Discussion: DEI vs liberalism

[TitanTiger 20,482]

 

 

This is a 22-minute video by Bari Weiss, formerly of The New York Times, now a founding member and contributor of The Free Press titled "Why DEI Must End For Good."  You can watch the whole thing but the link above starts as she discusses the transformation of university campuses across the country with a new ideology that has supplanted the one that had reigned for several decades.  If you're over 40-45 years old you'd probably recognize it as classical liberalism.  And one of its hallmarks was freedom of speech and expression, crystallized in the idea that the solution to bad speech was MORE speech.  

In other words, when someone presents ideas in the marketplace that you disagree with, that you find offensive and potentially harmful, that you believe to be illogical, inconsistent, or at least not well thought out, the proper action wasn't to suppress their ability to speak it or hound them out of the public square, it was to counter their bad speech with better arguments.  Present all the facts in full context, argue logically, offer persuasive rhetoric and counterexamples. Defeat their ideas in the public arena, don't just shout them down or attack the messenger.

But I don't think anyone who's paid attention over roughly the last 20 years would characterize the culture or our universities and colleges as bastions of liberalism any longer.  I believe there's a reason that some on the left have shifted to calling themselves "progressive" rather than "liberal," and it's not just because Republicans in the 80s were so successful at tainting the word "liberal."  It's because they don't actually see liberal values as something to strive for any longer.  "Progress" as they define it is the new aim and liberal values are often seen as hinderances rather than a means to achieving those goals.

In the segment I link to, Ms. Weiss (a bi-sexual, liberal Jew lest anyone think I'm posting some screed from some far-right ideologue) labels this new ideology broadly under the name of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion).  And if you want a TL;DR version of what how she contrasts this with the liberalism it has supplanted, here's a brief breakdown:

DEI values and replaces...

• The concept of good and evil with "the powerless" (good) and "the powerful" (necessarily bad)
• Color blindness with race obsession
• Ideas with identity
• Debate with denunciation
• Persuasion with public shaming
• The rule of law with the fury of the mob

Under this ideology, authority is given not on the basis of talents, gifts, hard work, accomplishments, and contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group as suffered, as defined by radial ideologues.

Fairness is defined by equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

I encourage you to watch the whole thing or at least from the point that I linked to the end (about half of it)

I could quibble over a couple of her terms (like color blindness for instance), but overall I think she's giving one of the best distillations of the problems we're facing on this front.

And to be clear, both right and left are getting sucked into waging the cultural war on these terms.  This isn't only a problem for the political left, though that is where this particular brand is getting the most respect, and from where the ideological takeover of universities, corporate HR departments, primary education and such is coming.  So I'm not really interested in arguments that try to paper only one side as the problem.  The problem is bigger than either party or side of the political spectrum.  And the reactions to it are often problematic in other ways rather than being real solutions.

I'd love to hear some thoughts from across the board here.  And to be clear, I put this in the regular politics forum for it to be a civilized discussion so don't turn this into some pissing match or a platform to make drive-by potshots.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

Diversity and equity are not simply conceptual issues.  Often they are very real.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/under-the-skin-delves-into-systemic-racism-and-its-toll-on-health

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,482]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Diversity and equality are not simply conceptual issues.  Often they are very real.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/under-the-skin-delves-into-systemic-racism-and-its-toll-on-health

First, equity and equality are not the same thing.

Second, no one said that these words or concept in an of themselves are bad.  

Please, if you're going to engage on this, take the time to listen to what she's talking about.  You're arguing against a point no one here is making.

[homersapien 11,373]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

First, equity and equality are not the same thing.

Second, no one said that these words or concept in an of themselves are bad.  

Please, if you're going to engage on this, take the time to listen to what she's talking about.  You're arguing against a point no one here is making.n

First, I didn't post that example as a counterpoint.

Secondly, Weiss did say "DEI should end for good."  (policies? practices? intent?  Is diversity, equity and inclusion inherently bad?)

I agreed with most of what Weiss said - much of which I thought rather obvious - but disagree with the implication the theoretical goals represented by diversity, equity and inclusion are deserving to be discarded. 

(Thus, my example of a real world deficiency of equity in medical care, objectively measured. And this by a highly educated workforce.)

Sure, there are people who have misapplied those principles, implementing shallow, counterproductive or even stupid practices in the name of "DEI".

But better to point out and condemn those practices specifically instead of demonizing the goals or intent of DEI as some sort of political illness, if not outright evil. (Perhaps the creation of acronyms memes such as "DEI" inevitably lead to negative political memes, as "BLM" did?)

The reactionary politics typically become overblown (just as the reaction to the university president's responses are overblown, IMO). It all becomes political theater.  

Maybe that's just natural in today's political environment. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,148]

Pretty much what Homer is saying. DEI is a well meaning thing that sounds good in theory but generally isn’t effectively applied.

We had a DEI seminar at work just last week and it was basically just going through the motions so corporate could check some boxes. 

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

DEI does need to go for good and liberalism needs to reinsert its self for the good of higher education.  It seems that the hecklers veto has become popular at college campuses in recent years, which is far from the old let’s discuss and argue with facts mantra of liberalism.

She mentioned that 20 years ago she objected to the concept of DEI and for good reason.  Who could argue that Diversity in society is a good thing and why not have equity (interesting term) among all people and also Inclusion? Those goals are noble, but like most ideologies the implementation is what matters.  The words are noble, but who defines what is diverse and who is included?  Equity is the outlier and can be hard to define in terms of how life comes at you.

She is Jewish and sees the double standard that is shown in today’s world with who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors.  Are you invited into the club if your ethnicity is economically advantaged?  And why would that matter?   Jew’s make up 2% of the population in the US and by definition would be in the discussion, yet they are being singled out as oppressors.  Asian Americans suffer the same fate.  What is the criteria used for the inclusive part of this equation.  Publicly we don’t know, we are left to guess each time there is a DEI seminar or someone challenges these ideals like Ms Weiss had done.

DEI seems to have started out with good intentions, but human nature has derailed it and it now must go away.  Something else will follow and hopefully, what ever that will be, will be better thought out with strict definitions of terms.

[AU9377 4,931]

On 12/23/2023 at 11:32 AM, I_M4_AU said:

DEI does need to go for good and liberalism needs to reinsert its self for the good of higher education.  It seems that the hecklers veto has become popular at college campuses in recent years, which is far from the old let’s discuss and argue with facts mantra of liberalism.

She mentioned that 20 years ago she objected to the concept of DEI and for good reason.  Who could argue that Diversity in society is a good thing and why not have equity (interesting term) among all people and also Inclusion? Those goals are noble, but like most ideologies the implementation is what matters.  The words are noble, but who defines what is diverse and who is included?  Equity is the outlier and can be hard to define in terms of how life comes at you.

She is Jewish and sees the double standard that is shown in today’s world with who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors.  Are you invited into the club if your ethnicity is economically advantaged?  And why would that matter?   Jew’s make up 2% of the population in the US and by definition would be in the discussion, yet they are being singled out as oppressors.  Asian Americans suffer the same fate.  What is the criteria used for the inclusive part of this equation.  Publicly we don’t know, we are left to guess each time there is a DEI seminar or someone challenges these ideals like Ms Weiss had done.

DEI seems to have started out with good intentions, but human nature has derailed it and it now must go away.  Something else will follow and hopefully, what ever that will be, will be better thought out with strict definitions of terms.

These are valid points.  Equity means vastly different things to different people.  To many, diversity and inclusion are the same concept. 

DEI has been used by many to justify the attaining of slots in everything from the admissions process to faculty positions.  I believe that diversity is an important element in education.  I also believe that it increases real debate and learning in the classroom. My issue with DEI  concerns the meaning of equity and the processes involved in attaining equity, some of which assume that a debt is owed.  That debt is then used to justify a free pass to the fast lane.  The result of that practice is that actual equity disappears. 

One thing that would actually improve higher education is to remove the incentives surrounding the ranking of institutions.  The only way to actually do that would be for colleges and universities to not participate in providing the numbers as requested by the ranking groups. This is another discussion entirely, but it is related to diversity and inclusion on college campuses. 

Another problem that leads to the large number of intelligent, but uninformed, young people on campuses is the lack of parenting, lack of non parent adult voices, and lack involvement by young people in non school related healthy social engagements.  All of this builds character and teaches much more than how to understand Algebra.  I am often amazed that we expect children to grow have the same values and hopes that prior generations have had, yet we fail to put the same ingredients into the building of the child that we once did.

Edited December 26, 2023 by AU9377

[AUFAN78 3,896]

 

[AURex 1,998]

Three points:

1. Bari Weiss is a staunch Conservative, so it's not as though she's offering an objective opinion on any of these issues. She's just another conservative attacking anything that can be labelled so-called "woke" by the increasingly extremist Right.

2. Twenty years ago, politics was still dominated by moderate conservatives (center right) and liberals (center left). Now we live in an era in which the loudest voices and much political rhetoric is extremist on both left and right.

3. Right now, DEI is a counter-weight to the right wing extremism that has been attacking our democratic values -- White Nationalism; book banning, hate speech, and right wing efforts specifically aimed at stifling free speech; the MAGA fascist political movement; religious intolerance (Christian/evangelical nationalism); right wing anti-intellectualism, disdain for science, antagonism towards educated "elites"; systematic attacks on anything extremists consider "woke" in education, the military, business, etc. The right is attacking DEI because it is the only balancing voice amid the thunderous cacophony of right wing extremism.

We don't need to do away with DEI. We need to embrace it, protect it, expand it. Otherwise, there is no counter-weight to right wing extremism that is attempting to take over our country and destroy the principles that are the foundation of our republic.

 

[AUFAN78 3,896]

1 hour ago, AURex said:

1. Bari Weiss is a staunch Conservative, so it's not as though she's offering an objective opinion on any of these issues. She's just another conservative attacking anything that can be labelled so-called "woke" by the increasingly extremist Right.

According to The Washington Post, Weiss "portrays herself as a liberal uncomfortable with the excesses of left-wing culture",^[70] and has sought to "position herself as a reasonable liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech".^[71] Vanity Fair described Weiss as "a provocateur".^[6] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said that her writing "doesn't lend itself easily to labels".^[72] Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Business Insider.^{[73][74][75][76]} In an interview with Joe Rogan, she described herself as a "left-leaning centrist".^[77]

1 hour ago, AURex said:

2. Twenty years ago, politics was still dominated by moderate conservatives (center right) and liberals (center left). Now we live in an era in which the loudest voices and much political rhetoric is extremist on both left and right.

No argument.

1 hour ago, AURex said:

3. Right now, DEI is a counter-weight to the right wing extremism that has been attacking our democratic values -- White Nationalism; book banning, hate speech, and right wing efforts specifically aimed at stifling free speech; the MAGA fascist political movement; religious intolerance (Christian/evangelical nationalism); right wing anti-intellectualism, disdain for science, antagonism towards educated "elites"; systematic attacks on anything extremists consider "woke" in education, the military, business, etc. The right is attacking DEI because it is the only balancing voice amid the thunderous cacophony of right wing extremism.

We don't need to do away with DEI. We need to embrace it, protect it, expand it. Otherwise, there is no counter-weight to right wing extremism that is attempting to take over our country and destroy the principles that are the foundation of our republic.

Too much craziness to address. JMHO

[AURex 1,998]

No matter how Weiss "portrays herself" -- If you read the published articles by Weiss and look at her positions on issues, she is stout conservative. There is no center-left in any of her screeds. You can call yourself anything you like, but the things you say and do define who you are.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

On 1/3/2024 at 4:28 PM, AURex said:

Three points:

1. Bari Weiss is a staunch Conservative, so it's not as though she's offering an objective opinion on any of these issues. She's just another conservative attacking anything that can be labelled so-called "woke" by the increasingly extremist Right.

2. Twenty years ago, politics was still dominated by moderate conservatives (center right) and liberals (center left). Now we live in an era in which the loudest voices and much political rhetoric is extremist on both left and right.

3. Right now, DEI is a counter-weight to the right wing extremism that has been attacking our democratic values -- White Nationalism; book banning, hate speech, and right wing efforts specifically aimed at stifling free speech; the MAGA fascist political movement; religious intolerance (Christian/evangelical nationalism); right wing anti-intellectualism, disdain for science, antagonism towards educated "elites"; systematic attacks on anything extremists consider "woke" in education, the military, business, etc. The right is attacking DEI because it is the only balancing voice amid the thunderous cacophony of right wing extremism.

We don't need to do away with DEI. We need to embrace it, protect it, expand it. Otherwise, there is no counter-weight to right wing extremism that is attempting to take over our country and destroy the principles that are the foundation of our republic.

 

I don’t particularly care for Weiss, but she defies this broad of a categorization.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

 

[AURex 1,998]

34 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t particularly care for Weiss, but she defies this broad of a categorization.

She got her first big gig at Wall Street Journal. Not exactly a bastion of liberalism. She was then hired by NY Times when the Republicans came to power to try to balance the liberal-lean of NYT editorial staff.

Then she rebranded Common Sense as Free Press, a self-described center-right conservative media company.

She was then associated with the University of Austin, a conservative-aligned private university that has been described by some as a similar scheme as Trump University, with nebulous goals, no credible academic standards, and lacking accreditation.

You can disagree, but I consider her fully and solidly conservative, and her views on DEI as typical conservative BS, albeit better presented than the common MAGA extremist slop.

 

Edited January 7 by AURex

[TexasTiger 12,876]

8 minutes ago, AURex said:

She got her first big gig at Wall Street Journal. Not exactly a bastion of liberalism. She was then hired by NY Times when the Republicans came to power to try to balance the liberal-lean of NYT editorial staff.

Then she rebranded Common Sense as Free Press, a self-described center-right conservative media company.

She was then associated with the University of Austin, a conservative-aligned private university that has been described by some as a similar scheme as Trump University, with nebulous goals, no credible academic standards, and lacking accreditation.

You can disagree, but I consider her fully and solidly conservative, and her views on DEI as typical conservative BS, albeit better presented than the common MAGA extremist slop.

 

She voted for Hillary & Biden:

https://www.ft.com/content/5df58d12-935c-462b-81a0-50960c1ebf75

[AURex 1,998]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

She voted for Hillary & Biden:

https://www.ft.com/content/5df58d12-935c-462b-81a0-50960c1ebf75

As anyone with half a brain would. That does not anoint her as some sort of Liberal, only as a human with some functioning brain cells.

Look at her track record and her published articles. She is a conservative. I suppose by today's standards of right wing extremism, she could be considered center-right, but she is definitely a conservative, and her opinions about DEI are just right wing talking points dressed up in literate robes.

My academic advisor at Auburn was a Harvard graduate professor, editor of a solidly conservative academic journal of economic/political policy. I truly loved him as an academic and an advisor, but disagreed with him on many political issues. I stayed in touch with him for many years after leaving Auburn. He passed away a few years ago and I was so saddened.

I used to read Buckley. Such a great writer. Brilliant! Erudite and incisive! But of course, most of it was right wing anti-democratic nonsense. But it was so eloquently presented. I loved disagreeing with most of what he ever had to say. hahaha

Weiss is not in the world of Buckley. She's smart and her articles are often well crafted. But she is no Buckley and certainly not a convincing voice for the common slobber of anti-DEI arguments.

JMO, of course.

 

Edited January 7 by AURex

[TexasTiger 12,876]

13 minutes ago, AURex said:

As anyone with half a brain would. That does not anoint her as some sort of Liberal, only as a human with some functioning brain cells.

Look at her track record and her published articles. She is a conservative. I suppose by today's standards of right wing extremism, she could be considered center-right, but she is definitely a conservative, and her opinions about DEI are just right wing talking points dressed up in literate robes.

My academic advisor at Auburn was a Harvard graduate professor, editor of a solidly conservative academic journal of economic/political policy. I truly loved him as an academic and an advisor, but disagreed with him on many political issues. I stayed in touch with him for many years after leaving Auburn. He passed away a few years ago and I was so saddened.

I used to read Buckley. Such a great writer. Brilliant! Erudite and incisive! But of course, most of it was right wing anti-democratic nonsense. But it was so eloquently presented. I loved disagreeing with most of what he ever had to say. hahaha

Weiss is not in the world of Buckley. She's smart and her articles are often well crafted. But she is no Buckley and certainly not a convincing voice for the common slobber of anti-DEI arguments.

JMO, of course.

 

She’s nowhere close to Buckley or even Andrew Sullivan. She’s no intellectual, IMO. She’s packaged a middling skill set exceptionally well, which, I guess, is her talent. But Buckley didn’t vote for Kennedy or LBJ. She’s no liberal, but not a staunch conservative, either.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Thoughts on Pinker’s suggestions?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/11/opinion/steven-pinker-how-to-save-universities-harvard-claudine-gay/

[SLAG-91 1,483]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Thoughts on Pinker’s suggestions?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/11/opinion/steven-pinker-how-to-save-universities-harvard-claudine-gay/

Hard to find much wrong with any of those suggestions.  One that I adopt on a personal level is "institutional neutrality".  The statement that universities do not need to develop a foreign policy is absolutely correct.  Whatever my opinions may be on various issues of the day, those stay at home, and anyone trying to push my buttons on those while I am at work gets shut down pretty quickly.

Regarding viewpoint diversity, the shift from college faculties being more heterogenous in terms of viewpoint to now being primarily liberal/leftist has been at least three generations in the making, and shifting it back toward equilibrium is going to take a long time, if it happens at all.  I will say that when I was at Auburn in the late '80s/early '90s, I felt like my history/psychology/English professors didn't lean to either extreme.  I remember Dr. Henson, a history professor who I liked very much, for his understated sarcasm, and a vivid description one day of how he felt (he put it, and I quote, "like a small rodent crawled inside my mouth and expectorated").  He reminded me of my dad, and I never had much of a sense one way or the other of my dad's politics, either.

The DEI movement is one that, in my view, is framed with words that, on their surface, one would have no issue with whatsoever, but the implementation has served to divide, isolate and create hierarchies of aggrieved parties, which is not productive at all.  The question "Where are you from?" is not racist, and framing it as such is a disservice to statements that actually are racist.  His suggestion to shine a light on these departments and have them justify their dogma is a good one.

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

This ideology has hit the streets of the US and there are questions as to how it is implamented?  Can it be stopped if it threatens the safety of the American citizen?

The Federal Aviation Administration is actively recruiting workers who suffer “severe intellectual” disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website. 

“Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring,” the FAA’s website states. “They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism.”

The initiative is part of the FAA’s “Diversity and Inclusion” hiring plan, which claims “diversity is integral to achieving FAA’s mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.”

The FAA’s website shows the agency’s guidelines on diversity hiring were last updated on March 23, 2022. 

The FAA, which is overseen by Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s Department of Transportation, is a government agency charged with regulating civil aviation and employs roughly 45,000 people. 

https://nypost.com/2024/01/14/news/faas-diversity-push-includes-hiring-people-with-intellectual-and-psychiatric-disabilities/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost

 

Only time will tell if the above actions will threaten the safety of the US citizen.

[ScotsAU 1,331]

So… Finally an opportunity to speak with no one having any ground against me. I’m literally an expert on this. I run a DEIA analytics program for an undisclosed government organization. I have a PhD in industrial psychology, where my research focused on fairness, abuse, and well being in organizations. I teach college psychology, engineering management, and management classes on managing workplace personnel, leadership, and worked well being. I also interface with folks at the EEOC on the regular for my job and my research. I’m also a very interesting person regarding this topic, because my initial interest in DEIA was because I thought they were outdated programs. I’d never been discriminated against. I’d never noticed anyone else being discriminated against. It was only after I delved into the science that my perspective drastically shifted. 
 

As for the video. I’ve seen this video pop up many times before. This person twists a lot of semi-facts around the story they want to weave, and ignores actual science on DEIA.  I once had a colleague say, “if you are using facts or data for the purpose of proving a point, you aren’t doing science. You’re doing data manipulation. Science requires an objective eye, where you let the data and theory truly do the talking.” This person is manipulating data, not analyzing it. 
 

So, for the sake of science, let me address some common misconceptions about DEIA. If you see a company, federal agency, manager, etc. not doing things in line with this, they are doing it wrong and are probably breaking federal law.

 

Quick definitions:

Diversity- How much does your demographic distribution match the workforce or skilled workforce?

Equity- How much do your programs and policies promote fairness?

Inclusion- Is everyone being treated in a way that encourages participation and trust?

Accommodation- Are people with certain special requirements (related to a disability, a religious belief, etc.) able being given reasonable assistance to be able to balance the special requirement with their work? 
 

I once worked for a manager that equated the first three terms to a party. Diversity is making sure party invites are given out to everyone fairly. Equity is making sure everyone that has a party invite can actually enter the party. Inclusion is making sure everyone at the party has an opportunity to dance. As you’ll maybe notice, none of these are described as exclusionary. It is all about giving everyone a chance. And you’ll see that play out in the next section below. 

 

On to some misconceptions: 

Misconception 1: DEIA is for the benefit of minority groups only. 
Reality 1: This is a false narrative. DEIA is about creating a mobilized, satisfied workforce, with the ability to take multiple perspectives. Companies that embrace DEIA and do so in a way that is in line with science significantly and substantially out perform companies that skirt it or reject it. 
 

Misconception 2: DEIA isn’t for (or even hurts) white people and/or men. 
Reality 2: This myth comes from people that either a) have experiences where DEIA initiatives were misused or b) comes from people that only half understand what the initiatives are. DEIA is about preventing discriminatory behavior AND enhancing positivity. The reason it tends to focus on non-white people and women is because those groups are statistically more likely to experience problems. That’s not to say it can’t go other ways. (In fact, I have a white friend right now who is in a lawsuit over racial discrimination. His case is solid.) It can happen. But it is less common. Studied by the NIH and psychologists have found that about half of women and about 1/2 of racial minorities have experienced discrimination within the past year. That rate is around 10% for men experiencing  gender discrimination , and around 15% for white people experiencing racial discrimination. As someone who also does this for a living, there’s evidence of pretty disparate hiring rates and promotion rates by race and gender as well, and this accounts for applicant quality, training and development differences, and performance evaluation discrepancies. So I got a little long winded on this one. But essentially, discriminatory acts are problematic no matter who is being discriminated against. Embracing inclusion if done correctly benefits everyone. But some groups are more hit by the former than others. So efforts toward the latter can sometimes be unbalanced because of that. 
 

Misconception 3: DEIA and diversity offices are punitive.

Reality: No on so many levels. Yes. If there’s a complaint, it has to be investigated. If there’s evidence of discrimination, the company has to take action. But the primary focus of a diversity manager or diversity office should be to create programs to promote cross demographic collaboration, interaction, and etc. This is largely based on Allport’s contact hypothesis among other findings in research that have shown that positive inter-demographic interaction and cultural learning improves communication and trust, which enhances things like innovation and group level productivity. 

 

Misconception 4: DEIA programs are outdated. 
Reality 4: I want to start by reminding you here that this was originally the concern that brought me to this discipline. There are new studies capturing rates of discriminatory behavior every year. These studies have accounted for a variety of factors and theories, including people being too sensitive. (They’ve actually entered different emotional and personality traits in as statistical moderators to test whether life outlook or something like that might make people more prone to feeling discriminated against… In the words of Yukon Cornelius… “Nothin’.”) Findings have actually been pretty consistent. Since around the 1980’s, bias has steadily changed from something that is very public to something that is often operating below people’s conscious levels of awareness. As such, people can have subtle thoughts in their mind that can cause them to subtlety but noticeably (to the recipient) treat people different. These kinds of thoughts can then creep into your decisions. In my field, it’s well documented that it affects hiring decisions, promotion decisions, and access to training opportunities, and many of these folks claim publicly to not be biased. Simply put, the extant evidence shows that bias has not gone away. Thus, attempts need to be made to reprogram potentially biased thoughts, and put in process improvements to where unchecked biased thoughts are able to be kept out of decision making.

 

Misconception 5: DEIA initiatives are members only. 
Reality: If anyone ever tells you this, slap them. Not really. But they should be slapped. I’m a Caucasian male. I’ve been involved in activities for women, Hispanics, black people, and asian people. Why? If the the goal is really to make things better, it takes the majority group to do it. Again, the goal of EEO and DEIA isn’t punitive. The goal is to embrace what people from different backgrounds bring to the table rather than getting them to divide or exclude over it. If you don’t have diverse leaders, you don’t have innovative product. If you don’t have a diverse workforce, you don’t have innovative solutions. If your workforce is full of unfairness, aggression, hostility, or distrust, it’s going to suffer high rates of turnover and productivity decline. The real goal of DEIA is to prevent those negative outcomes, in turn making people as a whole happier, healthier, and more productive. If you are experiencing a situation where that’s not how DEIA is being used, that group is doing it wrong.

 

By the way, if you are curious about where you might have biases of your own that you maybe don’t recognize, check out the implicit association test (IAT) that was created by some researchers at Harvard. It isn’t flawless, but it’s been shown to be relatively psychometrically sound.

[I_M4_AU 7,837]

@ScotsAU, thanks for bringing the academic side of DEI to the conversation.  As any plan goes forward the implementation of that plan is crucial.  Do you believe that Kirby’s hiring new pilots that are 50% women and/or POC representative of the original plan?  By his admission only 19% are in that category at that time, so how does denying other applicants (essentially white males) the same opportunity to get hired as a pilot?

It seems this DEI program is punitive to some, but not all.  Is it the purpose of DEI to level the playing field by discriminating against certain categories of people?  In the case of United Airlines it would be discriminating against white male applicants.

[AUDub 11,148]

Probably the best ELI5 for DEI that I’ve read. Thanks, Scots. 

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

Perhaps the intentions are good, the reality is not:

 

[PUB78 1,358]

16 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Perhaps the intentions are good, the reality is not:

 

The current version/tone of DEI promoted by the left is poison..