5 ms·

This is the premise: There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society. The threat these represent to our long term survival and pro

This is the premise: There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society. The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo. Maybe you don’t accept that. Maybe it’s asking for a virtue signal in service of performative posturing. Maybe this requirement had adverse effects (evidently it has.) But there is a through-line of coherent logic, and the total failure here may be cause for alarm.

eastbound 2y ago
This is an ideological statement which brings no fact, no new perspective, is not substantial and does not refute the opponent’s argument (which is that unfair DEI creates resentment that you later pay). As per Dang’s guidelines above (specifically for this thread), this should not have been allowed on HN. Now I wonder: Why is it here?
- dang 2y ago
  > Now I wonder: Why is it here? The internet gods bestowed two* of these on us today. The other one is Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267639. I posted an answer there to someone who asked more or less the same question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862. The principles are the same, so if you're willing to read it mutatis mutandis and maybe take a look at some of the other posts I linked to, you should find what you're looking for. (* no, it's not a trend—just random fluctuation)
ryandrake 2y ago
Your statement (which I happen to agree with) supports DEI policies but not the specific practice of requiring a written DEI statement, which is the important distinction OP made. I think you can be for DEI as a concept and as a corporate or school policy, but against the performative act of writing it out as some kind of weird "pledge of allegiance" in a job application.
- blueboo 2y ago
  Well, the “acknowledge and mark” phrase gets at the statement—That if the org thought objective X was authentic existential goal, it behooves them to understand how an applicant understands and would configure into that plan. (I have no claim about its efficacy. The highly-structured nature of the statement is a head-scratcher. I’m here watching the fallout with everyone else.) I hasten to restate that is my understanding of the premise, in the spirit of collectively untangling the causal chain here. This is incendiary stuff on HN!
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > it behooves them to understand how an applicant understands and would configure into that plan. I (and a lot of us I think) follow you up to this point, but then you lose us here. How does a written statement, the expected content of which is clearly known, give any understanding of the individual's position? This type of approach to education seems to me that it actively harms the ability to sway people's opinions. I have this issue with a lot of discussions of DEI, there are a lot of arguments that support the DEI goal and a dearth of arguments that support the methods being used to achieve that goal.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > How does a written statement, the expected content of which is clearly known, give any understanding of the individual's position? ChatGPT, please write me a DEI statement for this job interview.
naasking 2y ago
> The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo. I'm very skeptical that there is any threat to our survival here, or that DEI is any kind of response capable of resolving it. DEI is about "justice", a set of ethical principles, not about some utilitarian calculation about social survival or prosperity.
rayiner 2y ago
I understand you’re trying to strong man this. But I think we need to interrogate the premise here. How does “inequity” represent a “threat” to our “long term survival and prosperity?” What is the specific causal mechanism by which we expect that to happen? It seems facially implausible to me, given that America became prosperous when these inequalities were much worse. Why do we accept this premise as a given?
- agalunar 2y ago
  > Research has generally linked economic inequality to political and social instability, including revolution, democratic breakdown and civil conflict. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
wiseowise 2y ago
> The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo As someone who is pro DEI and participated in DEI related activities and brainstorms during hiring: I very much doubt that.
jack_h 2y ago
> There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society. I think this needs to be backed up with evidence rather than merely asserted. I've been reading through a number of books by Thomas Sowell lately and he presents enough statistical evidence to explain disparities without any hint of racism, sexism, etc. Regardless of if you agree with him or not, the mere fact that alternate theories exist that explain why society looks as it does today should be enough to question the foundational problem that DEI claims to address. Take as an example the gender pay gap which is presented as women earning 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. While statistically true in aggregate, DEI tends to treat this axiomatically as a sign of sexism. If you dig into the statistics the vast majority of this difference is due to the fact that many women voluntarily take time off of their career to raise children.
- tomnipotent 2y ago
  > many women voluntarily take time off of their career to raise children Expect there is evidence to suggest that women that earn a higher income are less likely to leave the workforce, which is further influenced by access to affordable childcare and dual incomes. The point is that when you control for these factors, a woman with the same title and responsibilities as a man will earn less for the same work.
  - whatthesmack 2y ago
    > The point is that when you control for these factors, a woman with the same title and responsibilities as a man will earn less for the same work. That can't possibly be true, because in a market economy, the more-expensive workers (men) would be laid off and replaced by less-expensive, equally-capable "same title and responsibilities" workers (women). This doesn't seem to be the case on a grand scale, which means it's more deep/complex than the "men get paid more than women" headline we're all used to seeing.
    - tomnipotent 2y ago
      Are you arguing that society operates from a position of optimal market theory, and that cultural norms, prejudices, and biases play no role in salary or pay rates for anyone It's not particularly hard to find examples of disparity or exploitation.

eastbound 2y ago

This is an ideological statement which brings no fact, no new perspective, is not substantial and does not refute the opponent’s argument (which is that unfair DEI creates resentment that you later pay). As per Dang’s guidelines above (specifically for this thread), this should not have been allowed on HN. Now I wonder: Why is it here?

dang 2y ago
> Now I wonder: Why is it here? The internet gods bestowed two* of these on us today. The other one is Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267639. I posted an answer there to someone who asked more or less the same question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862. The principles are the same, so if you're willing to read it mutatis mutandis and maybe take a look at some of the other posts I linked to, you should find what you're looking for. (* no, it's not a trend—just random fluctuation)

ryandrake 2y ago

Your statement (which I happen to agree with) supports DEI policies but not the specific practice of requiring a written DEI statement, which is the important distinction OP made. I think you can be for DEI as a concept and as a corporate or school policy, but against the performative act of writing it out as some kind of weird "pledge of allegiance" in a job application.

blueboo 2y ago
Well, the “acknowledge and mark” phrase gets at the statement—That if the org thought objective X was authentic existential goal, it behooves them to understand how an applicant understands and would configure into that plan. (I have no claim about its efficacy. The highly-structured nature of the statement is a head-scratcher. I’m here watching the fallout with everyone else.) I hasten to restate that is my understanding of the premise, in the spirit of collectively untangling the causal chain here. This is incendiary stuff on HN!
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > it behooves them to understand how an applicant understands and would configure into that plan. I (and a lot of us I think) follow you up to this point, but then you lose us here. How does a written statement, the expected content of which is clearly known, give any understanding of the individual's position? This type of approach to education seems to me that it actively harms the ability to sway people's opinions. I have this issue with a lot of discussions of DEI, there are a lot of arguments that support the DEI goal and a dearth of arguments that support the methods being used to achieve that goal.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    > How does a written statement, the expected content of which is clearly known, give any understanding of the individual's position? ChatGPT, please write me a DEI statement for this job interview.

naasking 2y ago

> The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo. I'm very skeptical that there is any threat to our survival here, or that DEI is any kind of response capable of resolving it. DEI is about "justice", a set of ethical principles, not about some utilitarian calculation about social survival or prosperity.

rayiner 2y ago

I understand you’re trying to strong man this. But I think we need to interrogate the premise here. How does “inequity” represent a “threat” to our “long term survival and prosperity?” What is the specific causal mechanism by which we expect that to happen? It seems facially implausible to me, given that America became prosperous when these inequalities were much worse. Why do we accept this premise as a given?

agalunar 2y ago
> Research has generally linked economic inequality to political and social instability, including revolution, democratic breakdown and civil conflict. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

wiseowise 2y ago

> The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo As someone who is pro DEI and participated in DEI related activities and brainstorms during hiring: I very much doubt that.

jack_h 2y ago

> There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society. I think this needs to be backed up with evidence rather than merely asserted. I've been reading through a number of books by Thomas Sowell lately and he presents enough statistical evidence to explain disparities without any hint of racism, sexism, etc. Regardless of if you agree with him or not, the mere fact that alternate theories exist that explain why society looks as it does today should be enough to question the foundational problem that DEI claims to address. Take as an example the gender pay gap which is presented as women earning 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. While statistically true in aggregate, DEI tends to treat this axiomatically as a sign of sexism. If you dig into the statistics the vast majority of this difference is due to the fact that many women voluntarily take time off of their career to raise children.

tomnipotent 2y ago
> many women voluntarily take time off of their career to raise children Expect there is evidence to suggest that women that earn a higher income are less likely to leave the workforce, which is further influenced by access to affordable childcare and dual incomes. The point is that when you control for these factors, a woman with the same title and responsibilities as a man will earn less for the same work.
- whatthesmack 2y ago
  > The point is that when you control for these factors, a woman with the same title and responsibilities as a man will earn less for the same work. That can't possibly be true, because in a market economy, the more-expensive workers (men) would be laid off and replaced by less-expensive, equally-capable "same title and responsibilities" workers (women). This doesn't seem to be the case on a grand scale, which means it's more deep/complex than the "men get paid more than women" headline we're all used to seeing.
  - tomnipotent 2y ago
    Are you arguing that society operates from a position of optimal market theory, and that cultural norms, prejudices, and biases play no role in salary or pay rates for anyone It's not particularly hard to find examples of disparity or exploitation.