DEI = Racism

#76
#76
Lawrence Wright said:
I was pointing out the irony of you lamenting about decisions being made that weren’t necessarily in your best interest, made by people who aren’t in your “tribe” as you put it.

That’s the hand minorities were dealt in this country from 1776 to 1964. Welcome to their world. 😄
Click to expand...
So then you believe this is a 'just' means of righting those wrongs. Or are you saying something else? The point of this thread is that DEI is not only just a quota idea on steroids, it actually sets us back to those times you seem so anxious to point out. The only difference is whose ox is being gored I suppose. Frankly, I don't care all that much and it won't affect me in the slightest, but what will ultimately result is poor service, poor safety and declining skill levels because now you are hiring based on factors that may very well have nothing to do with the particular job at hand.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and AM64
#77
#77
SpaceCoastVol said:
So then you believe this is a 'just' means of righting those wrongs. Or are you saying something else? The point of this thread is that DEI is not only just a quota idea on steroids, it actually sets us back to those times you seem so anxious to point out. The only difference is whose ox is being gored I suppose. Frankly, I don't care all that much and it won't affect me in the slightest, but what will ultimately result is poor service, poor safety and declining skill levels because now you are hiring based on factors that may very well have nothing to do with the particular job at hand.
Click to expand...

You keep putting words in my mouth when all I did was make an observation based on your post, and then drew a historical parallel.

I haven’t mentioned DEI once in any of my posts. That’s because like you, it won’t affect my day to day. I have no opinion on DEI.
 
#78
#78
Lawrence Wright said:
You keep putting words in my mouth when all I did was make an observation based on your post, and then drew a historical parallel.

I haven’t mentioned DEI once in any of my posts. That’s because like you, it won’t affect my day to day. I have no opinion on DEI.
Click to expand...
So your post was a complete non sequitur then. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
#79
#79
Lawrence Wright said:
You keep putting words in my mouth when all I did was make an observation based on your post, and then drew a historical parallel.

I haven’t mentioned DEI once in any of my posts. That’s because like you, it won’t affect my day to day. I have no opinion on DEI.
Click to expand...
You have obviously chosen your words carefully in this thread.

But you really have no personal opinion? Completely ambivalent?
 
#81
#81
There are parallel discussions to be had:

1) Should there be a concerted effort to place minorities in positions to take advantage of higher education when they might not otherwise get that opportunity based on racially blind review of qualifications? This is typically affirmative action.

2) Should there be a concerted effort to place minorities in positions to take advantage of higher education when they might not otherwise get that opportunity based on inadequate resources? This is scholarships and financial aid.

3) What is the right mix of 1 and 2 at a given institution?

4) Who gets to decide the right mix at a given institution -- the institution or the government?

Those are the planning purposes questions. The political question is simpler and is whether DeSantis is engaging in this mowing down of any hint of 1 and 2 in order to appeal to a segment of the GOP base and if so which segment? And why?

Personally, I think the answers to the latter two, the political questions, are obvious. And in the broader scheme of things I don't think his approach to these questions based on politics helps us arrive at an answer.

It is similar in my mind to immigration. A lot of people bemoan immigration policy or lack thereof because they want to run on the issue. But then when it is their turn to govern, to act, they do nothing. Because the show must go on and you don't fix something broken if you can instead make a nice living jumping up and down and pointing out that its broken.
 
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
There are parallel discussions to be had:

1) Should there be a concerted effort to place minorities in positions to take advantage of higher education when they might not otherwise get that opportunity based on racially blind review of qualifications? This is typically affirmative action.

2) Should there be a concerted effort to place minorities in positions to take advantage of higher education when they might not otherwise get that opportunity based on inadequate resources? This is scholarships and financial aid.

3) What is the right mix of 1 and 2 at a given institution?

4) Who gets to decide the right mix at a given institution -- the institution or the government?

Those are the planning purposes questions. The political question is simpler and is whether DeSantis is engaging in this mowing down of any hint of 1 and 2 in order to appeal to a segment of the GOP base and if so which segment? And why?

Personally, I think the answers to the latter two, the political questions, are obvious. And in the broader scheme of things I don't think his approach to these questions based on politics helps us arrive at an answer.

It is similar in my mind to immigration. A lot of people bemoan immigration policy or lack thereof because they want to run on the issue. But then when it is their turn to govern, to act, they do nothing. Because the show must go on and you don't fix something broken if you can instead make a nice living jumping up and down and pointing out that its broken.
Click to expand...
What does DeSantis have to do with the subject at hand?

I am referring to DEI as it is being rolled out in private businesses as well as the .gov. Hire someone ONLY because they are black or green or gay or short or tall or female (assuming they identify as such), or whatever other idiotic division you choose to heft on a person.

What should happen is that age, sex, race, and all identifying categories should be removed from government applications. Applicants for a job call on the phone, and their voice is scrambled and they are hired without knowing any of the above nonsense being taken into consideration. hire the best person for the job instead of all this other bull ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and AM64
#83
#83
SpaceCoastVol said:
What does DeSantis have to do with the subject at hand?

I am referring to DEI as it is being rolled out in private businesses as well as the .gov. Hire someone ONLY because they are black or green or gay or short or tall or female (assuming they identify as such), or whatever other idiotic division you choose to heft on a person.

What should happen is that age, sex, race, and all identifying categories should be removed from government applications. Applicants for a job call on the phone, and their voice is scrambled and they are hired without knowing any of the above nonsense being taken into consideration. hire the best person for the job instead of all this other bull ****.
Click to expand...


DeSantis replaced people on a university board in the last few days to undo such a program. I thought that was the context.
 
#87
#87
SpaceCoastVol said:
What does DeSantis have to do with the subject at hand?

I am referring to DEI as it is being rolled out in private businesses as well as the .gov. Hire someone ONLY because they are black or green or gay or short or tall or female (assuming they identify as such), or whatever other idiotic division you choose to heft on a person.

What should happen is that age, sex, race, and all identifying categories should be removed from government applications. Applicants for a job call on the phone, and their voice is scrambled and they are hired without knowing any of the above nonsense being taken into consideration. hire the best person for the job instead of all this other bull ****.
Click to expand...
But then you may get something close to an actual proportionate representation of society, and you just can't have that kind of injustice going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and SpaceCoastVol
#89
#89
lawgator1 said:
There are parallel discussions to be had:

1) Should there be a concerted effort to place minorities in positions to take advantage of higher education when they might not otherwise get that opportunity based on racially blind review of qualifications? This is typically affirmative action.

2) Should there be a concerted effort to place minorities in positions to take advantage of higher education when they might not otherwise get that opportunity based on inadequate resources? This is scholarships and financial aid.

3) What is the right mix of 1 and 2 at a given institution?

4) Who gets to decide the right mix at a given institution -- the institution or the government?
Click to expand...

A clarification on #1 - it is certainly possible to help minorities get into higher education when their qualifications don't meet the merit levels alone that do not require affirmative action. Any number of preparatory or other programs can help these minorities (or anyone for that matter with capabilities deficiencies) reach the requisite qualifications without 1) placing a less qualified person in the spot of a more qualified person that is only deficient in minority status and 2) either reducing standards so the less qualified person can succeed or setting the less qualified person up for failure.

A clarification on #2 - inadequate resources are not necessarily minority specific and there for need-based programs can be largely color-blind or minority-blind and still address this issue.

So the right mix is an institution is a bit of false choice - the question is how to get people who need to bolster their qualifications and resources the help they need.

The institute can certainly determine their own mix if private. The government role is to prevent discrimination so if some groups are disadvantaged by quota type systems or "we have too many Asians" then the government is obligated to stop such policies (based on current law).

There is no doubt that there are some correlations between minority status and qualifications for higher ed. There are any number of ways to close those gaps without the crude tool of affirmative action that treats minority status as a qualification.

The caveat I'll add is that determining qualifications for higher is an imperfect science so some of the tools (test scores, UG gpa, etc.) don't tell the whole story. On the other hand, minority status is an imperfect indicator as well.

my .02
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and AM64
#90
#90
volinbham said:
A clarification on #1 - it is certainly possible to help minorities get into higher education when their qualifications don't meet the merit levels alone that do not require affirmative action. Any number of preparatory or other programs can help these minorities (or anyone for that matter with capabilities deficiencies) reach the requisite qualifications without 1) placing a less qualified person in the spot of a more qualified person that is only deficient in minority status and 2) either reducing standards so the less qualified person can succeed or setting the less qualified person up for failure.

A clarification on #2 - inadequate resources are not necessarily minority specific and there for need-based programs can be largely color-blind or minority-blind and still address this issue.

So the right mix is an institution is a bit of false choice - the question is how to get people who need to bolster their qualifications and resources the help they need.

The institute can certainly determine their own mix if private. The government role is to prevent discrimination so if some groups are disadvantaged by quota type systems or "we have too many Asians" then the government is obligated to stop such policies (based on current law).

There is no doubt that there are some correlations between minority status and qualifications for higher ed. There are any number of ways to close those gaps without the crude tool of affirmative action that treats minority status as a qualification.

The caveat I'll add is that determining qualifications for higher is an imperfect science so some of the tools (test scores, UG gpa, etc.) don't tell the whole story. On the other hand, minority status is an imperfect indicator as well.

my .02
Click to expand...

I agree that in comparing a particular group of students to another that the tools you cited are imperfect. But I think over the course of time and in the big picture it's not hard to see a substantial difference which correlated to race.

You either believe that some races are smarter than others, or you co crude that there are external forces that cause the disparity. Economic status is surely the best predictor.
 
#91
#91
Also a lot of hero worship is involved. LeBron and Snoop Dog are way cooler than Ben Carson.
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
I agree that in comparing a particular group of students to another that the tools you cited are imperfect. But I think over the course of time and in the big picture it's not hard to see a substantial difference which correlated to race.

You either believe that some races are smarter than others, or you co crude that there are external forces that cause the disparity. Economic status is surely the best predictor.
Click to expand...

so the irony is that race-based diversity admissions does revert to the some races can't do it on their own. economic status would be a closer indicator to who needs help but instead we often use race.

I deal with graduate admissions decisions virtually every day. Our over arching concern is avoiding putting people into situations where they will fail and/or impact the learning of others (eg. team work, needing the work to be dumbed down, etc). We are under pressure to keep enrollments high as that's our primary source of revenue but we help no one if we admit people who are not qualified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#93
#93
volinbham said:
so the irony is that race-based diversity admissions does revert to the some races can't do it on their own. economic status would be a closer indicator to who needs help but instead we often use race.

I deal with graduate admissions decisions virtually every day. Our over arching concern is avoiding putting people into situations where they will fail and/or impact the learning of others (eg. team work, needing the work to be dumbed down, etc). We are under pressure to keep enrollments high as that's our primary source of revenue but we help no one if we admit people who are not qualified.
Click to expand...


That's a pretty good argument for making admissions decisions based on income status but that would defeat at least part of your current criteria for whatever/wherever you do what you do.
 
#94
#94
volinbham said:
so the irony is that race-based diversity admissions does revert to the some races can't do it on their own. economic status would be a closer indicator to who needs help but instead we often use race.

I deal with graduate admissions decisions virtually every day. Our over arching concern is avoiding putting people into situations where they will fail and/or impact the learning of others (eg. team work, needing the work to be dumbed down, etc). We are under pressure to keep enrollments high as that's our primary source of revenue but we help no one if we admit people who are not qualified.
Click to expand...
In my professional MBA program they let in a small group of people (around 5 students) that were woefully unqualified. They derailed about 3 of my classes demanding the instructors slow down and just being idiots (for instance, they told my economics professor that the formulas he was using- established for centuries- were wrong). All of them graduated from liberal arts programs, or things like history, theater, etc.. Part of the slowdown is obviously on the instructor, but the instructor should be able to expect basic competence in his or her classes at the very least.

Another student and I finally went to the dean and made it an issue for them to deal with. We had no further problems, but it was certainly my first real world brush with admittance programs and passing people in to "boost numbers".
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham and AM64
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
I agree that in comparing a particular group of students to another that the tools you cited are imperfect. But I think over the course of time and in the big picture it's not hard to see a substantial difference which correlated to race.

You either believe that some races are smarter than others, or you co crude that there are external forces that cause the disparity. Economic status is surely the best predictor.
Click to expand...
Economic status is surely the best predictor?
 
#99
#99
ETV said:
So much for the days when the best applicant was chosen, based upon qualifications, merit, etc.
Click to expand...

The thing is, this never existed in any meaningful way. Every organization consistently makes mistakes in hiring and fails to select the best applicant. They get wowed in the room by the personality, or the applicant embellishes their experience, or the hiring manager picks somebody based on his own personal biases, etc. I swear I got my first job out of college (fulfillment manager for web services co.) because I looked the part. I had no experience working on websites, tho I would like to believe they hired the right guy.

So the argument for people advocating for diversity and inclusion just look at it like we're making mistakes anyway, might as well make them for this reason rather than those reasons.

A question for anybody...IDK much about DEI...how do they shape the law?
 
Last edited:
#100
#100
volinbham said:
prior academic record and sometimes entrance exams
Click to expand...


I am referring to the best predictor of meriting consideration for relaxed academic standards.

If you go strictly off of academic credentials you benefit those with the advantage of starting off from a strong economic position. And so if you want to get rid of AA based on race because you don't think race should be used as a proxy, then the question is, what do you use?

If a student has promise but the grades aren't quite there or the tests scores are a bit below competitive with everyone else, I'm saying that the student can apply in such a manner as to take their economic condition into consideration, black, white, brown, or purple.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top