Or indeed the varsity blues college entry scandal.
Apparently all instances of cheating are isolated events except when an institution did it for race reasons and then it invalidates DEI, which has nothing to do with cheating.
Agree completely. And if the FAA thing holds up, then those responsible have not just harmed the candidates excluded for unfair reasons, but also many of the minorities in other jobs who are going to have to constantly defend themselves against accusations that they didn’t earn their position.
But as I say though, that acknowledgement should also come in the context of the bigger picture. This administration, and conservative media, is heavily leaning into this, and it is the new CRT. But most of the examples they give are bogus or misleading, suggesting that by and large DEI does work as advertized.
And, critically, I would not agree that DEI is the reason that some people say things like “I wouldn’t be comfortable with a black pilot”. Because it’s always the case that when a population has not grown up seeing a job done by a women / minorities / lgbt etc a proportion will be uncomfortable, and for some that will be expressed as full-on bigotry.
DEI is just the thing currently being used as a justification for those feelings.
And, the countries where fewer people have such feelings, are those that have successfully diversified most jobs through programmes akin to DEI.
It’s entirely a coincidence that one of the first things the Trump administration’s DoD did was to toss the Tuskegee Airmen (et al) down the memory hole.
Yes, and I should be clear too, that I was trying to be broad in my language by describing unconscious bias, which we all have. In practice of course there are those who are just outright racist, sexist etc.
I’m sorry to say I have encountered people in my life that just outright refuse to believe things like the Tuskegee Airmen because they see non-whites as sub-human or something. And actions like trying to hide that history shows who this administration is, and who they most want to pander to.
Anecdotes you make are not data. There is always more danger when assuming that something good is happening when there is systemic discrimination. What you say is not a reason to dismiss efforts to reduce it.
The discrimination part was illegal at the time. But:
A few changes were made by 2015. In 2016, Congress passed Public Law 114-190, which among other things banned the use of biographical assessments as a first-line hiring tool for air traffic controllers.
I don’t think that’s quite what I said. If you’re referring to something specific I wrote, please quote it so we can be sure we’re talking about the same thing.
Equating a statistical difference in demographics with “inclusivity” is begging the question. An inclusive workplace can still end up with employee demographics that don’t mirror the demographics of the population.
Making any assumptions about what caused a company’s employee demographics to be as they are is a mistake. I stand by that. You seem to be saying it’s OK to make assumptions in one direction but not the other, which is an odd position to take.
You’re making some pretty bold assertions here, and in light of your earlier “anecdotes aren’t data” comment, I can’t help but notice there’s no data to back up those assertions. I hope you’ll bring some soon if you’re going to keep referring to my points as “misconceptions”.
I have no idea what “beesnees” is supposed to mean. A reference to old-timey slang? A misspelling of “business”?
Nope, the evidence is there that assuming that all is good is not the default position one should take, of course it follows that then more evidence is needed to act. The problem I see here is that your opinions and anecdotes are indeed taking the assumption that we should go to the direction of dismissing DEI. (Really, the points from @Mijin and @Kimstu are valid, you are using exceptions to make a rule)
And now we have here that you think going to that extreme is odd anyhow.
Alright then.
First time I see some say that a study by Citybank is not data.
Beesnees is indeed old fashion slang about business, of course that shows that I have more of a background and I have to report that I have encountered prejudice in the past that I noted was reduced a lot in the current work environment that does have diversity training. Suffice to say that your experience is still an underwhelming talking point compared to the experiences minorities do have in the US.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. No one should assume that all is good.
Where we disagree, apparently, is that I also believe no one should assume that all is bad.
And at this point, we might have to agree to disagree, because I’m finding your posts pretty difficult to parse.
Again: if you’re referring to something specific I wrote, please quote it.
I’ve never said anyone should make that assumption, and I’ve never relied on that assumption myself, so I don’t think you’ll be able to find such a quote. But I’d really appreciate it if you could stop ascribing things to me that I never said and don’t believe.
If you mean the NPR article you linked earlier, I already told you why it’s not relevant to what I’ve said here. No one is disputing that discrimination exists in the world.
A background in… the 1920s?
I’m a member of a minority group that’s currently having its rights stripped away by the US federal government. We’ve been banned from some government jobs. Some of us have had our passports confiscated, leaving us unable to even escape it by leaving the country. Don’t lecture me about “the experience minorities have”.
Nope, most here do agree with that, the issue is that you only try to ignore the overwhelming evidence that even the “bad” examples are being grossly exaggerated by extreme sources out there to then prevent any action on trying to do the good thing.
That only makes the efforts here to be on the sad side really. One has to be aware that not all bad examples are representative of an item that really did help a lot of the LGBTQ community.
I’ve given three examples of DEI initiatives that crossed the line here. One was the FAA hiring scandal, which is documented in two lengthy articles linked earlier. Another was Wilberg v. Google, the YouTube recruiting lawsuit, which is documented in the court filing also linked earlier. And the third was the policy at a place where I worked, and I personally discussed the program with its proponents.
Which of those do you claim to have been “grossly exaggerated by extreme sources”? Who are these extreme sources, and where’s the evidence that they’re incorrect?
As I mentioned, @Mijin and @Kimstu already noted why.
As you are relying with anecdotes and acts that are not approved in DEI training or regulations, this opinion then is noticeable:
What does this mean with a second Trump Administration? During Trump’s first administration, the ACLU reported that 45 [Trump] worked hard to erase protections for LGBTQ people, especially for our transgender brothers and sisters. A new Trump presidency has already promised that federal policies will be rescinded that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity which is why DEI initiatives are even more critical now. You may not feel that DEI initiatives always help you, which I have felt many times, but trust me when I say not having them could cause a plethora of problems that none of us want to see.
Duly noted that you then are reaching for ageism in an attempt to dismiss others.
But no, I had old bosses that liked to use that word, and was more like: “bee’s knees”. Of course, I did check and it does look as you are finding evidence by searching Google (1920 is pointed there as a likely date it originated from).
Although the article you linked has “DEI” in the headline, the article itself doesn’t really say anything about corporate DEI programs having helped LGBTQ workers. In fact, it says “current DEI initiatives are not doing enough to protect and support LGBTQ employees … companies still have a long way to go when it comes to DEI policies and programs”.
But still, you’re right: plenty of programs that fall under the DEI umbrella really are helpful. I personally got a ton of benefit from work done by the ERGs for My Kind Of People™ at the last place I worked, and it hurts me to read the news about them rolling some of this stuff back. I’m certainly not in favor of gutting everything that’s considered DEI.
Reading between the lines of your last few posts, it seems like you may have jumped to the wrong conclusion about what I’m saying, or perhaps I’ve miscommunicated. I’m not “using exceptions to make a rule”. I’m just pointing out the exceptions, and the danger of focusing on diversity to the exclusion of other important considerations. I think we should get rid of the bad programs and keep the rest.
That article is awfully short and doesn’t say which specific programs it’s about, but again, I find nothing objectionable there. Getting rid of everything that anyone calls “DEI”, as That Man In The White House is currently doing, is a terrible idea.
OK, now you’ve definitely jumped to the wrong conclusion.
“The bee’s knees” is slang from the 1920s. You said your use of that word shows that you have “more of a background”. I took a guess because I had no idea what you meant by “background” there, and I still have no idea.
(And no, I didn’t need to use Google to know that “the bee’s knees” is from the 1920s. )
And then I see here that indeed the rule we “should” get is “one should get rid of bad programs and keep the rest” After pointing out that DEI is not that. One very important thing DEI enabled others to do is to note who are the ones that are doing a good faith effort and who are not.
Now the result (that does happen even though opponents to DEI do ignore it) is that then the usual bigots in business reach for the reprehensible and unfounded “what we don’t know (or what they don’t know) can’t hurt us”. One has to be careful not to fall for their desire to keep all discrimination under wraps. There are business and organizations that don’t want a record regarding who is not doing a good effort.
I’m sceptical this is a principle you generally adhere to. Did you wait to say there was wrongdoing in the case of eg George Floyd, or Kyle Rittenhouse, or Trayvon Martin, until the trials were concluded? Do you accept the results of those trials, for that matter?
Presumably the part in brackets is the relevant one. But TracingWoodgrains wrote his first article a full year ago, out of frustration that the issue was being covered badly in conservative media, and not at all in the liberal media. He’s not a conservative, he’s a gay ex-Mormon furry centrist who wrote an essay about how he voted for Kamala despite disliking and distrusting her. So yeah, I don’t think anything Trump says now retrospectively invalidates the article. If you’re not willing to express at least a provisional opinion based on the facts as we know them, what are you doing debating here?
I don’t watch Fox news or where ever it is US conservatives get their info. I think DEI is a problem mostly based on stuff I’ve seem on Twitter and Reddit, where people complain about their own personal experiences either in hiring or trying to get hired. I guess it could all be Russian bots, but it doesn’t seem that plausible.
I think we’re missing many of the best candidates today, by turning away people who are qualified and passionate about the job in favour of trying to recruit people who never showed much interest. And that’s a shame for them and for society, even if the intentions are good.
)