7 ms·

Maybe the question is why the leftists are so influential that for-profit companies are willing to comply with their ideology. Isn't the best way to increase th

Maybe the question is why the leftists are so influential that for-profit companies are willing to comply with their ideology. Isn't the best way to increase the representation of minorities is to increase the funnel? Better schools, better teachers, more rigorous curriculum for all instead of for the elite students, a whole new culture that values curiosity and geekiness in general, and eventually a larger number of people who are willing to toil for years to study STEM? But oh no, by merely asking such questions I'm a far right, a racist, and of course, a fascist (I can be wrong, of course, but I should be free to ask questions and propose alternative solutions). My theory? CRT in workplace is popular because it's effective at suppressing questions and at making it easy for organizations to avoid working on hard problems.

postsantum 4y ago
dvngnt_ 4y ago
my assumption is that the left is actually in support for better education in inner cities. i mostly hear about Republicans banning books
- onos 4y ago
  Have you also heard of “decolonizing” the libraries?
  - dvngnt_ 4y ago
    I haven't. I have heard more republican outcry in response to Biden's student loan forgiveness > A recent analysis by the Census Bureau said Black and Hispanic women could benefit the most from the one-time cancellation policy, as both groups hold a disproportionate share of education debt relative to their peers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/27/lawsuit-student-loan-forgiveness/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/27/lawsuit-...
  - nvr219 4y ago
    How frequently does that happen?
VirusNewbie 4y ago
You're missing the obvious answer, it's a zero sum game. If a company pays top of market, they can absolutely find enough qualified candidates any way they wish to subdivide them (by race/gender/background etc). The rest of the companies won't be able to however, and now they look bad so they either have to (possibly) lower their standards or have bad PR.
colinmhayes 4y ago
From my view it’s the right that is making education more arduous, especially for teachers at every step of the process. I haven’t seen anyone on the left try to censor teachers or cut their funding. “Girls who code” was huge at my inner city high school. Funded by the left. Democrat politicians fought constantly to make the schools better while republicans campaigned on vouchers that would mean poor students are stuck in schools with less funding while rich ones get a cheaper private education. I think you’re falling for the trap of only ingesting the “outrage” news and letting the normal stuff pass you by(maybe I'm just projecting because i fall for that all the time unfortunately). > more rigorous curriculum for all instead of for the elite students This is called common core and was implemented with widespread bipartisan support. Really we all agree on most things. That’s not to say there aren’t problems with the left. You just seem to have misunderstood them. For example, charter schools seem to be a good solution that combines choice with not leaving out those unable to pay. Yet both sides seem adamantly against them for their own reasons. > by merely asking such questions I'm a far right, a racist, and of course, a fascist Now we're really getting into speculation territory, but my hunch is that you've gotten these negative reactions because the people you are talking to/arguing with believe they are already supporting these initiatives and therefore that your complaints are in bad faith.
- hintymad 4y ago
  I really wish that education is a bipartisan issue. It's really not about left or right. What I was criticizing is not any specific policy but that the elites, whatever parties they belong to, use morality to block legitimate discussion of tough problems. It just so happens that the left love to put people into racists and fascists group, or so when I am being subject to exposure bias. > vouchers that would mean poor students are stuck in schools with less funding while rich ones get a cheaper private education. This is the discussion I wish we have more. That is, someone says that voucher is all about giving freedom and forcing teachers to teach better, but in reality it may work just the opposite. And we should really discuss its pros and cons without attacking each other's motives. > You just seem to have misunderstood them Maybe so, as I'm subject to exposure bias. I just can list equal number of examples that show how the left pushed their agenda too. Let's start with Gebru. When LeCun said that bias in model was the result of bias in data, Gebru attacked him for being a bigot. When Gebru was fired from Google, how many media spent even a single paragraph to discuss the quality of her paper, which was the root of the whole debacle, while being busy attacking Google for being racist or misogynist? Or search Allison Collins. When she was criticized for her policy, she said "“Many Asian believe they benefit from the ‘model minority’ BS. In fact many Asian Americans actively promote these myths. They use white supremacist thinking to assimilate and get ahead". When school boards lower their academic standards, they cite racism (again, they maybe right, but it's wrong to attack anyone who questions their conclusion). When students performed worse in maths, multiple school boards claimed that maths are racists or there are racisms in maths curriculum. When people were talking about bringing manufacturing back to the US, a pundit said along the line that it was poor white people wishing to bring back their power. When people asked why some Asians get ahead in the us, multiple Opinions and anchors argued that it's because Asians are closer to white. When people are talking about students' reading and maths proficiency were trending downwards, how many articles immediately claimed that the issue was racism? Of if we go back, how many people would call you a racist if you questioned Warren's claim that she was a native American? So, yes, I'm not happy with what I saw, but I saw the aforementioned examples and more from WaPo, from NYT, from The Atlantic, from Reuters, from MSNBC, from school boards, and from politicians. So, I don't know what kind of misunderstanding I can avoid.
BryantD 4y ago
Oh, that’s easy. Because you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity. It’s winning in the marketplace because it’s better. You’re 100% right about the funnel, but here’s the thing: junior positions are part of the funnel. About ten years ago I realized that I was screwing up massively by interviewing for current skill level instead of potential skill level. Sure, at a certain point you can’t just look for potential; I’m not gonna hire a senior engineer because they might reach senior levels at some point. But I’m sure thinking about my junior to middle levels differently. And this benefits everyone. Too many FAANGs get obsessed with existing criteria and leetcoding and won’t even look at someone from a small shop, regardless of skin color or gender. Their loss, my gain. Absolutely anything you can do to increase your pool of potential qualified employees is good. Making up theories which give you an excuse to keep the same small pool hurts your company. Again, my gain. Further, cultural diversity helps me get my job done because different viewpoints are useful! It’s amusing: the same people who will insist that cancel culture is bad because we have to invite all the viewpoints will also explain that trying to increase diversity in the workplace is terrible. It’s almost like there’s something else going on there.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity Diversity, as everything else, has a sweet spot. Too little and too much are equally bad. Of course nobody knows where the sweet spot is, but merely increasing diversity is not a guarantee for improvement. I mean, you can hire someone who hates your gut and doesn't speak your language. This will definitely increase the diversity, but you probably not going to like it. > will also explain that trying to increase diversity in the workplace is terrible. It’s almost like there’s something else going on there. I think most of those folks just despise hypocrisy. "Being anti-racist by being racist" makes me cringe. If you're making a diversity hire to get alternative viewpoints, you're doing it for your own benefit and being honest, I don't think anybody will have problem with that. It's the virtue signaling that makes it despicable. There's also argument to be made that if you're allowing diversity hires, you might have to allow "cohesion" hires. Justifying one but not the other seems disingenuous.
telltruth 4y ago
It's not left or right ideologies but CEO and their desire to be in good standing in social media. During early 2010s, there was whole barrage of books and editorial on income gap, gender gap and biases. News channels regularly picked up authors and circulated them on and on. Talk shows need someone to talk with and what could be better than these topics to energize audience to argue? This built-up a lot of resentment of being exploited and left behind in "diverse" group over short span of years which eventually exploded into me-too movement. During those days, a CEO will go out and post on Twitter how they cared about diversity and going all-in by tying the diversity targets with bonuses. Then if the next CEO doesn't do the same then they obviously looked upon as anti-diversity/racists. So, this whole thing cascaded into all big tech CEOs lining up to setup artificial diversity targets and that's where we are now. No one really cared that pipeline to funnel diversity in tech was broken at the start.
- nullc 4y ago
  It's also probably why these initiatives focus on skin color and gender rather than things like economic advantage: You can walk into an office and see that it's mostly asian men, you cant walk in and see that it made sure that people who didn't have elite educations got an opportunity.
psd1 4y ago
Yes, you absolutely should fix the funding gap in schools. 100%. I was really liking your comment until I got to the self-pitying complaints about being called a racist. The alt-right likes to call progressives "cucks". There are tumblerinas who call conservatives "fascists". That's what HN calls "free speech" - if you want to cry about it, try Facebook
raxxorraxor 4y ago
One strategy of the rule book of toxic middle management about how to keep your underlings from eating you alive is to treat them differently. One group will notice they get treated unfairly and instead of holding management responsible will develop frustration at the group that gets preference. A conflict ensures that you can leverage to your benefit. Sadly it is rare that people will hold management responsible in such cases.

postsantum 4y ago

dvngnt_ 4y ago

my assumption is that the left is actually in support for better education in inner cities. i mostly hear about Republicans banning books

onos 4y ago
Have you also heard of “decolonizing” the libraries?
- dvngnt_ 4y ago
  I haven't. I have heard more republican outcry in response to Biden's student loan forgiveness > A recent analysis by the Census Bureau said Black and Hispanic women could benefit the most from the one-time cancellation policy, as both groups hold a disproportionate share of education debt relative to their peers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/27/lawsuit-student-loan-forgiveness/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/27/lawsuit-...
- nvr219 4y ago
  How frequently does that happen?

VirusNewbie 4y ago

You're missing the obvious answer, it's a zero sum game. If a company pays top of market, they can absolutely find enough qualified candidates any way they wish to subdivide them (by race/gender/background etc). The rest of the companies won't be able to however, and now they look bad so they either have to (possibly) lower their standards or have bad PR.

colinmhayes 4y ago

From my view it’s the right that is making education more arduous, especially for teachers at every step of the process. I haven’t seen anyone on the left try to censor teachers or cut their funding. “Girls who code” was huge at my inner city high school. Funded by the left. Democrat politicians fought constantly to make the schools better while republicans campaigned on vouchers that would mean poor students are stuck in schools with less funding while rich ones get a cheaper private education. I think you’re falling for the trap of only ingesting the “outrage” news and letting the normal stuff pass you by(maybe I'm just projecting because i fall for that all the time unfortunately). > more rigorous curriculum for all instead of for the elite students This is called common core and was implemented with widespread bipartisan support. Really we all agree on most things. That’s not to say there aren’t problems with the left. You just seem to have misunderstood them. For example, charter schools seem to be a good solution that combines choice with not leaving out those unable to pay. Yet both sides seem adamantly against them for their own reasons. > by merely asking such questions I'm a far right, a racist, and of course, a fascist Now we're really getting into speculation territory, but my hunch is that you've gotten these negative reactions because the people you are talking to/arguing with believe they are already supporting these initiatives and therefore that your complaints are in bad faith.

hintymad 4y ago
I really wish that education is a bipartisan issue. It's really not about left or right. What I was criticizing is not any specific policy but that the elites, whatever parties they belong to, use morality to block legitimate discussion of tough problems. It just so happens that the left love to put people into racists and fascists group, or so when I am being subject to exposure bias. > vouchers that would mean poor students are stuck in schools with less funding while rich ones get a cheaper private education. This is the discussion I wish we have more. That is, someone says that voucher is all about giving freedom and forcing teachers to teach better, but in reality it may work just the opposite. And we should really discuss its pros and cons without attacking each other's motives. > You just seem to have misunderstood them Maybe so, as I'm subject to exposure bias. I just can list equal number of examples that show how the left pushed their agenda too. Let's start with Gebru. When LeCun said that bias in model was the result of bias in data, Gebru attacked him for being a bigot. When Gebru was fired from Google, how many media spent even a single paragraph to discuss the quality of her paper, which was the root of the whole debacle, while being busy attacking Google for being racist or misogynist? Or search Allison Collins. When she was criticized for her policy, she said "“Many Asian believe they benefit from the ‘model minority’ BS. In fact many Asian Americans actively promote these myths. They use white supremacist thinking to assimilate and get ahead". When school boards lower their academic standards, they cite racism (again, they maybe right, but it's wrong to attack anyone who questions their conclusion). When students performed worse in maths, multiple school boards claimed that maths are racists or there are racisms in maths curriculum. When people were talking about bringing manufacturing back to the US, a pundit said along the line that it was poor white people wishing to bring back their power. When people asked why some Asians get ahead in the us, multiple Opinions and anchors argued that it's because Asians are closer to white. When people are talking about students' reading and maths proficiency were trending downwards, how many articles immediately claimed that the issue was racism? Of if we go back, how many people would call you a racist if you questioned Warren's claim that she was a native American? So, yes, I'm not happy with what I saw, but I saw the aforementioned examples and more from WaPo, from NYT, from The Atlantic, from Reuters, from MSNBC, from school boards, and from politicians. So, I don't know what kind of misunderstanding I can avoid.

BryantD 4y ago

Oh, that’s easy. Because you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity. It’s winning in the marketplace because it’s better. You’re 100% right about the funnel, but here’s the thing: junior positions are part of the funnel. About ten years ago I realized that I was screwing up massively by interviewing for current skill level instead of potential skill level. Sure, at a certain point you can’t just look for potential; I’m not gonna hire a senior engineer because they might reach senior levels at some point. But I’m sure thinking about my junior to middle levels differently. And this benefits everyone. Too many FAANGs get obsessed with existing criteria and leetcoding and won’t even look at someone from a small shop, regardless of skin color or gender. Their loss, my gain. Absolutely anything you can do to increase your pool of potential qualified employees is good. Making up theories which give you an excuse to keep the same small pool hurts your company. Again, my gain. Further, cultural diversity helps me get my job done because different viewpoints are useful! It’s amusing: the same people who will insist that cancel culture is bad because we have to invite all the viewpoints will also explain that trying to increase diversity in the workplace is terrible. It’s almost like there’s something else going on there.

hbrn 4y ago
> you wind up with a better, more productive company when you put forth the considerable effort necessary to increase diversity Diversity, as everything else, has a sweet spot. Too little and too much are equally bad. Of course nobody knows where the sweet spot is, but merely increasing diversity is not a guarantee for improvement. I mean, you can hire someone who hates your gut and doesn't speak your language. This will definitely increase the diversity, but you probably not going to like it. > will also explain that trying to increase diversity in the workplace is terrible. It’s almost like there’s something else going on there. I think most of those folks just despise hypocrisy. "Being anti-racist by being racist" makes me cringe. If you're making a diversity hire to get alternative viewpoints, you're doing it for your own benefit and being honest, I don't think anybody will have problem with that. It's the virtue signaling that makes it despicable. There's also argument to be made that if you're allowing diversity hires, you might have to allow "cohesion" hires. Justifying one but not the other seems disingenuous.

telltruth 4y ago

It's not left or right ideologies but CEO and their desire to be in good standing in social media. During early 2010s, there was whole barrage of books and editorial on income gap, gender gap and biases. News channels regularly picked up authors and circulated them on and on. Talk shows need someone to talk with and what could be better than these topics to energize audience to argue? This built-up a lot of resentment of being exploited and left behind in "diverse" group over short span of years which eventually exploded into me-too movement. During those days, a CEO will go out and post on Twitter how they cared about diversity and going all-in by tying the diversity targets with bonuses. Then if the next CEO doesn't do the same then they obviously looked upon as anti-diversity/racists. So, this whole thing cascaded into all big tech CEOs lining up to setup artificial diversity targets and that's where we are now. No one really cared that pipeline to funnel diversity in tech was broken at the start.

nullc 4y ago
It's also probably why these initiatives focus on skin color and gender rather than things like economic advantage: You can walk into an office and see that it's mostly asian men, you cant walk in and see that it made sure that people who didn't have elite educations got an opportunity.

psd1 4y ago

Yes, you absolutely should fix the funding gap in schools. 100%. I was really liking your comment until I got to the self-pitying complaints about being called a racist. The alt-right likes to call progressives "cucks". There are tumblerinas who call conservatives "fascists". That's what HN calls "free speech" - if you want to cry about it, try Facebook

raxxorraxor 4y ago

One strategy of the rule book of toxic middle management about how to keep your underlings from eating you alive is to treat them differently. One group will notice they get treated unfairly and instead of holding management responsible will develop frustration at the group that gets preference. A conflict ensures that you can leverage to your benefit. Sadly it is rare that people will hold management responsible in such cases.