5 ms·

> segregate them into specific majority-minority teams Again, you mischaracterize what I said: "I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into

> segregate them into specific majority-minority teams Again, you mischaracterize what I said: "I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait." Where I in the follow up comment say: "... the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representative of your minority in your daily life. Maybe even a majority is not a minority on the team." > put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group. That is absolutely what your proposal entails. Because of the preceding comments I disagree with this characterization. These teams are an acknowledgement that many find it hard to feel like they are the sole representative of their minority in their daily life. It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support. > Consider the outcomes of this proposal: I'm sorry, we don't have any $minority teams working on $area_of_expertise right now, so I don't see a good fit for you. Note that now your minority group is explicitly a marker of what you can or cannot work on. > Whether or not you intended it, your proposal creates a racially defined hierarchy, .. This was addressed in the proposal: "Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate." I never said it was easy and that we wouldn't have to have extra support to make this work. That support requires staffing, training, recruiting etc etc that spends extra effort to make this very difficult thing happen. > Please don't object to my calling a spade a spade. I've provided a reason that your suggestion is flawed, and instead of defending it on its merits, you've objected to my word choice. To my points above these are clearly mischaracterizing of what I am saying by at best not carefully reading the proposal. I am asking you for the same respect in this discourse that I am giving you, and I believe that is fair. Edit: @joshuamorton I am sorry, I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say is different from what I actually said with no progress in our discourse. I think we just have to agree to disagree.

joshuamorton 9y ago
>Again, you mischaracterize what I said: You have not explained how this is a mischaracterization. Your proposal was to place minorities into solely majority-minority teams, my claim is that this is a form of segregation. Which of those two claims is a mischaracterizaiton? The rest of this post is just distraction that appears to claim that this is morally good segregation, or scientifically supported segregation, but its still segregation.
joshuamorton 9y ago
>I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say Pointing to quotes cannot do this. You need to explain how what I'm saying is a mischaracterization. To be clear, your suggestion is > hiring competent minorities into teams, where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. My claim is that is that (1). This means hire minorities solely into majority-minority teams. (2). Hiring minorities solely into majority-minority teams is a form of segregation. Just restating your original suggestion does not address either of these claims, you need to do something to show that (1) or (2) is false. I believe the reason that you have not done this, and have instead resorted to restating your original claims is because you are unable to reject either of these claims. Instead you are attempting to obfuscate this fact. I'm familiar with the research about the harms of being a minority and the impact it can have on performance, but as far as my claims about segregation go, those arguments are irrelevant. And that's why I previously said that they were a distraction. If you want to show how my interpretation of your claims is false, you need to show that either claim (1) or (2) is false, and so far you have not done that, you've simply restated your thesis.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  > I'm familiar with the research about the harms of being a minority and the impact it can have on performance, but as far as my claims about segregation go, those arguments are irrelevant. I strongly disagree. You have to respect the human in the equation if you want to facilitate inclusion, and make sure that you do everything to facilitate the change you desire. Otherwise you risk filtering for people that check the right boxes that happen to be similar to the people already working there. Research from 2007 to 2015 in [1] indicates that what we are currently doing is not working: - The number of black women in the industry declined by 13%, the study found. - There was also an increase in Latino executives, but the overall representation of Latinos declined from 5.2% to 4.8% and they still represent a very small fraction of corporate leaders. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/silicon-valley-diversity-black-latino-women-decline-study https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/silicon-v... > Hiring minorities solely into majority-minority teams is a form of segregation. I never proposed solely recruiting minorities for these kind of teams. I said: "It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support." Also, the definition of segregation is: - the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart. which does not appropriately describe a team that is mixed and where some members come from one or more minorities. Also, I would again like to point out that minorities can still choose to work on any team as this is a tool applied at discretion. Of cause, as I stated you need to do extra work to make sure that minorities can choose opportunities freely and be supported appropriately after the choice is made. The definition of ghetto is: - a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups. Which for the same reasons does not properly describe the proposal. Note: I think I've shown here that you've used historically loaded terms like segregation and ghetto inappropriately to describe parts of my proposal. This is a very dirty rhetorical trick when the proposal is intended to apply to minorities, and it is not appreciated.

joshuamorton 9y ago

>Again, you mischaracterize what I said: You have not explained how this is a mischaracterization. Your proposal was to place minorities into solely majority-minority teams, my claim is that this is a form of segregation. Which of those two claims is a mischaracterizaiton? The rest of this post is just distraction that appears to claim that this is morally good segregation, or scientifically supported segregation, but its still segregation.

joshuamorton 9y ago

>I can't keep pointing to the same quotes showing how you interpret what I say Pointing to quotes cannot do this. You need to explain how what I'm saying is a mischaracterization. To be clear, your suggestion is > hiring competent minorities into teams, where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. My claim is that is that (1). This means hire minorities solely into majority-minority teams. (2). Hiring minorities solely into majority-minority teams is a form of segregation. Just restating your original suggestion does not address either of these claims, you need to do something to show that (1) or (2) is false. I believe the reason that you have not done this, and have instead resorted to restating your original claims is because you are unable to reject either of these claims. Instead you are attempting to obfuscate this fact. I'm familiar with the research about the harms of being a minority and the impact it can have on performance, but as far as my claims about segregation go, those arguments are irrelevant. And that's why I previously said that they were a distraction. If you want to show how my interpretation of your claims is false, you need to show that either claim (1) or (2) is false, and so far you have not done that, you've simply restated your thesis.

asabjorn 9y ago
> I'm familiar with the research about the harms of being a minority and the impact it can have on performance, but as far as my claims about segregation go, those arguments are irrelevant. I strongly disagree. You have to respect the human in the equation if you want to facilitate inclusion, and make sure that you do everything to facilitate the change you desire. Otherwise you risk filtering for people that check the right boxes that happen to be similar to the people already working there. Research from 2007 to 2015 in [1] indicates that what we are currently doing is not working: - The number of black women in the industry declined by 13%, the study found. - There was also an increase in Latino executives, but the overall representation of Latinos declined from 5.2% to 4.8% and they still represent a very small fraction of corporate leaders. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/silicon-valley-diversity-black-latino-women-decline-study https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/03/silicon-v... > Hiring minorities solely into majority-minority teams is a form of segregation. I never proposed solely recruiting minorities for these kind of teams. I said: "It is a tool that should only be applied at discretion and when appropriate, and to make it work it needs support." Also, the definition of segregation is: - the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart. which does not appropriately describe a team that is mixed and where some members come from one or more minorities. Also, I would again like to point out that minorities can still choose to work on any team as this is a tool applied at discretion. Of cause, as I stated you need to do extra work to make sure that minorities can choose opportunities freely and be supported appropriately after the choice is made. The definition of ghetto is: - a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups. Which for the same reasons does not properly describe the proposal. Note: I think I've shown here that you've used historically loaded terms like segregation and ghetto inappropriately to describe parts of my proposal. This is a very dirty rhetorical trick when the proposal is intended to apply to minorities, and it is not appreciated.