Split Thread DEI in the US

[plague311]

How can you say you agree that NO ONE should face disadvantage then say that race should be a factor?

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to clarify?

 

[Trausti]

I linked to articles that show exactly that. I encourage you to go back to The Conversation piece and follow some of the links.

But let me ask you a question, Trausti. Do you acknowledge the long history (that continues in the present) of minorities being denied jobs by the majority in power? Or that when they get jobs, they're often paid less than their majority counterparts? There's a ton of research on that, right?

So how would you like to see these problems addressed?

None of your articles give an example. One of them looked at a business survey from 1996-1997 (before DEI) and makes speculative assumptions that diversity was good. The other just says that DEI good, those opposed are bad. There is simply no example of a company circling around bankruptcy that turned it around by adding a DEI department.

 

[Trausti]

Does it do anything or not? You seem to be rather confused. I'll give you a hint though, non-white people aren't getting preferred treatment either.

Why should someone's race or sex matter at all?

 

[Trausti]

DEI is explicitly to prevent people from facing disadvantage over their sex or race. Removing the advantages that white men have is the opposite of discrimination, and the unconscious bias (or conscious bias in some cases here) that people have for thinking white men are automatically a better candidate is the exact "preference" it is trying to overcome.

You assume that simply being a white male means a person has advantages. That's definitely racist; making a judgment about someone based solely on the hue of their skin. So to you, Malia Obama is disadvantaged while some trailer park White kid is advantaged. Insane. And BTW, "unconscious bias" is woo, it doesn't replicate.

 

[Trausti]

Interesting to see that question being asked by the same person who cited Spiked as an authority:

Spiked arose from the ashes of Living Marxism, which went bankrupt in 2000. Why did LM go bankrupt? Because LM accused Independent Television News (ITN) of deception in its coverage of the Trnopolje internment camp during the Bosnian war. According to LM, the Muslims at that camp were refugees who could leave any time they wished. But "history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia." It was LM, with its anti-Muslim agenda, that was fighting against the truth.

That anti-Muslim agenda continues at Spiked, often promoted by contributors who promoted that agenda at LM. As noted by Wikipedia, Spiked regularly speaks out in support of folks like Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson.

I haven't read the article cited by @Trausti. But if Spiked is the authority @Trausti chooses to cite in support of his anti-DEI views, I find it easier to understand why @Trausti holds those views.



In particular, look at Trump's cabinet. You don't get that kind of clown show by selecting on the basis of merit.

Good grief, I simply put a search term in an found an article on a subject I already knew. What the hell does the history of that publication have to do with anything other than your handwaving. It referenced this abstract https://econjwatch.org/file_download/1296/GreenHandMar2024.pdf?mimetype=pdf. Really, if all you can do is question motivations rather than address an argument, you must have nothing at all.

 

[Trausti]

This doesn't even make sense. Plenty of businesses start off diverse, are we not taking those into consideration?

Those companies happen to be "diverse" (how exactly do we define that?) but they succeed not because of diversity but because of talent. If you swap out talent for diversity's sake, you're gonna fail.

Mostly because DEI's goal isn't to increase revenue, it's not a business plan to save a failing business,

Right, which is why DEI is often the first to go when revenue dips.

but that doesn't mean that businesses haven't become more profitable after implementing DEI protocols.

There's no evidence that the increased profitability was because of DEI.

We also have a very prime example of a massive company ditching their DEI standards and losing a ton of money, we all know it as Target.

Target was boycotted. That's quite different than showing that ditching DEI caused revenue loss. Many companies ditched or scaled back their DEI in the past half decade, they're doing fine today.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why should someone's race or sex matter at all?

Because people have always been treated with discrimination and inequity based on race and sex, and it's time to redress that.

When your goal is an equal mix of green and purple, if your bowl already has a lot more green than purple, you need to add more purple to reach the goal. That's not discrimination, that's equity.

 

[theprestige]

Because people have always been treated with discrimination and inequity based on race and sex, and it's time to redress that.

When your goal is an equal mix of green and purple, if your bowl already has a lot more green than purple, you need to add more purple to reach the goal. That's not discrimination, that's equity.

It's literally discrimination, my dude. Your idea doesn't work without discrimination.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

None of your articles give an example. One of them looked at a business survey from 1996-1997 (before DEI) and makes speculative assumptions that diversity was good. The other just says that DEI good, those opposed are bad. There is simply no example of a company circling around bankruptcy that turned it around by adding a DEI department.

So DEI only proves itself if it can revive a dying company? Does DEI claim it will do that? That's a bit like saying (stand back -- an analogy!) Exercise is good for you. "Oh? Then show me one person dying of Ebola that was cured through exercise!"

But my previous question -- I'm genuinely curious how you'd like to see the problems of discrimination addressed. How would you level the playing field?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's literally discrimination, my dude. Your idea doesn't work without discrimination.

I mean technically yeah, but accepting the status quo is worse.

 

[theprestige]

I mean technically yeah, but accepting the status quo is worse.

Said Hitler.

 

[arthwollipot]

Said Hitler.

Argumentum ad Hitlerium? I expected better.

 

[theprestige]

Argumentum ad Hitlerium? I expected better.

Give better, get better. Give Hitler, get Hitler.

 

[arthwollipot]

Give better, get better. Give Hitler, get Hitler.

How would you solve the problem I outlined above? The goal is an equal mix of green and purple. You start with considerably more green than purple. You either have to put more purple in, or take some green out. Either one is unacceptable to you. Do you just accept that there's more green and your goal is unattainable?

If that's Hitler, then apples are an infusion of crayons.

 

[Trausti]

Because people have always been treated with discrimination and inequity based on race and sex, and it's time to redress that.

When your goal is an equal mix of green and purple, if your bowl already has a lot more green than purple, you need to add more purple to reach the goal. That's not discrimination, that's equity.

Kid: Hey, can I do that, too?
Art: No, we don't need any more of your kind.

 

[Trausti]

So DEI only proves itself if it can revive a dying company? Does DEI claim it will do that? That's a bit like saying (stand back -- an analogy!) Exercise is good for you. "Oh? Then show me one person dying of Ebola that was cured through exercise!"

But my previous question -- I'm genuinely curious how you'd like to see the problems of discrimination addressed. How would you level the playing field?

They way to address discrimination is to stop discrimination, not promote it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Kid: Hey, can I do that, too?
Art: No, we don't need anymore of your kind.

Literally the definition of maintaining status quo.

Instead:

Kid: Hey can I do that too?
Art: Sure, and your black friends can too.

 

[Trausti]

Literally the definition of maintaining status quo.

Instead:

Kid: Hey can I do that too?
Art: Sure, and your black friends can too.

And your white friends, too?

 

[jt512]

As someone with direct, firsthand experience, I find your explanation of DEI to be laughably mis-informed.

In light of the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that what your organization calls "DEI" is an outlier, it is your obstinance that is laughable.

 

[jt512]

At a first glance, the paper starts with a flat out lie that DEI plans are required for funding, and goes from there. It badly distorts the grant process to be unrecognizable to those with decades of first hand knowledge and in fact has had a few rather thorough takedowns of the many errors and misrepresentations in the paper.

The authors of that paper have spent their careers in academic STEMM and have written scores of federal grants. Furthermore, the article quotes and links to both the presidential executive orders that required all federal science funding agencies to implement DEI requirements in grant applications and the funding agencies' own DEI requirements that they implemented in response. These requirements were instituted by the Biden administration and (thankfully) revoked by Trump on his first day in office. Within days, the funding agencies notified scientists in writing that they should cease submitting DEI plans with their grant applications, and DEI plans of already-submitted applications will not be taken into account in funding decisions. It is unequivocally true that DEI plans were required for grants during the Biden era.

And those two supposed "takedowns" of Epimov (1984) were written by John Herbert, whom I know quite well—he is a radically progressive activist. Every time somebody publishes an article criticizing how science has become politicized, John publishes two articles defending the politicization of science. He has even published articles defending cancel culture. John knows damn well—and was pleased, I'm sure—that grants during the Biden administration had DEI requirements.