Discussion: DEI vs liberalism

[TexasTiger 12,876]

17 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

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. 

This reliance on data you keep referencing seems rare in my experience. But I still have no idea how you would go about educating a workforce. Not sure why that’s such a hard question.

[ScotsAU 1,331]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

This reliance on data you keep referencing seems rare in my experience.

That’s my point. People exist with the expertise to do that kind of data analytics program. A lot of companies, if they do anything at all, they hire someone with a generic business degree and make DEIA only part of a job. Compare that to my company… we employ a large team of people to do DEIA. We have a division of our office specifically devoted to the analytics part of DEIA. Then there is an accommodations division, a programs division, and a complaint investigation and mediation division. We employ lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, data scientists, industrial engineers, and a variety of other occupational backgrounds in these various roles. To do DEIA, it takes the willingness to spend money and hire a legit team of full time DEIA people that are properly trained. Most companies don’t do that. 

Edited February 2 by ScotsAU

[TexasTiger 12,876]

1 minute ago, ScotsAU said:

That’s my point. People exist with the expertise to do that kind of data analytics program. A lot of companies, if they do anything at all, they hire someone with a generic business degree and make DEIA only part of a job. Compare that to my company… we employ a large team of people to do DEIA. We have a division of our office specifically devoted to the analytics part of DEIA. Then there is an accommodations division, a programs division, and a complaint investigation and mediation division. To do DEIA, it takes the willingness to spend money and hire a legit team of full time DEIA people that are properly trained. Most companies don’t do that. 

So what is often being rejected may be because it’s a flawed product resulting from a flawed process?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

So what is often being rejected may be because it’s a flawed product resulting from a flawed process?

Are you suggesting our approach isn’t working? Because there’s a lot of evidence that it is. I can’t say much more without revealing too much about my identity in a public sphere. But our office has been extremely successful.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

1 minute ago, ScotsAU said:

Are you suggesting our approach isn’t working? Because there’s a lot of evidence that it is. I can’t say much more without revealing too much about my identity in a public sphere. But our office has been extremely successful.

Not saying that at all. I have no idea. But we both agree that whatever more data driven approach you take is not the norm, and perhaps rare, so the public view of DEI is often of a failed product/process labeled DEI. You seem to be saying the current state of DEI falls short of the evidence based standards you employ— so if a segment of the population has a negative view of the DEI practices they’ve experienced or seen, isn’t that understandable?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Not saying that at all. I have no idea. But we both agree that whatever more data driven approach you take is not the norm, and perhaps rare, so the public view of DEI is often of a failed product/process labeled DEI. You seem to be saying the current state of DEI falls short of the evidence based standards you employ— so if a segment of the population has a negative view of the DEI practices they’ve experienced or seen, isn’t that understandable?

100%. That’s why I like to talk to people about this stuff. It can be done right and done well. It should always be data oriented. And no DEIA program should ever be oriented around shame and punishment. The only way to change things is for folks like me to share what we’ve done and how it can lead to solid success.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

4 minutes ago, ScotsAU said:

And no DEIA program should ever be oriented around shame and punishment.

So what approach works? Concrete examples of how you get employees to see things differently/modify behavior?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So what is often being rejected may be because it’s a flawed product resulting from a flawed process?

Now I get what you were saying. Thought you meant no companies are taking the data centric approach because it doesn’t work. 
 

You were saying people are not high on diversity initiatives partially because they aren’t done well. That is a completely true statement. Numerous researchers have explored this very thing, and have found it to be a major contributing factor. They don’t see what DEIA can be. They see what it is in their company, and have no idea that it can be done well.

[ScotsAU 1,331]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So what approach works? Concrete examples of how you get employees to see things differently/modify behavior?

That’s a loaded question, and it is what I was trying to point out several posts back. DEIA isn’t one thing. How well does your diversity match the population? How well does it match the skilled workforce? Are people advancing at expected rates? Then you have to consider things that explain those questions. Are people leaving at abnormally high rates? Are people getting hired at disparate rates? Then you have to get into why those things are happening. Are your processes fair? Are there skill or culture differences that are contributing? 
 

That, my friend, is just diversity, and only a fraction of the inquiry tree I created to guide our analytics for diversity specifically. Equity, inclusion, and accommodation all have different questions you have to ask. A barrier analysis is truly an in depth full research study of a section of the workforce. Depending on what you find, the DEIA initiatives that come out of it could be drastically different. That is why you need trained people doing this work. It’s complicated. 
 

So it is difficult to just give a simple recommendation. If you give me a hypothetical issue, I can tell you what might work to address it. 

Edited February 2 by ScotsAU

[TexasTiger 12,876]

1 minute ago, ScotsAU said:

That’s a loaded question, and it is what I was trying to point out several posts back. DEIA isn’t one thing. How well does your diversity match the population? How well does it match the skilled workforce? Are people advancing at expected rates? Then you have to consider things that explain those questions. Are people leaving at abnormally high rates? Are people getting hired at disparate rates? Then you have to get into why those things are happening. Are your processes fair? Are there skill or culture differences that are contributing? 
 

That, my friend, is just diversity, and only a fraction of the inquiry tree I created to guide our analytics. Equity, inclusion, and accommodation all have different questions you have to ask. A barrier analysis is truly an in depth full research study of a section of the workforce. Depending on what you find, the DEIA initiatives that come out of it could be drastically different. That is why you need trained people doing this work. It’s complicated. 
 

So it is difficult to just give a simple recommendation. If you give me a hypothetical issue, I can tell you what might work to address it. 

Let me ask it this way— what common off the rack approaches tend not to work from your perspective?

[ScotsAU 1,331]

35 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Let me ask it this way— what common off the rack approaches tend not to work from your perspective?

Cultural awareness/appreciation events (e.g., Hispanic heritage day)- People that attend tend to be more aware anyway. They don’t really address anything. These aren’t a complete waste of time, especially if you have a demographic group with low morale or job satisfaction. But too many companies make these the highest priority despite the fact that they create little return. 

Unconscious bias training- It is important that people understand unconscious bias. But research is show that this particular approach doesn’t actually create much change. Unconscious bias operates on such an automatic level that teaching people about it doesn’t stop it from happening. There are other kinds of training that have shown better outcomes. But just telling people that they probably have some unconscious biases doesn’t work.
 

Quota decision making (where a company hires, promotes, offers training, etc. intentionally designated percentages of certain demographic groups)- First off, this is illegal. But also, the purpose id diversity is to create a stronger company and a stronger workforce. This approach is absolutely demotivating. 
 

Punitive or members only oriented programs- DEIA initiatives should always be focused on the enhancement of the workforce. “This is something that will make us stronger. This is about enhancing our innovation and productivity.” Those kinds of things should be a part of both the messaging and the legitimate purpose of anything that’s done. A lot of times diversity initiatives inadvertently leave out an important voice… the majority one. Diversity is about everyone. That’s not to say the company shouldn’t be aware of traditionally disparate trends, and shouldn’t pay careful attention to the voices of smaller demographics. But you need the majority groups involved and onboard. You need to engage with them, hear them out, and involve them. That’s how you make everyone collectively happier and how you truly create positive change. Making the majority group feel like outsider or less important is one of the biggest reasons diversity initiatives fail.

Edited February 2 by ScotsAU

[DKW 86 7,424]

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.

 

No one on staff at the NYT is a conservative anything. That is an oxymoron. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

DEI is a noble concept that is, as it was designed to be, a cudgel to beat up political opponents like there is no tomorrow.  Just look at Harvard. DEI is the rule of law there, as is plagiarism, faux academics, and a dead last rating by the students themselves for Free Speech. In very important ways Harvard has shot themselves in the foot on a national stage. DEI Leader basically just copied her husband’s thesis. She has literally no real academic standing. Gay was also a non-academician that was shoved onto her position in record time and turned out to be a total fraud academically and a poor leader in many areas. Now throw in the Worst Environment for Free Speech in America and there you have the results of the cudgel beating up those that created it. NOTE: No one from the Radical Left is in any way apologizing for the failures. 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

7 hours ago, ScotsAU said:

Cultural awareness/appreciation events (e.g., Hispanic heritage day)- People that attend tend to be more aware anyway. They don’t really address anything. These aren’t a complete waste of time, especially if you have a demographic group with low morale or job satisfaction. But too many companies make these the highest priority despite the fact that they create little return. 

Unconscious bias training- It is important that people understand unconscious bias. But research is show that this particular approach doesn’t actually create much change. Unconscious bias operates on such an automatic level that teaching people about it doesn’t stop it from happening. There are other kinds of training that have shown better outcomes. But just telling people that they probably have some unconscious biases doesn’t work.
 

Quota decision making (where a company hires, promotes, offers training, etc. intentionally designated percentages of certain demographic groups)- First off, this is illegal. But also, the purpose id diversity is to create a stronger company and a stronger workforce. This approach is absolutely demotivating. 
 

Punitive or members only oriented programs- DEIA initiatives should always be focused on the enhancement of the workforce. “This is something that will make us stronger. This is about enhancing our innovation and productivity.” Those kinds of things should be a part of both the messaging and the legitimate purpose of anything that’s done. A lot of times diversity initiatives inadvertently leave out an important voice… the majority one. Diversity is about everyone. That’s not to say the company shouldn’t be aware of traditionally disparate trends, and shouldn’t pay careful attention to the voices of smaller demographics. But you need the majority groups involved and onboard. You need to engage with them, hear them out, and involve them. That’s how you make everyone collectively happier and how you truly create positive change. Making the majority group feel like outsider or less important is one of the biggest reasons diversity initiatives fail.

Thanks.

[ScotsAU 1,331]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

DEI is a noble concept that is, as it was designed to be, a cudgel to beat up political opponents like there is no tomorrow.  Just look at Harvard. DEI is the rule of law there, as is plagiarism, faux academics, and a dead last rating by the students themselves for Free Speech. In very important ways Harvard has shot themselves in the foot on a national stage. DEI Leader basically just copied her husband’s thesis. She has literally no real academic standing. Gay was also a non-academician that was shoved onto her position in record time and turned out to be a total fraud academically and a poor leader in many areas. Now throw in the Worst Environment for Free Speech in America and there you have the results of the cudgel beating up those that created it. NOTE: No one from the Radical Left is in any way apologizing for the failures. 

DEIA shouldn’t be a left or right issue. It’s a legitimate issue, backed by sound science that has become politicized by both the left and the right and often managed very poorly by companies. Guessing you didn’t read the last few pages. I’m actually considered a DEIA expert. Most Americans have no clue what DEIA is supposed to actually be, and a lot of companies do it wrong. It isn’t supposed to be punitive. It isn’t supposed to be about minorities crapping on the majority. It’s about making everything more collaborative. Companies/Organizations that do embrace DEIA and do it well drastically outperform companies that half a$$ it, do it poorly, or don’t do it at all.

If you want more info, I suggest looking at the book long post on the first page.

 

You said some things in your post that suggests you are resistant to the science on this issue. So I’ll answer legitimate questions. But I’m not going to debate you on this here. As an expert, I’ve read 95% of the research on this topic, and have contributed to doing some of it. So I know I’m in the right on this one.

Edited February 2 by ScotsAU

[DKW 86 7,424]

4 hours ago, ScotsAU said:

DEIA shouldn’t be a left or right issue. It’s a legitimate issue, backed by sound science that has become politicized by both the left and the right and often managed very poorly by companies. Guessing you didn’t read the last few pages. I’m actually considered a DEIA expert. Most Americans have no clue what DEIA is supposed to actually be, and a lot of companies do it wrong. It isn’t supposed to be punitive. It isn’t supposed to be about minorities crapping on the majority. It’s about making everything more collaborative. Companies/Organizations that do embrace DEIA and do it well drastically outperform companies that half a$$ it, do it poorly, or don’t do it at all.

If you want more info, I suggest looking at the book long post on the first page.

 

You said some things in your post that suggests you are resistant to the science on this issue. So I’ll answer legitimate questions. But I’m not going to debate you on this here. As an expert, I’ve read 95% of the research on this topic, and have contributed to doing some of it. So I know I’m in the right on this one.

Stated it was a noble idea. But the implementation, like Gay, in many instances brings unqualified people to positions of power they are not qualified for. DEI at Harvard has shown that clearly. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Disregarding hiring metrics in favor of DEI at a top Medical School.

 

University of Florida eliminating its DEI department all together:

 

Is this the beginning of the end for DEI?

Edited March 1 by I_M4_AU

[auburnatl1 4,920]

My 2 cents. I too think there are parts of DEI that means well and has challenged society in several healthy ways.   However, I firmly believe in mlk’s vision of acceptance and being blind to differences. Obviously a stretch and generational goal. But dei/1619/woke/whatever  has imo begun to mutate past healthy and into a cynical rejection of his vision and in some ways it is starting to take us tribally backwards. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

 

We need chip manufacturing in the US for national security.  This DEI mandate is causing this project to be delayed.  Does an ideology trump national security?

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

 

or is this the entrance exam for Duke Medical?

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Washington, D.C. — Today, Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. introduced the Embracing anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act to ban race-based mandates at medical schools and accrediting institutions.

"American medical schools are the best in the world and no place for discrimination," said Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. "The EDUCATE Act compels medical schools and accrediting agencies to uphold colorblind admissions processes and prohibits the coercion of students who hold certain political opinions. Diversity strengthens medicine, but not if it’s achieved through exclusionary practices. Medicine is about serving others and doing the best job possible in every circumstance. We cannot afford to sacrifice the excellence and quality of medical education at the hands of prejudice and divisive ideology."

https://murphy.house.gov/media/press-releases/murphy-introduces-bill-ban-dei-medicine

 

[auburnatl1 4,920]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Washington, D.C. — Today, Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. introduced the Embracing anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act to ban race-based mandates at medical schools and accrediting institutions.

"American medical schools are the best in the world and no place for discrimination," said Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. "The EDUCATE Act compels medical schools and accrediting agencies to uphold colorblind admissions processes and prohibits the coercion of students who hold certain political opinions. Diversity strengthens medicine, but not if it’s achieved through exclusionary practices. Medicine is about serving others and doing the best job possible in every circumstance. We cannot afford to sacrifice the excellence and quality of medical education at the hands of prejudice and divisive ideology."

https://murphy.house.gov/media/press-releases/murphy-introduces-bill-ban-dei-medicine

 

On this we agree. Whether it’s medical care or competing globally with US companies’ products and services - it has to be about talent and achievement.  Or we lose much more than we gain.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Will it ever end?  Shouldn’t these heads of departments and presidents be ashamed of plagiarizing from others to gain unearned success?

 

The School of Medicine no less

 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Is this the end result of what DEI was designed to do?

 

 

[BustemBigBlue 176]

I work for a large company and this DE&I stuff has been pushed very aggressively  the last few years. What I find most interesting is that nearly everyone I talk to in private conversation thinks it’s an absolute joke. I’d say the vast majority of our employees are over 40  so none of them grew up being indoctrinated into this stuff college kids are today. Yet somehow it has permeated its way into the company on such a level that it has overtaken all other company values. Nobody dares speak up publicly against it for fear of repercussions.