does to learn ice skating or cross country skiing. Fix the access problem, and the rest will fix itself as well.

An interesting theory, that unfortunately doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

Basketball and soccer are both cheap sports, but one has a huge over representation of black players while the other doesn't.

Football is an extremely expensive sport, and it has a huge over-representation of black players while cross country running (an extremely cheap sport) does not.

+1
I've always wondered why sports like badminton and ping pong are dominated by Asians.
Are they expensive to train for (compared to say basketball)?

Uh, badminton and ping pong were developed in Asia. Hence why they are such popular spots in Asian countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s how we got this joke of a VP. In the White House

There is the racism and sexism we expect in this thread. Harris is more qualified than the majority of the long run of mediocre white men and much more qualified and worthy than recent token Midwestern conservative light-weights Pence and Quayle. She also is not criminally corrupt and evil like Cheney, Agnew, and Nixon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no answer here? I find that telling.

The makeup of the Olympic team shakes out the way it does not because of pure talent but because of access to opportunity. Black athletes dominate sports like track because track it costs a lot less money to run track than it does to learn ice skating or cross country skiing. Fix the access problem, and the rest will fix itself as well.

An interesting theory, that unfortunately doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

Basketball and soccer are both cheap sports, but one has a huge over representation of black players while the other doesn't.

Football is an extremely expensive sport, and it has a huge over-representation of black players while cross country running (an extremely cheap sport) does not.

+1
I've always wondered why sports like badminton and ping pong are dominated by Asians.
Are they expensive to train for (compared to say basketball)?

Uh, badminton and ping pong were developed in Asia. Hence why they are such popular spots in Asian countries.

?
A quick google search tells me they were both developed in England/ British India.