Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

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...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

This is totally true. Case in point: the University of Maryland.

Maryland's VP for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion makes $366,081.57

The VP for Legal Affairs/GC makes $349,623.84

And, the Dean of Maryland's Engineering School (which brings in the most grant money) makes $274,165.80

See: https://salaryguide.dbknews.com

[Anonymous]

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 am sorry you haven't had the career you wanted.

In my experience the people most likely to be promoted above their actual ability were people who were skilled at working the people side of the equation, and they were often women.

Another group were people who took big risks, founding companies, making investments, and taking jobs that did not offer "balance," these were typically men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

This is totally true. Case in point: the University of Maryland.

Maryland's VP for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion makes $366,081.57

The VP for Legal Affairs/GC makes $349,623.84

And, the Dean of Maryland's Engineering School (which brings in the most grant money) makes $274,165.80

See: https://salaryguide.dbknews.com

Holy cow look at the salaries of the athletics coaches and heads. Gross.

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

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 am sorry you haven't had the career you wanted.

In my experience the people most likely to be promoted above their actual ability were people who were skilled at working the people side of the equation, and they were often women.

Another group were people who took big risks, founding companies, making investments, and taking jobs that did not offer "balance," these were typically men.

I’m actually right where I want to be thanks! But can name numerous people who were promoted well beyond their competence. And people who got fancy new jobs because of who they knew. And I bet most of us here can do the same.

But it looks like we agree that meritocracy has nothing to do with promotion and success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

This is totally true. Case in point: the University of Maryland.

Maryland's VP for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion makes $366,081.57

The VP for Legal Affairs/GC makes $349,623.84

And, the Dean of Maryland's Engineering School (which brings in the most grant money) makes $274,165.80

See: https://salaryguide.dbknews.com

Holy cow look at the salaries of the athletics coaches and heads. Gross.

Kudos to the DE&I grifters. If I was them, I'd be trying to monetize on this newage PR spin.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

This is totally true. Case in point: the University of Maryland.

Maryland's VP for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion makes $366,081.57

The VP for Legal Affairs/GC makes $349,623.84

And, the Dean of Maryland's Engineering School (which brings in the most grant money) makes $274,165.80

See: https://salaryguide.dbknews.com

Holy cow look at the salaries of the athletics coaches and heads. Gross.

Kudos to the DE&I grifters. If I was them, I'd be trying to monetize on this newage PR spin.

Wait, those UMD athletics people are DE&I grifters? How so?

[Anonymous]

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.)

I'm not sure your first sentence makes sense with the rest of what you wrote. The "old system" you describe never existed. To use your analogy, in the "old system" some people showed up with the perfect gear, the perfect training and perfect nutrition (all given to them, not earned on their "merit"). And others showed up malnourished, with weights in their shoes, etc.

[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.

DP. I work for a large govt contractor. Senior management had a sudden "realization" that their recruitment pipeline has not been very diverse for decades. In a knee-jerk response, they started pushing D&I stuff in a crummy way. Our middle managers started making staffing decisions based on race, largely independent of qualifications, so they could report back that diversity has been improving in their departments. It's insulting to my many, highly qualified colleagues of color, breeds secret resentfulness w/ many of my white colleagues, and is extremely shortsighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a political tool designed to unify an unwieldy coalition against a common "foe."

The whole 'equity' push has also taken on a life of its own as a sort of secular religion. It gives school bureaucrats and others something to talk about endlessly to distract the public from their continuing failures.

This is totally true. Case in point: the University of Maryland.

Maryland's VP for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion makes $366,081.57

The VP for Legal Affairs/GC makes $349,623.84

And, the Dean of Maryland's Engineering School (which brings in the most grant money) makes $274,165.80

See: https://salaryguide.dbknews.com

Holy cow look at the salaries of the athletics coaches and heads. Gross.

Kudos to the DE&I grifters. If I was them, I'd be trying to monetize on this newage PR spin.

Wait, those UMD athletics people are DE&I grifters? How so?

PP here. They are grifters in a different way for sure.

[Anonymous]

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 are very correct here. And I have also worked places where incompetent young white men lose their jobs more quickly than incompetent people from legally protected suspect classes. Managers are more reluctant to fire people from suspect classes for fear of retaliatory claims of discrimination.

[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.

Joe Smith from Acme Corp. 2018, promoted to district manager over Al Weissman.

[Anonymous]

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 am sorry you haven't had the career you wanted.

In my experience the people most likely to be promoted above their actual ability were people who were skilled at working the people side of the equation, and they were often women.

Another group were people who took big risks, founding companies, making investments, and taking jobs that did not offer "balance," these were typically men.

I’m actually right where I want to be thanks! But can name numerous people who were promoted well beyond their competence. And people who got fancy new jobs because of who they knew. And I bet most of us here can do the same.

But it looks like we agree that meritocracy has nothing to do with promotion and success.

Of course I didn't say that, but then if you think you were being clever much of what I have said it doubtless lost on you.