7 ms·

Some large nonprofit arts organizations (orchestras, theatres, etc.) have privately expressed that the hiring of a "chief diversity officer" has simply become a

Some large nonprofit arts organizations (orchestras, theatres, etc.) have privately expressed that the hiring of a "chief diversity officer" has simply become a necessary cost for organizations. Even if you have already been doing outreach for years or decades to attract a more diverse audience, activists will hold it against you that you do not have a formal, salaried position dedicated specifically and solely to this aim.

remarkEon 6y ago
Absolutely, but it's not just nonprofits. It's become a competitive barrier to entry exercise throughout industry. Only the big, established players can afford to do this, and it functions as a sort of tax.
- namdnay 6y ago
  I don't think small organisations would be criticised for not having this type of position though.
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    I think it depends on how much attention the smaller organization gets. I can totally see a CDO being a de-facto requirement for Bay Area startups due to all the pressure from the politics in the area. It's also possible a small to mid size organization gets into some imbroglio on Twitter and realizes they need a CDO to try and stop the bad PR.
- naturalpb 6y ago
  “Tax” is a great model on which to view the situation! I also think of these leadership positions, critical race theory / anti-racism / unconscious bias trainings, and diversity initiatives as a sort of insurance policy against social media-driven outrage. A large organization pays the "premium" to prevent a possible large loss of brand reputation. As you stated, this functions to benefit the large organizations that can afford the premiums while smaller organizations will go unprotected and pay the costs of the outrage that will be deflected their way.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
From an ideology point of view, this is amazing. Imagine having activist pressure be so strong that you can make institutions create high paying executive positions designed to satisfy your demands.
- EpicEng 6y ago
  The tricky bit, apparently, is making the right demands in the first place.
  - nailer 6y ago
    Hiring a Chief Diversity Officer is a fine demand, in that it requires the institution to pay attention to activists. Activists of the 'woke' kind generally prioritise attention over improving ethnic group involvement in a field. Once the CDO is hired, the activists will move on gaining attention by making subsequent additional demands.
- namdnay 6y ago
  I don't see what "ideology" or "views" that would be. It's not like anyone is saying that diversity is bad, we all agree that the ideal company would match the diversity of the society it operates in. It's just that hiring someone specifically for this seems a bit silly. To take a coding parallel, it's as if you had a "chief code review officer" to ensure people are doing enough code reviews. We all agree that code reviews are a good thing, and that most companies could do with more of them, but we also think it's a bit silly to have n executive position for it
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    I’m saying diversity is bad. I want a pure meritocracy, not a college campus where applicants are judged based on the color of their skin.
    - namdnay 6y ago
      We seem to be arguing two different things. I'm saying diversity is a good goal for our society to aim for, not that it's a good means to get there. i.e. I'm not saying that selection should be based on skin colour, I'm saying that it's a good long term goal for our institutions (be they fortune 500 companies or universities) to reflect the diversity of our society. There are lots of ways to get there, and american-style racial quotas are definitely not the best way IMHO
fallingknife 6y ago
There is a high degree of overlap between people who care a lot about "diversity" and people who think bureaucracy gets things done and titles matter.
derbOac 6y ago
This is consistent with some of my experiences in a university setting. We had an applicant one year who complained (in a semi-formal grievance sense) that, when asked, the department didn't have sufficient numbers of formal administrative committees and roles assigned, programs, and so forth, to address diversity issues. What happened was they asked faculty questions along the lines of "what are you doing to address diversity issues in the department" and when the faculty couldn't point to formal administrative diversity positions and programs, concluded that we must not be doing anything. This led to a sort of penitential panic. The irony is that the most scathing complaints were leveled at the one faculty member in the department who probably did more to address diversity issues professionally in their career than anyone else, as it was a sort of research focus of theirs. The complaints weren't about inappropriate comments, it was about this faculty trying to address the question by way of reference to all the informal (but real) activities and practices going on. It was one in a long string of "jumping the shark" moments for me, as it became clear that, even in a department full of people who were deeply and genuinely concerned about diversity issues, it didn't really matter what was actually done. What mattered were the formal legalistic trappings of it. These types of formal programs can really backfire as well. I can recall another instance where the college had a sort of endowed faculty line aimed solely at minority hires. The irony was that this had the effect of attracting the most psychopathic elements in the programs, who publicly advocated hiring faculty under this mechanism in a sort of "pump and dump" scheme. That is, the line was in a certain area of research, which certain faculty had made it clear for years they believed was unworthy of hiring in. However, they were happy to advocate hiring using these diversity funds as a way of bringing money into the department, solely as a financial input, with the implication that it didn't really matter what happened to the faculty being hired. So in this sadly ironic way, this line, which was meant to bring in minority hires, ended up hurting minorities, by luring them into positions where they were almost certainly never going to get tenure, just by virtue of the politics of the research area in that program. To be clear, I'm not actually advocating against diversity programs or officers per se, as I've seen these offices intervene in situations where it was desperately needed. It's almost like the current approaches I've seen have had the effect of creating as many problems as they solved, canceling everything out. It probably mirrors some of what goes on, where the same people aggressively advocating for addressing prejudice with regard to one characteristic can be some of the most bigoted prejudiced people with regard to another characteristic. Or people will change their tunes on diversity issues to suit their financial benefit.

remarkEon 6y ago

Absolutely, but it's not just nonprofits. It's become a competitive barrier to entry exercise throughout industry. Only the big, established players can afford to do this, and it functions as a sort of tax.

namdnay 6y ago
I don't think small organisations would be criticised for not having this type of position though.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  I think it depends on how much attention the smaller organization gets. I can totally see a CDO being a de-facto requirement for Bay Area startups due to all the pressure from the politics in the area. It's also possible a small to mid size organization gets into some imbroglio on Twitter and realizes they need a CDO to try and stop the bad PR.
naturalpb 6y ago
“Tax” is a great model on which to view the situation! I also think of these leadership positions, critical race theory / anti-racism / unconscious bias trainings, and diversity initiatives as a sort of insurance policy against social media-driven outrage. A large organization pays the "premium" to prevent a possible large loss of brand reputation. As you stated, this functions to benefit the large organizations that can afford the premiums while smaller organizations will go unprotected and pay the costs of the outrage that will be deflected their way.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

From an ideology point of view, this is amazing. Imagine having activist pressure be so strong that you can make institutions create high paying executive positions designed to satisfy your demands.

EpicEng 6y ago
The tricky bit, apparently, is making the right demands in the first place.
- nailer 6y ago
  Hiring a Chief Diversity Officer is a fine demand, in that it requires the institution to pay attention to activists. Activists of the 'woke' kind generally prioritise attention over improving ethnic group involvement in a field. Once the CDO is hired, the activists will move on gaining attention by making subsequent additional demands.
namdnay 6y ago
I don't see what "ideology" or "views" that would be. It's not like anyone is saying that diversity is bad, we all agree that the ideal company would match the diversity of the society it operates in. It's just that hiring someone specifically for this seems a bit silly. To take a coding parallel, it's as if you had a "chief code review officer" to ensure people are doing enough code reviews. We all agree that code reviews are a good thing, and that most companies could do with more of them, but we also think it's a bit silly to have n executive position for it
- jimbob45 6y ago
  I’m saying diversity is bad. I want a pure meritocracy, not a college campus where applicants are judged based on the color of their skin.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    We seem to be arguing two different things. I'm saying diversity is a good goal for our society to aim for, not that it's a good means to get there. i.e. I'm not saying that selection should be based on skin colour, I'm saying that it's a good long term goal for our institutions (be they fortune 500 companies or universities) to reflect the diversity of our society. There are lots of ways to get there, and american-style racial quotas are definitely not the best way IMHO

fallingknife 6y ago

There is a high degree of overlap between people who care a lot about "diversity" and people who think bureaucracy gets things done and titles matter.

derbOac 6y ago

This is consistent with some of my experiences in a university setting. We had an applicant one year who complained (in a semi-formal grievance sense) that, when asked, the department didn't have sufficient numbers of formal administrative committees and roles assigned, programs, and so forth, to address diversity issues. What happened was they asked faculty questions along the lines of "what are you doing to address diversity issues in the department" and when the faculty couldn't point to formal administrative diversity positions and programs, concluded that we must not be doing anything. This led to a sort of penitential panic. The irony is that the most scathing complaints were leveled at the one faculty member in the department who probably did more to address diversity issues professionally in their career than anyone else, as it was a sort of research focus of theirs. The complaints weren't about inappropriate comments, it was about this faculty trying to address the question by way of reference to all the informal (but real) activities and practices going on. It was one in a long string of "jumping the shark" moments for me, as it became clear that, even in a department full of people who were deeply and genuinely concerned about diversity issues, it didn't really matter what was actually done. What mattered were the formal legalistic trappings of it. These types of formal programs can really backfire as well. I can recall another instance where the college had a sort of endowed faculty line aimed solely at minority hires. The irony was that this had the effect of attracting the most psychopathic elements in the programs, who publicly advocated hiring faculty under this mechanism in a sort of "pump and dump" scheme. That is, the line was in a certain area of research, which certain faculty had made it clear for years they believed was unworthy of hiring in. However, they were happy to advocate hiring using these diversity funds as a way of bringing money into the department, solely as a financial input, with the implication that it didn't really matter what happened to the faculty being hired. So in this sadly ironic way, this line, which was meant to bring in minority hires, ended up hurting minorities, by luring them into positions where they were almost certainly never going to get tenure, just by virtue of the politics of the research area in that program. To be clear, I'm not actually advocating against diversity programs or officers per se, as I've seen these offices intervene in situations where it was desperately needed. It's almost like the current approaches I've seen have had the effect of creating as many problems as they solved, canceling everything out. It probably mirrors some of what goes on, where the same people aggressively advocating for addressing prejudice with regard to one characteristic can be some of the most bigoted prejudiced people with regard to another characteristic. Or people will change their tunes on diversity issues to suit their financial benefit.