Diversity Equity and Inclusion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think reducing the entire DE&I concept to being about "quotas" is both wrong and misguided. Part of the reason the field and the framework has expanded in recent years is to move away from that. It is most certainly not only about race.

It is about creating an environment where people from all backgrounds (explicitly not limited to race) are represented, where the conditions are such that inequities become less relevant, and all those represented actually experience equal welcome and impact.

Would anyone disagree with that?

It is about weaponized identity politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I got a feeling the DE&I backlash is starting to emerge. The moral busybodies have taken what is otherwise a noble cause.

For the simple reason that it isn't what they claim it is.

D&I people: "We just want to help people who were disadvantaged."

Normal people: "Why don't you focus your program on people who have been disadvantaged?"

D&I people: "No, it has to be about identity, race in particular."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a feeling the DE&I backlash is starting to emerge. The moral busybodies have taken what is otherwise a noble cause.

For the simple reason that it isn't what they claim it is.

D&I people: "We just want to help people who were disadvantaged."

Normal people: "Why don't you focus your program on people who have been disadvantaged?"

D&I people: "No, it has to be about identity, race in particular."

I'm not sure the conversation on this thread is going anywhere unless we can agree on a common definition of DE&I. Anyone who is actually in the field would absolutely never say anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

DE&I not being about quotas makes me think of the scene in "Office Space" where the restaurant manager clearly wants Jennifer Aniston's character to wear more "flair" but won't come out and say how much flair is enough. He wants her to want to have more flair than she does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a feeling the DE&I backlash is starting to emerge. The moral busybodies have taken what is otherwise a noble cause.

For the simple reason that it isn't what they claim it is.

D&I people: "We just want to help people who were disadvantaged."

Normal people: "Why don't you focus your program on people who have been disadvantaged?"

D&I people: "No, it has to be about identity, race in particular."

I'm not sure the conversation on this thread is going anywhere unless we can agree on a common definition of DE&I. Anyone who is actually in the field would absolutely never say anything like that.

Part of the problem is that people opposed to concepts like DE&I, critical race theory based initiatives, structural racism, etc. don't trust that advocates of those concepts are really saying what they mean.

[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.)

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.

Case in point.

[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.)

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.

Case in point.

Well that would be an example of DE&I done wrong. It is not an indictment of all DE&I.

[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.)

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.

Case in point.

Well that would be an example of DE&I done wrong. It is not an indictment of all DE&I.

#NotAllDE&I

[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.)

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.

Case in point.

Well that would be an example of DE&I done wrong. It is not an indictment of all DE&I.

#NotAllDE&I

#MostDE&I

[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.)

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.

Case in point.

Well that would be an example of DE&I done wrong. It is not an indictment of all DE&I.

#NotAllDE&I

#MostDE&I

That is why the DE&I hustle is such a concern, too. #MostDE&I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If we started with the NBA, 25% of the now 75% of African American players will be put on a Performance Improvement Plan, take DEI courses, and give up their spots to whites and Hispanics. But that still would leave 50% African American and 50% white and Hispanic. Since non-Latino whites are 72% of the population in the U.S., we need to make the numbers more equitable and inclusive, so 72% of the NBA players are non-Latino whites. It's sad that an additional number of NBA players will lose their jobs, but DEI is important.

DE&I is not about quotas.

The NBA has a DE&I program- https://inclusion.nba.com/

Who cares if the next King LeBron James will give up his spot for a less qualified non-Latino white. DEI is important.

Again, DE&I is not about quotas. I am aware that quotas have been a thing in the past, and still are in some places. But that is not the goal of modern DE&I. You are arguing a strawman.

The goal is to make DE&I hucksters very wealthy.

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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