Discussion: DEI vs liberalism

[TexasTiger 12,876]

On 1/15/2024 at 11:28 AM, I_M4_AU said:

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.

Where did he say flying skills won’t be required of a pilot? Of course, United wants qualified pilots. It’s asinine to think an airline has no concerns for safety. The issue, if properly handled, of identifying a diverse pool to draw from is not the problem.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

On 1/15/2024 at 8:42 PM, ScotsAU said:

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.

You’re absolutely right. The problems have not gone away, biases still exist and need an effective approach to overcome or mitigate them, etc. But it’s also true that many organizations approach efforts to address these issues ineffectively. Like any thing else, trendiness tends to overrule objectivity.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Where did he say flying skills won’t be required of a pilot? Of course, United wants qualified pilots. It’s asinine to think an airline has no concerns for safety. The issue, if properly handled, of identifying a diverse pool to draw from is not the problem.

You’re assuming the standards will be the same as it was 5 years ago, I believe to get a diversified pilot group the standards will be lowered.  United has about 19% women or POC and they are the highest in the industry (others are around 6%). Basically they are saying somehow they are going to find 30% more people that are willing to sacrifice by learning and gaining experience than they have in the past.  The incentives of pay were always there, so how are they going to intice 2 and 1/2 times more women and POC to apply for a job they historically did not see as attractive?

The recent resignation of the Harvard President and the recent allegations of plagiarism of the Head of DEI at the same school should tell you standards have been lowered to accommodate the hiring of diversity.

Yes airlines are concerned about safety, but if they believe they can maintain safety and virtue signal at the same time they will do so.  Only time will tell.  Like the old saying goes; if it ain’t broke; don’t fix it.

[arein0 956]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

how are they going to intice 2 and 1/2 times more women and POC to apply for a job they historically did not see as attractive?

Did they view it as not attractive, or are there barriers of entry, whether intentional or not, that restricts who even has a possibility of becoming a pilot (passing medicals, cost of flight hours, etc.)

[TexasTiger 12,876]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You’re assuming the standards will be the same as it was 5 years ago, I believe to get a diversified pilot group the standards will be lowered.  United has about 19% women or POC and they are the highest in the industry (others are around 6%). Basically they are saying somehow they are going to find 30% more people that are willing to sacrifice by learning and gaining experience than they have in the past.  The incentives of pay were always there, so how are they going to intice 2 and 1/2 times more women and POC to apply for a job they historically did not see as attractive?

You’re assuming a ton. The job pays well. Not the issue. In most industries folks’ relationships tend to give them a leg up on knowing about opportunities, getting their foot in the door, etc. I’ve seen folks of mediocre & subpar talent get opportunities across the board due to who they know, circles they run in, etc. Identifying a broader pool was the original goal of affirmative action. It’s not always handled or interpreted correctly, but the original rationale is still valid.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

6 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Did they view it as not attractive, or are there barriers of entry, whether intentional or not, that restricts who even has a possibility of becoming a pilot (passing medicals, cost of flight hours, etc.)

The cost of training is high, but the reward has been worth it.  If you weren’t willing to sacrifice before, why would you now?  That is a question I would have to ask of an applicant.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re assuming a ton.

I believe you are too.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I believe you are too.

What am I assuming?

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

What am I assuming?

That is it easy to find people who were not interested in a job that suddenly are because of a virtue signally CEO.  The job requires more than just wanting to.  

[TexasTiger 12,876]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That is it easy to find people who were not interested in a job that suddenly are because of a virtue signally CEO.  The job requires more than just wanting to.  

Not assuming it’s easy. But implicit in your assumption is that folks held no interest in a job for which they were previously unaware of the path to it.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not assuming it’s easy. But implicit in your assumption is that folks held no interest in a job for which they were previously unaware of the path to it.

This in itself asssumes a lot.  I would think most people are aware that there is a path to any job and that most people are aware there are people that fly airplanes.  What the difference is the knowledge of how difficult it is to obtain that pathway and what sacrifices are required to successfully obtain the position.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

This in itself asssumes a lot.  I would think most people are aware that there is a path to any job and that most people are aware there are people that fly airplanes.  What the difference is the knowledge of how difficult it is to obtain that pathway and what sacrifices are required to successfully obtain the position.

Your background makes you aware of many things that aren’t universally shared.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Your background makes you aware of many things that aren’t universally shared.

Correct.  I’m not saying women and POC can’t do the job, because I’ve flown with many good pilots that were in that category.  To push this on people that *think* they would like to be an airline pilot does not guarantee success.  Is there a push to have 50% new doctors or lawyers as women or POC?  Same difference except United is virtue signaling IMO.

[ScotsAU 1,331]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re absolutely right. The problems have not gone away, biases still exist and need an effective approach to overcome or mitigate them, etc. But it’s also true that many organizations approach efforts to address these issues ineffectively. Like any thing else, trendiness tends to overrule objectivity.

I don’t completely disagree with you there. A lot of companies handle DEIA ineffectively. Many try to use a simple one-approach solution to a multi-dimensional issue (i.e., assume every demographic group’s issues can be fixed the same way). Some even do things that are illegal, largely because the don’t know any better. The answer to this problem is to expand DEIA. Expand training on DEIA issues, and create DEIA departments within companies. Then hire trained professionals into those positions, and not just people with grneric HR/business backgrounds. All federal agencies are required to have DEIA offices, but many of them are staffed with people who have minimal expertise and being managed by people who also have minimal expertise. Creating the positions only helps if the folks in them know how to actually  analyze and run a DEIA program.

Edited February 1 by ScotsAU

[ScotsAU 1,331]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Correct.  I’m not saying women and POC can’t do the job, because I’ve flown with many good pilots that were in that category.  To push this on people that *think* they would like to be an airline pilot does not guarantee success.  Is there a push to have 50% new doctors or lawyers as women or POC?  Same difference except United is virtue signaling IMO.

DEIA analytics use multiple metrics that account for this. Look into the relevant civilian labor force DEIA data. It tells you what the labor pool is like demographically for every occupation. Activities differ depending on whether the discrepancy is against the workforce as a whole versus the industry specific workforce. Example, if only 35% of med school grads are women, you wouldn’t expect to have 50% be doctors. But something is going on if only 10% of the doctors at a hospital are women because it is way under the labor pool. I’m oversimplifying a bit. But you should get the idea. 
 

If theres only a discrepancy against the workforce as a whole, actions are more focused on building interest in young folks to go into those positions. But if the discrepancy exists in the skilled workforce, something is going on among recruitment, hires, and/or losses. You don’t automatically scream ”discrimination”  at that point either. Then you dig into that data to figure out which one(s) is driving it. Then you dig deeper and deeper until you find an underlying root cause.

 

At least that’s how it is supposed to be done.

Edited February 1 by ScotsAU

[TexasTiger 12,876]

12 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

I don’t completely disagree with you there. A lot of companies handle DEIA ineffectively. Many try to use a simple one-approach solution to a multi-dimensional issue (i.e., assume every demographic group’s issues can be fixed the same way). Some even do things that are illegal, largely because the don’t know any better. The answer to this problem is to expand DEIA. Expand training on DEIA issues, and create DEIA departments within companies. Then hire trained professionals into those positions, and not just people with grneric HR/business backgrounds. All federal agencies are required to have DEIA offices, but many of them are staffed with people who have minimal expertise and being managed by people who also have minimal expertise. Creating the positions only helps if the folks in them know how to actually  analyze and run a DEIA program.

But which experts do you rely on for training?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

But which experts do you rely on for training?

I work with 4 other doctors, all of which are experts related to the DEIA space. There are folks out there qualified to do this kind of work. The EEOC also offers training, as do many consulting agencies. 

Edited February 1 by ScotsAU

[TexasTiger 12,876]

3 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

I work with 4 other doctors, all of which are experts related to the DEIA space. The EEOC also offers training, as do many consulting agencies. 

But which experts do they draw on? What are the philosophical underpinnings of the training?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But which experts do they draw on?

Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Journal of Occupational Health…

There’s peer reviewed research on this stuff. Faculty at universities teach it (myself included).  Those faculty are also involved in training grad students that have helped expand that research as well. My dissertation was DEIA focused. To write it, I had to read basically everything that’s been done on that topic. I am far from the only one. It’s one of the most popular topics in organizational behavior, industrial psychology, social psychology, sociology, and management doctoral programs. So the expertise exists. Companies just generally put minimal money into DEIA to develop those capabilities. 

Edited February 1 by ScotsAU

[TexasTiger 12,876]

10 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Journal of Occupational Health…

There’s peer reviewed research on this stuff. Faculty at universities teach it (myself included).  Those faculty are also involved in training grad students that have helped expand that research as well. My dissertation was DEIA focused. To write it, I had to read basically everything that’s been done on that topic. I am far from the only one. It’s one of the most popular topics in organizational behavior, industrial psychology, social psychology, sociology, and management doctoral programs. So the expertise exists. Companies just generally put minimal money into DEIA to develop those capabilities. 

How would you characterize the theoretical underpinnings of your approach?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

35 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How would you characterize the theoretical underpinnings of your approach?

Say more. Do you mean what theories am I drawing on? Are you asking about methodologies used? Not quite sure I get where you’re going with this. 

Edited February 2 by ScotsAU

[TexasTiger 12,876]

7 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

Say more. Do you mean what theories am I drawing on? Are you asking about methodologies used? Not quite sure I get where you’re going with this. 

Both. And perhaps more. A problem exists. Much of the right wing denies a problem exists. For those of us who agree a problem exists, what is the best approach to address it? As with any effort to address a problem, effective solutions begin with proper problem definition. What is at the core of the problem? What is at the core of the effort to at least move toward a solution?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Both. And perhaps more. A problem exists. Much of the right wing denies a problem exists. For those of us who agree a problem exists, what is the best approach to address it? As with any effort to address a problem, effective solutions begin with proper problem definition. What is at the core of the problem? What is at the core of the effort to at least move toward a solution?

There’s no one size fits all approach to DEIA. You use barrier analysis to detect potential needs, systematically looking collecting and analyzing data. Then the subsequent actions align with those needs identified in the analyses. Have an applicant pool that doesn’t match the skilled workforce? Then you use targeted recruiting efforts to boost the diversity in the pool. Detect a large amount of distrust? Create events to align with the contact hypothesis. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

7 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

There’s no one size fits all approach to DEIA. You use barrier analysis to detect potential needs, systematically looking collecting and analyzing data. Then the subsequent actions align with those needs identified in the analyses. Have an applicant pool that doesn’t match the skilled workforce? Then you use targeted recruiting efforts to boost the diversity in the pool. Detect a large amount of distrust? Create events to align with the contact hypothesis. 

So your focus is on hiring workforces, not training employees?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So your focus is on hiring workforces, not training employees?

It’s multifaceted, depending on what specific issues are found in the data. You have to consider everything in the employee lifecycle. Notice I mentioned the contact hypothesis as well, which gets more toward how to deal with problems of distrust. That has nothing to do with hiring. 

Edited February 2 by ScotsAU