Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

And that is why your company needs to pay someone $366k/year to force me to take crummy D&I training each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

And that is why your company needs to pay someone $366k/year to force me to take crummy D&I training each year.

The response is not related to the exchange at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

I would be happy to see programs that target kids in poverty, but not based on their race.

That is the difference between DE&I as it is currently defined and "equity" in any traditional sense. One would base a program on demonstrated need, the other wants to substitute race or other identify factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

And that is why your company needs to pay someone $366k/year to force me to take crummy D&I training each year.

The response is not related to the exchange at hand.

Of course it is related. D&I consultants are making bank off virtue signaling governments, schools, and companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

And that is why your company needs to pay someone $366k/year to force me to take crummy D&I training each year.

The response is not related to the exchange at hand.

Of course it is related. D&I consultants are making bank off virtue signaling governments, schools, and companies.

OK, but how does that contribute to a dialogue about whether all people are capable of achieving the same level of success with the same level of effort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

And that is why your company needs to pay someone $366k/year to force me to take crummy D&I training each year.

The response is not related to the exchange at hand.

Of course it is related. D&I consultants are making bank off virtue signaling governments, schools, and companies.

I agree: the post is definitely relevant.

I'm all for increasing funding for head-start programs, especially if they are targeted for historically disadvantaged children. Buy why are we diverting these funds to pay ridiculous salaries so the few can help institutionalize D&I virtual signaling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Um, no.

Yes, some people have always had advantages. We don't all have the same aptitudes, and some people do a better job of developing theirs.

Nobody has weights in their shoes, but some people do work a heck of a lot harder.

I really really wish this was true.

Do you really think that a teen living in poverty, with no active parents and no reliable food or clothing source has an equal chance of academic success as a wealthy teen with engaged parents? Do you think they both need to work equally hard to achieve the same level of success?

And that is why your company needs to pay someone $366k/year to force me to take crummy D&I training each year.

The response is not related to the exchange at hand.

Of course it is related. D&I consultants are making bank off virtue signaling governments, schools, and companies.

OK, but how does that contribute to a dialogue about whether all people are capable of achieving the same level of success with the same level of effort?

Very negatively. Their own financial interests require them to claim anything and everything is a function of shadowy racism and bias, and that only additional expensive talks and curriculum can combat these invisible forces.

[Anonymous]

There are an almost infinite array of variables that intersect to give everyone a unique set of privileges and challenges. Is it fair to focus on the ones related to race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are an almost infinite array of variables that intersect to give everyone a unique set of privileges and challenges. Is it fair to focus on the ones related to race?

Great point. And I think you’ll find that most DE&I programs do not just focus on race, but everything you describe. Seems that those that object to those programs want to only focus on the racial aspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call me crazy, but I think the goal might be increased diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Sweetly jejune but not crazy.

[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 a woman here, and the difference between genders is usually women taking on more caregiver roles at home. Prior to having children, I think stats show women earn as much if not more than men. I am not saying that motherhood or caregiving should be penalized, but it's an understandable outcome for why men pull ahead.

[Anonymous]

Sincere question, why isn't there a concern for DEI in fields like NBA basketball players or NFL football players?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call me crazy, but I think the goal might be increased diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Yeah, kinda hard to believe that when we just had Fairfax County go on a crusade to target Thomas Jefferson HS on "diversity, equity, and inclusion" grounds for having too many Asians.

It is one thing to say "nobody should be excluded," which is an idea pretty much everyone would support.

When you insist the system has to be gamed to make sure certain groups are advanced, regardless of the actual merit of the individuals in question is when you get into trouble.... and that is what the entire modern D&I effort is about.

I'm confused. Some are arguing that the movement is designed, somehow, to only "target" white people. But you appear to be arguing that is not true. That in fact....it is being used to increase representation of all demographics. That is exactly the point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jefferson-high-diversity-admissions/2021/06/23/26bb7960-d44b-11eb-ae54-515e2f63d37d_story.html
"Prestigious magnet school Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology will welcome the most diverse class of students in recent school history next fall, according to data released Wednesday by Fairfax County Public Schools.

The class will include more Black and Hispanic students than any class admitted in the past four years. It will include fewer Asian students, who have historically made up the vast majority of admitted students, and a larger percentage of female students.

But the biggest jump came in admission offers to economically disadvantaged students, meaning students who qualify for free or reduced-price school meals. In previous years, these students accounted for 2 percent or fewer of all children offered spots at Thomas Jefferson, known as TJ. This year, 25 percent of all students receiving offers are economically disadvantaged, according to Fairfax data."

It doesn’t really matter. Statistics for the core kids who got into TJ on merit will be separated from those of kids in the privileged track. These students will do fine while standards will continue to be lowered for most of the others. Meanwhile kids who should have gone to TJ will go to their neighborhood schools like Langley, Robinson, Woodson, Madison, McLean, and Oakton and boost those scores and demand better science and math studies. TJ will lose some luster while other schools will gain.