5 ms·
DEI is not about preferential hiring. It’s the opposite. It’s about broadening the perspectives so that one group that has enjoyed historical preferential hir
by sympil 2y ago
DEI is not about preferential hiring. It’s the opposite. It’s about broadening the perspectives so that one group that has enjoyed historical preferential hiring no longer gets preferential treatment.
- whimsicalism 2y agois affirmative action preferential? idk what to tell you, the way it plays out in practice is preferential on the basis of race. maybe that’s okay, but that is absolutely what it means
- sympil 2y agoWhite men in the U.S. have a hard time coming to grips with living in a society where women have sexual autonomy and where they are subjected to genuine competition for jobs. Every POC hire over a white man must be becuase of DEI!
- whimsicalism 2y agonot sure who you are talking to, but it certainly isn’t stuff in my comment. have a good one, maybe spend a little less time on the news
- sympil 2y agoIt’s easy to demonize DEI for the reasons I stated above. It’s because I don’t follow the news media that I haven’t fallen for the DEI Scare that has gripped white society. It’s modern America’s version of blaming everything on communism. We live in a society where no one calls a wholly unqualified moron like Hegseth a “DEI hire” but people referred to Karine Jean-Pierre as such.
- whimsicalism 2y agoi think there are two questions: 1. in practice, does “DEI”/AA typically mean using race to influence hiring decisions? i think the answer is unequivocally yes, not taking a position on the merit of doing so. 2. Has “DEI” become some sort of boogeyman that is almost equivalent to communism of a past era? Yes, I agree with you - it has really accelerated in the past year and people are using it in ways that don’t even make any sense or blaming it for things that clearly are unrelated. But I never made a claim of the 2nd form. Hegseth is obviously a nepo hire, most plum book positions in general are nepo hires.
- sympil 2y agoSo my comment then wasn’t directed to you. It was directed to those with more extreme views on what DEI means and to those reading. Apologies for casting too wide a net.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoA good read https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...
- cauch 2y agoI think the point is that a big bunch of studies really point to the fact that if you have two persons with a real merit score of 8/10 (for example), the one from a minority will be considered, due to unconscious biases, as having a score of 7/10 instead. So, yes, there is a correction and this correction is based on race because this is the correct variable to de-bias the evaluation. But does it mean "preferential"? The point is to correct the evaluation such that this evaluation is not preferential and is neutral with respect to the race.
- whimsicalism 2y agoi’m very familiar with the arguments around DEI/AA. as i said in a different comment, i’m in favor of limited AA. We have little data from jobs for various reasons - but if we look at the data from universities, the “correction” is clearly far in excess of any bias by race against same score candidates, which is why URM admits typically have significantly lower scores. It is only a correction if you are saying that it is also correcting for a lot more upstream stuff that might be causing the divergence in scores. There might be merit to the claim but it does also mean that the end result is you are picking worse candidates “on paper” on the basis of their skin color.
- cauch 2y ago> i’m very familiar with the arguments around DEI/AA. as i said in a different comment, i’m in favor of limited AA. You were saying "maybe that’s okay, but that is absolutely what it means". Now you are saying that DEI/AA is not preferential, some applications of it are. > but if we look at the data from universities, the “correction” is clearly far in excess of any bias by race against same score candidates You cannot easily compare such numbers, and in this case, "clearly far in excess" is just totally subjective. This is typically where biases and cognitive dissonance are the most easy to creep in. > There might be merit to the claim but it does also mean that the end result is you are picking worse candidates “on paper” on the basis of their skin color. But if you don't apply any correction, you are picking worse candidates "on paper" on the basis of their skin color. That the fundamental flaw of people who are so vocal about the over-correction of DEI/AA: they care a lot about over-correcting but don't seem to care that much about under-correcting. Over-correcting is a big injustice, under-correcting is just something that may happen, hey, what can you do, right?
- yagbo7 2y agoThat’s a circular definition; stating it’s not about preferential hiring but then saying it’s about not giving a certain demographic preferential treatment. “Enjoyed” is not the right word either. It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is, and DEI initiatives give preferential treatment to those who are not in those demographics, in an attempt to increase diversity, and give equitable opportunities, and make people feel included.
- whimsicalism 2y agogreat reply and i think hits on what i was trying to get at which is it is obviously discriminatory, but the merits of that discrimination are quite possibly positive or certainly up for debate.
- pupppet 2y agoOr it’s ensuring a low skilled white worker doesn’t get selected over a higher skilled minority.
- kadoban 2y ago> It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is Bigots have used that one forever, defining the current state of affairs as natural and any attempt to improve things as <insert loaded term of the time here>.