33 ms·
The anit-DEI stuff is predicated on an idea that there is a clear known 'best fit' for a position and it shouldn't take into account X, whatever X is. The probl
by jmward01 2y ago
The anit-DEI stuff is predicated on an idea that there is a clear known 'best fit' for a position and it shouldn't take into account X, whatever X is. The problem is always this, nobody actually knows what a best fit really is. Nature shows us that one trait leads to longer term survival, diversity. When you think you know the traits that pick most suitable and exclude other traits then you are getting rid of the chance to find something you didn't know about. Diversity is a key ingredient in long term health and survival. The challenge though is that diversity naturally creates a certain amount of dissonance simply because you are now getting what you didn't expect. This is a feature, not a bug, so building for it is critical. A hiring policy that seeks out diversity and injects it in, in the long term, will lead to a stronger, healthier company.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago[flagged]
- Etheryte 2y agoTo play the devil's advocate, how do we know this carries over to business? If this was the case, it should have a track record at this point, since DEI has been a topic for a long time. Looking at comparable companies where one did do DEI and the other didn't, did one or the other have a statistically significant edge over the other? I have no idea, but I'm far from convinced purely from a reasoning stand point.
- pjc50 2y agoThe current example is Target vs Costco. (Because of a black pastor-led boycott of Target for dropping their DEI policy)
- dboreham 2y agoPersonal experience is that Costco foot traffic has been visibly increased in recent weeks. Our Costco has a few colorful members of staff, which I personally find makes my visits there more pleasant.
- huhkerrf 2y ago> Our Costco has a few colorful members of staff, which I personally find makes my visits there more pleasant. Is this a poor choice of words, or one of those "I've gone so far left, I'm now also racist" things?
- jiscariot 2y agoTarget basically decided to stop "over-delivering" on DEI. e.g. stuff like $2 billion to black-owned businesses, increase black workforce by 20%, etc. Even with the rollbacks, they are probably doing on average more DEI for the sector, than a Costco, Amazon. They definitely messed up the messaging, though, in that they positioned themselves to be somehow boycotted by both left and right. Costco is 20x the business as Target for numerous reasons, I kind of doubt any of it has to do with DEI.
- mulderc 2y agoNPR had a story on this topic years ago and the researchers they talked with said diversity appears to have a negative impact on startups but a positive impact on established businesses. The logic was startups are smaller and need to move fast and be focused so DEI type efforts distract from the main business at that time. Once established diversity help the business by having people that can see business opportunities and challenges that a more homogenous workforce would not otherwise notice.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 2y agoThat diversity research at big organizations has been called into question: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/diversity-was-supposed-to-make-us-rich-not-so-much-39da6a23 https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/diversity-was-supposed...
- foobiekr 2y agoAh, McKinsey. That their pro-remote study was bogus will probably come as a shock to the four people left on planet earth who aren't familiar with "where there's fraud there's McKinsey"
- mathgradthrow 2y agoYou are conflating two different ideas of diversity. An ecosystem of businesses is, for instance, more diverse if it contains some companies with racially and sexually diverse workforces and some companies without these properties. This is strategic diversity.
- jmathai 2y agoI think these companies have found what they believe to be best fit. The question is, "fit for what?". The answer to that is maximum short term profits. If you can't show benefits in the span of 1 quarter, it might as well not be an option.
- grandempire 2y agoWhy even have an interview or evaluate performance if everything is unknowable? You use your best judgment and consider many factors. You make mistakes and get better with experience. What we don’t want to have happen is a conflict between two opposing goals. That’s very different than disagreement about how to meet a common goal.
- jmward01 2y agoI love taking ideas to extremes, but in this case I don't advocate for that. What I mean is, diversity should be sought out and thought of as a positive, but that doesn't mean you throw out what factors you believe are relevant. I am advocating for incorporating diversity, searching for surprise, into hiring, not making it the only factor. Seeking out surprise is the fastest way to learn what you don't know so that you can use that knowledge for the future.
- BobaFloutist 2y agoYou've never witnessed a hiring decision that was based on an almost entirely arbitrary tie-breaker? All I want out of DEI/Affirmative Action, apart from maybe some proactive efforts to improve diversity in the initial funnel, is for that arbitrary tie-breaker to skew towards the option that's underrepresented in the field. Does that seem unreasonable or particularly unfair to you?
- grandempire 2y agodei programs in academia and corporations aren’t limited to breaking ties at the end of hiring. But I can consider the possibility in good faith. I think giving someone who might normally not have the chance is a good tie breaker. I’m opposed to a policy that dictates that must be determined by skin color/gender/religion. If the individuals involved in the hiring felt that was the right tie breaker based on their knowledge of their community, I’m not opposed to that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Finnucane 2y agoNo, the anti-DEI stuff is predicated on the idea that civil rights are bad and that white (straight dude) rule is good. There's not really any point in sugar-coating it or pretending the idea has any kind of intellectual or legal legitimacy. It is entirely driven by animus and resentment. The folks driving it aren't even hiding it.
- freedomben 2y agoThis is classic ad hominem fallacy. I don't think I've seen such a great example in a long time
- rbetts 2y agoUh huh. > U.S. State Department hire Darren Beattie wrote on X: "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-darren-beattie-state-department/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-darren-beattie-state...
- freedomben 2y agoYes, to be clear I'm not suggesting they have pure motives, nor am I suggesting they don't deserve the criticism. You are reading into my statement things that aren't there. What I'm saying is that's irrelevant to the claim they are making. It is an ad hominem, which is a formal logical fallacy and has been for a very long time (going back well over 2,000 years)[1]. It didn't used to be controversial to say that ad hominem was a fallacy. Are you disagreeing with me that the above is ad hominem? Or that ad hominem is a fallacy? Wouldn't it be much better to just refute the claim instead of attack the person's motives? I.e. I think it's pretty damn easy to demonstrate that non white men have been great leaders who have gotten things to work. Refuting that claim is the non-fallacious approach and may actually convince someone honest (likely some third-party who is reading it later, you'll probably never convince the original speaker). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dfxm12 2y agoThe biggest predication of anti-DEI stuff is white supremacy. Despite what they say, based on their actions, the best fit (or put another way, "merit") is clearly not a concern for the current US administration.
- grandempire 2y agoI think this is an online minority positions. There are a lot of well intentioned concerns which have nothing to do with “supremacy “
- bigmattystyles 2y agoFurthermore, if these anti-DEI folks, whatever DEI means, think that people are hiring primarily based on some attribute rather than capability then it's fair to assume that if someone in any position is a straight, white, male they are there, not because they are qualified, but because they are straight, white, male. And from what I've seen, that's actually always been more of a problem than sourcing candidates from various populations.
- gardenhedge 2y agoCan you expand on the logic in your comment?
- MPSFounder 2y agoThose that criticize DEI have no problem with Nepotism. Ivanka and Jared had white house positions, that paid them salaries and entitled them to secret service on trips to Israel and Saudi Arabia. That tells you all you need to know. I would not hire either of them as doormen in a new building development, but they ran the house on 1600 Pennsylvania. DEI really is poor nomenclature. I think all of us favor someone that came from hardship (low income areas, refugees, veterans, disabled person that wants to find fulfillment by working), and giving them an opportunity. There are many places (and states) where these people would NOT be hired, even if they were qualified.
- infamouscow 2y ago[flagged]
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoYou're conflating two different sets of people. The overall problem is nepotism, or even more generally, a lack of upward mobility. If you're poor it's a long road to the top. Most of the slots are filled by nepotism or otherwise having rich parents and only a minority are filled through merit. The ideal solution here is to improve upward mobility, but neither party really does that, because to do that you have to fight entrenched incumbents. To lower poverty you need to lower the cost of living and therefore housing and healthcare costs, but the existing property owners and healthcare companies will fight you. To create opportunities you need to reduce regulatory capture so that small businesses can better compete with larger ones, but the existing incumbents will fight you. So these problems persist because neither party solves them. Then, because more black people are poor and the bipartisan consensus is that if you're poor you're screwed, there are proportionally fewer black people at the top. Now consider what happens if you propose DEI as a solution to this. All of the nepotism still happens, but now the merit slots get converted into satisfying the race quota. Now if you're poor and white you're completely locked out, because the "white people" slots are all filled by nepotism and the remaining slots are used to satisfy the race quota. The result is that poor white people are completely screwed by DEI, they understand this, and because the proponents of DEI are Democrats they then vote for Republicans. Then the Republicans oppose DEI because they're actually representing their constituents who at least want their chance at the limited number of merit slots instead of being completely locked out. If the Republican elites then engage in nepotism and fail to improve upward mobility, that isn't good, but it's only a distinction between the parties if the Democrats would have done better in that regard, which they haven't, and they're plausibly even worse in terms of increasing regulatory burdens that prevent people with limited means from starting a small business.
- rayiner 2y agoNo, the anti-DEI stuff is based on the principle that race is a superficial characteristic that doesn’t change how someone would do the job. So, ipso facto, diversity itself can’t improve the performance of a workforce.
- text0404 2y agobut DEI isn't just about race, nor is the idea behind it that a superficial characteristic makes someone more qualified for a job. DEI addresses the systemic barriers that have historically disadvantaged certain populations (like race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc). DEI aims to give them the same opportunities as their counterparts. for example, DEI is meant to provide opportunities to impoverished white individuals as well, if they have not been able to afford higher education or have been passed on for various jobs because they didn't have the same internships or experiences that their wealthier counterparts had (which may have hindered their professional development).
- rayiner 2y agoThat’s the motte. But the bailey is anti-white discrimination through the application of different standards to different races: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphic...
- archagon 2y ago“White” is not a race, but a vague signifier of pan-European identity that has shifted dramatically over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43720538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43720538
- wredcoll 2y agoSo the chart says: > Acceptance rates for students with slightly higher and slightly lower than average GPAs and test scores are displayed in the other columns. In other words, the table above displays acceptance rates by race/ethnicity for students applying to US medical schools with average academic credentials, and just slightly above and slightly below average academic credentials. So, uh, what? The argument is that it's now awful and horrible that average black students are accepted more frequently than average white students? Who cares.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Anon1096 2y agoThe American conception of diversity that looks for race and gender ends up grouping 60% of the world together as "Asian". These are regions of the world with vast cultural differences (the obvious because South VS East Asia) and even within countries someone from Beijing is vastly different from someone from Xinjiang. It's extremely western-biased to look at what's going on in DEI efforts and think that it in any way represents actual diversity. It mostly means white women and educated black men get jobs while spewing the exact same thoughts as the HR department.
- dingnuts 2y ago"AAPI" is truly the epitome of a DEI term that is racist in exactly the way the ideology pretends not to be. Really, you're going to group indigenous New Zealanders with Han Chinese as "one" racial group? Just to pick two very different groups at random. There are many absurd pairings that fit under "AAPI" and it's a parody of itself. It's erasing these cultures to group them all under one constructed postmodern umbrella
- HelloMcFly 2y agoA more pragmatic reason for this approach is many subgroups lack sufficient population sizes in relevant candidate pools to realistically attempt such a high-context focus with any sort of evaluation of efficacy.
- chimpanzee 2y agoI agree with what you’re explicitly stating, but I can’t tell if you acknowledge and accept the implications. As it stands, your statement boils down to “DEI is not diverse enough.” If one also accepts gp’s point, then it seems DEI should continue, but be applied more carefully and thoughtfully. This would likely mean an increase in resources dedicated to DEI. I agree and would welcome this (without requiring it legally). But I doubt most others would agree.
- rayiner 2y ago[flagged]
- skizm 2y agoThe "anit-DEI stuff" is the same as the DEI stuff from before this administration: performative. Originally DEI was because the people demanded it of companies, now the anti-DEI version is because the administration will make your life hell if you don't fall in line. Personally I fully agree that building a diverse workforce is more profitable in the long run than ignoring diversity (unless your company will die in the short term because of political pressure).
- rayiner 2y agoDo you think people who have different skin colors do their jobs differently? Can you articulate how you think your white workers do their jobs differently than say your hispanic workers?
- skizm 2y agoIf you’re a cog stamper, probably doesn’t matter, but if you think for a living and need to generate ideas ever, diverse perspectives are invaluable. It’s the exact same as biology: bio diverse environments always outperform homogeneous ones. You can adapt to way more situations. If everyone thinks the same, and has roughly the same life experiences, when you hit a situation one person can’t think their way out of, no one will be able to because you’re all roughly the same. “Outside the box thinking” is cliche for a reason: it’s a good thing everyone wants but is hard to capture. Diverse workforce is a more reliable way to capture it.
- rayiner 2y ago[flagged]
- computerthings 2y ago[dead]
- gardenhedge 2y agoDisagree. You can have a team of similar life experiences that considers other life experiences.