3 ms·

Spending any tax money on programs designed to only help "DEI" causes is racist. From rich to poor I see as ethical, but there are current programs that are ga

Spending any tax money on programs designed to only help "DEI" causes is racist. From rich to poor I see as ethical, but there are current programs that are gated on race. This is taking from all to give to a chosen race, all DEI practices should be eliminated from government actions.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Spending any tax money on programs designed to only help "DEI" causes is racist. DEI has only one cause, and that is avoiding discrimination on non-germane axes, particulalry by subtle, non-obvious means, such as relying on biased funnels.
- typewithrhythm 2y ago
  This does not align with any published goal of a dei program, or the actions of people who are saying "I am doing DEI".
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    This is (anti)-wishful thinking. The goal of the DEI program in my company was along the lines of: "Last year, 20% of all PhDs in areas we hire for were women. Yet only 7% of our actual PhD hires were women. Why?" Whether the actual implementation solved this problem is a different matter. The goal, however, was to reduce bias.
    - bbreier 2y ago
      This aligns with my experience with a couple of DEI (or similar) programs at large tech as well. Coupled with really basic training that amounted to "Unconscious bias exists and it can happen to you, make sure you judge candidates by their performance and nothing else", which always seemed pretty reasonable to me.
- greenchair 2y ago
  wrong, it doesn't avoid discrimnation, it enforces it. companies are doing stuff like 'must include candidates from <minority race> for open reqs at grade XX or above'
  - beej71 2y ago
    Those companies (I'm having trouble finding any current ones, though there are few notable past examples that have been shot down in court) are doing DEI wrong. The last two places I've worked (one a university) had DEI goals of hiring the most qualified person for the job, without regard to race, etc. The whole point was to stress the "without regard to" part. We do collect data and try to correct imbalances by making sure our candidate pools have good coverage (i.e. they aren't discriminatory). But every offer we extend goes to the most qualified candidate, without regard to race, etc., to the very best of our ability. It's also more comprehensive than just hiring and race. For example, one goal is that a student in the National Guard with a side job gets the same shot as one unemployed living with their parents. What can you do to help facilitate that without reducing the impact of the program? There's evidence that spatial reasoning is important for learning Computer Science. There's evidence that men and women can both develop spatial reasoning skills. There's evidence that men in general get more practice than women in this regard, potentially putting women at a disadvantage in the program. What can you do to help level that playing field without weakening the material? Lastly, coming out against DEI programs whose goal is to hire based solely on merit and not race or other factors... not a good look. So you might want to specify which kind of DEI you're really against.
nitwit005 2y ago
There are very boring things that have been done in the past to increase diversity, like making sure recruiters actually went to black universities to recruit, instead of... mysteriously skipping them. Technically that cost something, but basically negligible. The problem cases are after that, when people get upset the numbers didn't change as much as they hoped, and decide to go do fiddle with the hiring process.
munificent 2y ago
The US has spent tax money to enslave and police Black people, exterminate Native Americans, deport Mexicans who were sometimes American citizens, and force Japanese American citizens into internment camps. Does a government carry any moral responsibility to right its previous wrongs? If so, what sort of policies would that look like?
- typewithrhythm 2y ago
  Trying to apply the same idea of history to something as abstract as a government, as to an individual is impossible. The current people and their representatives did not do those things, so acting as if you are doing the right thing by implementing policy that advances one group over another is immoral. It's just inventing a fictional justification, no better than dark skin being a mark of sin.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Spending any tax money on programs designed to only help "DEI" causes is racist. DEI has only one cause, and that is avoiding discrimination on non-germane axes, particulalry by subtle, non-obvious means, such as relying on biased funnels.

typewithrhythm 2y ago
This does not align with any published goal of a dei program, or the actions of people who are saying "I am doing DEI".
- BeetleB 2y ago
  This is (anti)-wishful thinking. The goal of the DEI program in my company was along the lines of: "Last year, 20% of all PhDs in areas we hire for were women. Yet only 7% of our actual PhD hires were women. Why?" Whether the actual implementation solved this problem is a different matter. The goal, however, was to reduce bias.
  - bbreier 2y ago
    This aligns with my experience with a couple of DEI (or similar) programs at large tech as well. Coupled with really basic training that amounted to "Unconscious bias exists and it can happen to you, make sure you judge candidates by their performance and nothing else", which always seemed pretty reasonable to me.
greenchair 2y ago
wrong, it doesn't avoid discrimnation, it enforces it. companies are doing stuff like 'must include candidates from <minority race> for open reqs at grade XX or above'
- beej71 2y ago
  Those companies (I'm having trouble finding any current ones, though there are few notable past examples that have been shot down in court) are doing DEI wrong. The last two places I've worked (one a university) had DEI goals of hiring the most qualified person for the job, without regard to race, etc. The whole point was to stress the "without regard to" part. We do collect data and try to correct imbalances by making sure our candidate pools have good coverage (i.e. they aren't discriminatory). But every offer we extend goes to the most qualified candidate, without regard to race, etc., to the very best of our ability. It's also more comprehensive than just hiring and race. For example, one goal is that a student in the National Guard with a side job gets the same shot as one unemployed living with their parents. What can you do to help facilitate that without reducing the impact of the program? There's evidence that spatial reasoning is important for learning Computer Science. There's evidence that men and women can both develop spatial reasoning skills. There's evidence that men in general get more practice than women in this regard, potentially putting women at a disadvantage in the program. What can you do to help level that playing field without weakening the material? Lastly, coming out against DEI programs whose goal is to hire based solely on merit and not race or other factors... not a good look. So you might want to specify which kind of DEI you're really against.

nitwit005 2y ago

There are very boring things that have been done in the past to increase diversity, like making sure recruiters actually went to black universities to recruit, instead of... mysteriously skipping them. Technically that cost something, but basically negligible. The problem cases are after that, when people get upset the numbers didn't change as much as they hoped, and decide to go do fiddle with the hiring process.

munificent 2y ago

The US has spent tax money to enslave and police Black people, exterminate Native Americans, deport Mexicans who were sometimes American citizens, and force Japanese American citizens into internment camps. Does a government carry any moral responsibility to right its previous wrongs? If so, what sort of policies would that look like?

typewithrhythm 2y ago
Trying to apply the same idea of history to something as abstract as a government, as to an individual is impossible. The current people and their representatives did not do those things, so acting as if you are doing the right thing by implementing policy that advances one group over another is immoral. It's just inventing a fictional justification, no better than dark skin being a mark of sin.