• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

arthwollipot said:
I deny the premise of the question.
Click to expand...
Let's see if I can chart your progression in this thread:

  1. DEI is good on its face.
  2. American DEI is good on its face, but is being demonized by evil American conservatives.
  3. American DEI is evil, because evil American conservatives made it that way.
  4. American DEI is good on its face, but is being demonized by evil American conservatives.
A more rational progression would give us "4. American DEI is evil on its face, because evil American progressives made it that way", but here we are.
 
Aridas said:
By its nature, it is discrimination.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. It's the opposite of discrimination.
jt512 said:
You deny the premise, that US civil rights laws prohibit using demographic characteristics such as race, sex, age, national origin, or ethnic background as a factor in employment decisions, contractor selection, or college admissions. Then what do you think US civil rights laws say about using demographic characteristics such as race, sex, age, national origin, or ethnic background as a factor in employment decisions, contractor selection, or college admissions?
Click to expand...
You are deliberately misrepresenting me.
 
arthwollipot said:
The mistake both of you are making is that I'm not talking about facts. I'm arguing the heavily-biased spin they put on everything they report.

If you read that article, you would come away with an opinion that may or may not be in agreement with facts, but will definitely be a deeply biased one.

Take this:

Ibid.

This spins affirmative action as racial discrimination...
Click to expand...

Affirmative Action can be racial discrimination. Thats why such forms of AA were deemed illegal years ago.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, it isn't. It's the opposite of discrimination.
Click to expand...
It's the opposite of certain forms of discrimination, certainly. Specifically working to counteract specific forms of discrimination invites, among other potential solutions, solutions that are intentionally discriminatory by fundamental nature, but are justified under the banner of serving to make the playing field more fair in practice by reducing the overall skew caused by the sum total of the various actual forms of discrimination in play. Those aren't the only potential solutions, of course, but they're some of the most preferred by those who are focused on or can only work on addressing the more superficial level of the problems created by unfair discrimination.
 
jt512 said:
No I am not deliberately misrepresenting you. What, specifically, do you think I misrepresented?
Click to expand...
You said that because I am in favour of affirmative action, I am therefore necessarily in favour of racial discrimination. That is a deliberate misrepresentation.

I will grant that it might not be deliberate - it may be because you have constantly and consistently, throughout this very long thread, failed to grasp even the slightest idea of what I am talking about.
theprestige said:
Please explain how racial preferences in hiring are the opposite of racial discrimination. You must be suffering from levels of cognitive dissonance previously thought to be lethal.
Click to expand...
Affirmative action is not racial preference in hiring.
Ziggurat said:
Your source also rates them mostly factual. They have a strong opinion which should be considered, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
Click to expand...
*pinches bridge of nose really hard*

Again: I was not referring factuality or lack thereof in any way, shape, or form. Only spin. Only framing. Only bias.
 
arthwollipot said:
Affirmative action is not racial preference in hiring.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I guess you mean aussie affirmative action, the good kind, unlike the horrific US kind, which was specifically designed around racial preferences?

arthwollipot said:
*pinches bridge of nose really hard*

Again: I was not referring factuality or lack thereof in any way, shape, or form. Only spin. Only framing. Only bias.
Click to expand...
Here's a thought; how about ignoring the spin and checking the facts?
 
arthwollipot said:
You said that because I am in favour of affirmative action, I am therefore necessarily in favour of racial discrimination. That is a deliberate misrepresentation.

I will grant that it might not be deliberate - it may be because you have constantly and consistently, throughout this very long thread, failed to grasp even the slightest idea of what I am talking about.

Affirmative action is not racial preference in hiring.

*pinches bridge of nose really hard*

Again: I was not referring factuality or lack thereof in any way, shape, or form. Only spin. Only framing. Only bias.
Click to expand...
AA in the USA used to include racial preferences in hiring and civil service tests.
 
jt512 said:
Newsflash: Arth attacks source, ignores content.

Ad hominem is the new skepticism.
Click to expand...
Newsflash: jt512 posts shoddy unverified and unsubstantiated "evidence" presented without context and a claim that it's part of some devious plan, then attacks Arth for doubting the reliability of the source.
 
jt512 said:
Please answer the question.
Click to expand...
By increasing opportunities and access to the application process (duh) which is what AA is designed to be.

The concept is that women and minorities are actively recruited to apply so they make up a larger percentage of the applicant pool, which increases their opportunity to get hired.

Harvard and any other institution doing Affirmative Action won't do anything special to encourage affluent white men to apply but will go out of their way to encourage women and minorities to apply. The result is not that unqualified women and minorities get hired in preference to more qualified white guys but that white guys have to compete for the same jobs as equally or better qualified women and minority candidates and often the women and minority candidates get the job (or academic position).
 
CarbShark said:
By increasing opportunities and access to the application process (duh) which is what AA is designed to be.
Click to expand...
What AA was designed to be is irrelevant, because that is not what it is in practice. I would add, I doubt it really ever was.
 
Last edited:
Here's another example of "equity:"

Without seeking approval of the San Francisco Board of Education, Superintendent of Schools Maria Su plans to unveil a new Grading for Equity plan on Tuesday that will go into effect this fall at 14 high schools and cover over 10,000 students. The school district is already negotiating with an outside consultant to train teachers in August in a system that awards a passing C grade to as low as a score of 41 on a 100-point exam.
Click to expand...
Make no doubt about it, the goal is to reduce not just the Ds and Fs but the As as well:

Joe Feldman, the consultant the school district plans to contract with to implement Grading for Equity, wrote in 2019 that in Placer County, another jurisdiction with the grading system, “students who did not qualify for free or reduced-price lunch had a sharper decrease in A’s, reflecting how traditional grading practices disproportionately benefit students with resources because of the inequitable inclusion of extra credit and other resource-dependent grading criteria.”
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
Again: I was not referring factuality or lack thereof in any way, shape, or form. Only spin. Only framing. Only bias.
Click to expand...
So it's factually true that Harvard is racially discriminating. But that's fine because it's the good kind of racial discrimination. Got it.
 
Ziggurat said:
So it's factually true that Harvard is racially discriminating. But that's fine because it's the good kind of racial discrimination. Got it.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's even saying that.

I think he's saying that even if it's the bad kind of discrimination, we shouldn't pay attention because it's only being raised due to the bad kind of spin, framing, and bias.
 
jt512 said:
You deny the premise, that US civil rights laws prohibit using demographic characteristics such as race, sex, age, national origin, or ethnic background as a factor in employment decisions, contractor selection, or college admissions. Then what do you think US civil rights laws say about using demographic characteristics such as race, sex, age, national origin, or ethnic background as a factor in employment decisions, contractor selection, or college admissions?
Click to expand...
Since when were YOU against racial/national/ethnic discrimination? Didn't you say you voted against Kamala because she stood in the way of racism and discrimination in a certain foreign country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom