4 ms·

The issue with DEI is that it tries to addresses discrimination with MORE discrimination

kevingadd 4y ago
While some DEI policies are arguably discriminatory, many are not. If you know that the general population is 20% race A, 10% race B, 30% race C, and yet your admissions are only pulling in 40% race C, 5% race B and 55% race A, you know something is wrong. Policies designed to keep your admissions closer to the general population would not count as discrimination because if everything is functioning correctly your distribution is going to at least resemble the gen pop distribution. Obviously it will never be a perfect fit, because various factors like location, education etc will influence your hiring pool. A lot of people insist that trying to get your metrics to match reality is discrimination because they think it means someone who "doesn't deserve it" will get hired instead of them. The reality is that a biased pipeline might exclude you too, regardless of your gender or skin color, because a biased pipeline is probably filled with things like nepotism, people blackballing candidates off of Vibes(tm), hiring based on appearance, etc. For every time biased hiring benefits you, it probably hurt you 3 times and you might not have noticed. The reality is that if you look at the raw DEI metrics for most large corporations they do not even vaguely resemble the general population. There's no rational excuse for that, you have to do something.
- gray_-_wolf 4y ago
  > If you know that the general population is 20% race A, 10% race B, 30% race C, and yet your admissions are only pulling in 40% race C, 5% race B and 55% race A, you know something is wrong. Doesn't this ignore the fact that there actually might be biological differences between various races of humans? I mean, aren't most top runners black? I don't follow this closely, but it does seem there is bigger percentage of black people compared to general population. Isn't the fair way to focus on equal opportunities, not outcomes? Give everyone the chance, but pick based on objective criteria (ideally in a blind way)?
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > Doesn't this ignore the fact that there actually might be biological differences between various races of humans? Show me that we have a society in which everyone is enabled to thrive to their full potential and then make this argument. Until then biological essentialism is profoundly stupid.
  - eldaisfish 4y ago
    you are walking a dangerous line with that question. Yes, genetic advantages are a thing which is why the NBA is dominated by black people but social factors are also a thing which is why the NHL is dominated by Canadians. Diversity programs aim to address the second factor i.e. giving a temporary boost to people who didn't have access to social and economic privilege.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > but social factors are also a thing Why are black people disproportionately in pro basketball? "It must be genetics!". It couldn't possibly be the fact that basketball courts are easier to build in the inner city than baseball fields. It couldn't be the fact that many poor black kids see the salaries that sports stars make, see the accessibility of a basketball court, and think "that's my ticket out.". (A neat documentary about this is "Hoop Dreams") For some reason people find it easiest to default to looking at personal characteristics, which in the alt-right online spaces is genetics (in the regular right it's culture). If I had to guess a reason I'd guess that we're evolutionarily used to living in small tribes, sharing the same environment with everyone we meet, so we look to personal factors to explain preferences and abilities. But we no longer live in those homogeneous environments.
      - eldaisfish 4y ago
        In the NBA, it IS genetics. You cannot increase your height through your own efforts, the limit IS genetic. Basketball is one of the few sports where genetic advantages are a major factor. The reason many black americans are so tall is some part a cruel history but an equal part genetics - you would be foolish to deny this. The location of basketball courts is incidental and i'm not certain what your point is.
- megaman821 4y ago
  Are you willing to apply this DEI guidelines to music and sports? Black Americans are overrepresented and Asian Americans are massively underrepresented. Do you not think there is an element of personal choice and culture involved here?
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    If you had metrics on race distribution in music, spread across the entire population of the US, yes I would expect that a record label fairly and evenly recruiting would have artist metrics that match. Where artist choice comes in to the picture is if a label focuses on a single genre, you're now subject to the race balance in that genre. I don't think that's a problem, but it still is ideally fair recruiting.
    - megaman821 4y ago
      Is there a single Asian American in the Billboard Top 100? Do you think if you asked 100 Asian American families and 100 Black American families; would you rather have your child go to an Ivy League college or appear in the Billboard Top 100, that the answers would be relatively equal between the two groups? It is not a problem to be solved when different cultural groups make different choices for themselves and their families. The real problem is that DEI comes about 20 years too late to do anything to help, and sometimes it is in industries that don't appeal to the cultures it is trying to attract. Properly investing in children will greatly increase the number of minorities in the pipeline for college and well-paying jobs.
      - kevingadd 4y ago
        I don't think "it's way too late to easily solve these problems" really supports claims that DEI is discriminatory or bad, though. It just means it's ineffective. Investing in children and creating equal opportunities for children are both great measures to take to boost diversity in education and the workplace.
        4y ago
- amluto 4y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. One can have a heated discussion about whether this style of DEI / affirmative action is discrimination, but there’s a less heated and more empirical discussion to be had: is it effective, or, on a related note, is it the right approach? Suppose I observe that 10% of the population is in class X, but only 5% of my hires are. I could try to adjust my job application acceptance criteria to increase that number to 10%. I could try to change my outreach efforts to encourage more of that class to apply. And I could possibly determine that a lot less than 10% of the pool of potential qualified applicants is in the class, that much of the bottleneck is earlier in the pipeline, and that something needs to be done about the pipeline. And note that those latter options are hard. In many respects, affirmative action is an easy way out. There was a large case study on this in California: prop 209. Here’s an article about the outcomes: https://archive.is/bjv8J https://archive.is/bjv8J The upshot is that the measures taken after public university affirmative action was outlawed in California were more effective than affirmative action was. I read a much better and more detailed article about this, but I’m having trouble finding it now.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    Strongly agreed that many actions people are taking don't work very well. I still think something has to be done, and we should use evidence and analysis to figure out which methods are most effective. We can't just leave it alone.

While some DEI policies are arguably discriminatory, many are not. If you know that the general population is 20% race A, 10% race B, 30% race C, and yet your admissions are only pulling in 40% race C, 5% race B and 55% race A, you know something is wrong. Policies designed to keep your admissions closer to the general population would not count as discrimination because if everything is functioning correctly your distribution is going to at least resemble the gen pop distribution. Obviously it will never be a perfect fit, because various factors like location, education etc will influence your hiring pool. A lot of people insist that trying to get your metrics to match reality is discrimination because they think it means someone who "doesn't deserve it" will get hired instead of them. The reality is that a biased pipeline might exclude you too, regardless of your gender or skin color, because a biased pipeline is probably filled with things like nepotism, people blackballing candidates off of Vibes(tm), hiring based on appearance, etc. For every time biased hiring benefits you, it probably hurt you 3 times and you might not have noticed. The reality is that if you look at the raw DEI metrics for most large corporations they do not even vaguely resemble the general population. There's no rational excuse for that, you have to do something.

gray_-_wolf 4y ago
> If you know that the general population is 20% race A, 10% race B, 30% race C, and yet your admissions are only pulling in 40% race C, 5% race B and 55% race A, you know something is wrong. Doesn't this ignore the fact that there actually might be biological differences between various races of humans? I mean, aren't most top runners black? I don't follow this closely, but it does seem there is bigger percentage of black people compared to general population. Isn't the fair way to focus on equal opportunities, not outcomes? Give everyone the chance, but pick based on objective criteria (ideally in a blind way)?
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > Doesn't this ignore the fact that there actually might be biological differences between various races of humans? Show me that we have a society in which everyone is enabled to thrive to their full potential and then make this argument. Until then biological essentialism is profoundly stupid.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  you are walking a dangerous line with that question. Yes, genetic advantages are a thing which is why the NBA is dominated by black people but social factors are also a thing which is why the NHL is dominated by Canadians. Diversity programs aim to address the second factor i.e. giving a temporary boost to people who didn't have access to social and economic privilege.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > but social factors are also a thing Why are black people disproportionately in pro basketball? "It must be genetics!". It couldn't possibly be the fact that basketball courts are easier to build in the inner city than baseball fields. It couldn't be the fact that many poor black kids see the salaries that sports stars make, see the accessibility of a basketball court, and think "that's my ticket out.". (A neat documentary about this is "Hoop Dreams") For some reason people find it easiest to default to looking at personal characteristics, which in the alt-right online spaces is genetics (in the regular right it's culture). If I had to guess a reason I'd guess that we're evolutionarily used to living in small tribes, sharing the same environment with everyone we meet, so we look to personal factors to explain preferences and abilities. But we no longer live in those homogeneous environments.
    - eldaisfish 4y ago
      In the NBA, it IS genetics. You cannot increase your height through your own efforts, the limit IS genetic. Basketball is one of the few sports where genetic advantages are a major factor. The reason many black americans are so tall is some part a cruel history but an equal part genetics - you would be foolish to deny this. The location of basketball courts is incidental and i'm not certain what your point is.
megaman821 4y ago
Are you willing to apply this DEI guidelines to music and sports? Black Americans are overrepresented and Asian Americans are massively underrepresented. Do you not think there is an element of personal choice and culture involved here?
- kevingadd 4y ago
  If you had metrics on race distribution in music, spread across the entire population of the US, yes I would expect that a record label fairly and evenly recruiting would have artist metrics that match. Where artist choice comes in to the picture is if a label focuses on a single genre, you're now subject to the race balance in that genre. I don't think that's a problem, but it still is ideally fair recruiting.
  - megaman821 4y ago
    Is there a single Asian American in the Billboard Top 100? Do you think if you asked 100 Asian American families and 100 Black American families; would you rather have your child go to an Ivy League college or appear in the Billboard Top 100, that the answers would be relatively equal between the two groups? It is not a problem to be solved when different cultural groups make different choices for themselves and their families. The real problem is that DEI comes about 20 years too late to do anything to help, and sometimes it is in industries that don't appeal to the cultures it is trying to attract. Properly investing in children will greatly increase the number of minorities in the pipeline for college and well-paying jobs.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      I don't think "it's way too late to easily solve these problems" really supports claims that DEI is discriminatory or bad, though. It just means it's ineffective. Investing in children and creating equal opportunities for children are both great measures to take to boost diversity in education and the workplace.
      - 4y ago
amluto 4y ago
Maybe, maybe not. One can have a heated discussion about whether this style of DEI / affirmative action is discrimination, but there’s a less heated and more empirical discussion to be had: is it effective, or, on a related note, is it the right approach? Suppose I observe that 10% of the population is in class X, but only 5% of my hires are. I could try to adjust my job application acceptance criteria to increase that number to 10%. I could try to change my outreach efforts to encourage more of that class to apply. And I could possibly determine that a lot less than 10% of the pool of potential qualified applicants is in the class, that much of the bottleneck is earlier in the pipeline, and that something needs to be done about the pipeline. And note that those latter options are hard. In many respects, affirmative action is an easy way out. There was a large case study on this in California: prop 209. Here’s an article about the outcomes: https://archive.is/bjv8J https://archive.is/bjv8J The upshot is that the measures taken after public university affirmative action was outlawed in California were more effective than affirmative action was. I read a much better and more detailed article about this, but I’m having trouble finding it now.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Strongly agreed that many actions people are taking don't work very well. I still think something has to be done, and we should use evidence and analysis to figure out which methods are most effective. We can't just leave it alone.