Diversity for diversity’s sake is not a good goal

[Lisa558]

The goal should be a completely race-blind approach, where individuals are selected based on competence and ability. Only then will employers, and by extent the broader society, know that when a black is selected for a position - be it a spot in a competitive university, a job promotion, a SCOTUS nomination, whatever - it is due to that person’s ability, and not some artificial attempt to “pump up” members of a minority simply due to race.

Take AA, the racist approach to college admissions. On average, 1 out of every 3 blacks would have been admitted under the “white standards” - and those blacks are the ones who keep pace with their white classmates and are every bit as qualified for a job opening as any white competitor.

But 2 out of 3 are not. They were admitted due to skin color - and employers KNOW that. Thus, they wonder if the black applicant from Excellent University is as good as the white applicant, and there is a reluctance to hire. If there WERE no AA, then employers would know that the black applicants are every bit as capable as the whites.

And THIS is the way to move forward: not continue with an artificial system that as admits the majority of blacks under lesser standards, and then force, via societal pressure, employers to hire them. Let blacks and whites compete under equal standards, and then everyone would know that the blacks who graduated from Excellent U will be just as much of an asset as the whites.

 

[Mac1958]

Correct. Diversity merely for the sake of diversity leads to diminished standards and expectations. We end up penalizing everyone when that happens.

We need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time: Keep standards and expectations high while also making sure that all are given a fair shot.

We're not terribly close to that right now. We're doing what we always do: We're slapping band-aids on everything that moves and pretending it's better.

 

[1srelluc]

I wonder what the backlash would be if a business declared itself "ethnically neutral" in it's hiring practices?

 

[Lisa558]

I wonder what the backlash would be if a business declared itself "ethnically neutral" in it's hiring practices?

They would be called racist for refusing to apply a race-based approach.

 

[1srelluc]

They would be called racist for refusing to apply a race-based approach.

They would be golden then as there is no such thing as a separate "race".....Only the human race with it's various ethnicities.

Racism is a lame social construct.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

They would be called racist for refusing to apply a race-based approach.

You mean actually hiring based on qualifications? GASP!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lisa558]

You mean actually hiring based on qualifications? GASP!!!!!!!!!!!

I know. What a concept!

 

[DGS49]

Diversity is the enemy of excellence. This is undeniable.

The best solution is one that I've read about in a few places recently: The abolition of the race/ethnicity classification. Prohibit the request for, notation of, recording of, and use of race or ethnicity for any purpose in Academe and employment. You may not ask it, you may not offer it, it will not be counted or tracked. If you ask a school what percentage of Blacks in the student body, the response would be, "We don't know; we don't care."

About 40 years ago, as part of the commentary about sanctioning "affirmative action" in a case on college admissions, a naive Supreme Court justice supposed that in 20 years or so, affirmative action would not be necessary. That would have been 20 years AGO, and where are we now?

But if all selection were based on merit, then school demographics would go back to where they were in 1955 - single digit percentages of the "oppressed" demographics.

 

[JoeB131]

Lizard88 still whining they showed her the door at the elite school she worked at for being a bigot.

The goal should be a completely race-blind approach, where individuals are selected based on competence and ability. Only then will employers, and by extent the broader society, know that when a black is selected for a position - be it a spot in a competitive university, a job promotion, a SCOTUS nomination, whatever - it is due to that person’s ability, and not some artificial attempt to “pump up” members of a minority simply due to race.

The problem is, you can't have a 'race-blind" society if you still have white people making all the decisions. It's not just the outright racists like you who are the problem, Lisa, it's the more subtle racism of being sympathetic towards people who remind of us ourselves. That's why most people don't date outside their race. Not necessarily because they are racist, but because we see the world as reflections of ourselves.

Take AA, the racist approach to college admissions. On average, 1 out of every 3 blacks would have been admitted under the “white standards” - and those blacks are the ones who keep pace with their white classmates and are every bit as qualified for a job opening as any white competitor.

How many whites get in because they are "legacies", athletic scholarships, connections, etc. I can't tell you how many dumb stumps who had no business being in college I went to school with... and most of them were white. But as long as they were paying the money, they were allowed to keep going.

But 2 out of 3 are not. They were admitted due to skin color - and employers KNOW that. Thus, they wonder if the black applicant from Excellent University is as good as the white applicant, and there is a reluctance to hire. If there WERE no AA, then employers would know that the black applicants are every bit as capable as the whites.

Or they would still hire their drinking buddy.

Over my career, I've seen one black person who I thought had no business being in the job that she was in. I've seen a ton of white people who had jobs they had no business being in because they were friends with the boss, they were a relative of the boss, or they were sleeping with the boss.

And THIS is the way to move forward: not continue with an artificial system that as admits the majority of blacks under lesser standards, and then force, via societal pressure, employers to hire them. Let blacks and whites compete under equal standards, and then everyone would know that the blacks who graduated from Excellent U will be just as much of an asset as the whites.

But what constitutes "equal Standards".

I've told this story about this one boss I had. I was at a company where three women left our Purchasing Department over the course of a summer.

A Chinse-American woman who had been with the company for nine years.
An African-American woman who had been with the company for two years.
A white intern who had been with the company for a few months.

Now- when we held department lunches for each of these women when they left, guess which one the General Manager, a white guy in his fifties, made time to actually attend?

Come on, you can guess....

Yup. The intern. Because she was young, white and pretty.

When you can get rid of all the biases in management, and come up with a system that is totally fair in evaluating employees, then you MIGHT have a point.


For those playing along at home, I run a business where I write resumes. I freely admit to being a large part of the problem. The person who has the best written resume is more likely to get the interview, even though the best resumes are written by someone else.

 

[Lisa558]

Diversity is the enemy of excellence. This is undeniable.

The best solution is one that I've read about in a few places recently: The abolition of the race/ethnicity classification. Prohibit the request for, notation of, recording of, and use of race or ethnicity for any purpose in Academe and employment. You may not ask it, you may not offer it, it will not be counted or tracked. If you ask a school what percentage of Blacks in the student body, the response would be, "We don't know; we don't care."

About 40 years ago, as part of the commentary about sanctioning "affirmative action" in a case on college admissions, a naive Supreme Court justice supposed that in 20 years or so, affirmative action would not be necessary. That would have been 20 years AGO, and where are we now?

But if all selection were based on merit, then school demographics would go back to where they were in 1955 - single digit percentages of the "oppressed" demographics.

Agree on all counts.

There should be no spot on applications to indicate race. As it stands now, it is OPTIONAL. I recall 25 years ago when my office was adjacent to the HR director’s office, and I could hear through the walls, she (who was black) was on the phone asking if it were legal to REQUIRE applicants to check the race box. She was a diehard black activist who wanted to only consider blacks and dump all white applications in the trash.

Time to stop this.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I know. What a concept!

I had such admiration for Seattle's Swedish Hospital when I started working there. It was an honor to be employed there and a good part of my professional self-image, to work for an institution with such a sterling public image.

They completely destroyed that image in my mind when, years later, after I had gone to work at a different hospital, I applied for a job in another department of Swedish, which was awarded to a radically less qualified POC. This was a job in a patient care capacity, which carried a lot of responsibility as a member of a team that routinely saved lives, a place where the highest qualifications inspire a sense of dedication and security.

The message was unmistakable -- our SJW image in the community is more important than the well being of our patients. When a health care entity stops caring about their patients, they stop deserving a positive public image, and I did everything I could to tarnish their image.

 

[JoeB131]

Stormy Mac, wondering why people don't pay more attention to his white privilege.

Correct. Diversity merely for the sake of diversity leads to diminished standards and expectations. We end up penalizing everyone when that happens.

We need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time: Keep standards and expectations high while also making sure that all are given a fair shot.

We're not terribly close to that right now. We're doing what we always do: We're slapping band-aids on everything that moves and pretending it's better.

Ah, the voice of white grievance politics.

Some points.

1) Affirmative action has benefited white women more than it has people of color.
2) As recently as 2005, studies have found that merely having a black name on your resume reduces your chance of being hired.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

The short version is, that they sent out thousands of resumes, half of them with "white names like Greg and Emily, and half of them with "black" names like Jamal and Lakisha. Experience, Education, skill sets, all the same.

Emily and Greg got 30% more callbacks than Jamal and Lakeisha.

And this is just the resume, the first step in the process.


So you have to assume there's a brother named "Greg" out there and got a callback, but didn't get a job or an interview once the crackers in HR figured out he was black.

3) Like it or not, networking is far more advantageous to job advancement than education, experience, affirmative action or anything else. Shit, two of my last two jobs I got in Supply Chain were because someone I worked with previously recommended me. Since white people are going to have far more advantages in networking, the "good old boys network", you kind of need AA to offset that.

 

[Coyote]

The goal should be a completely race-blind approach, where individuals are selected based on competence and ability. Only then will employers, and by extent the broader society, know that when a black is selected for a position - be it a spot in a competitive university, a job promotion, a SCOTUS nomination, whatever - it is due to that person’s ability, and not some artificial attempt to “pump up” members of a minority simply due to race.

Ok….say it is to be 100% meritocracy. How are you going to measure it?

Take AA, the racist approach to college admissions. On average, 1 out of every 3 blacks would have been admitted under the “white standards” - and those blacks are the ones who keep pace with their white classmates and are every bit as qualified for a job opening as any white competitor.

Do you have any actual data to show this? What about graduation rates? How can you tell who was admitted under what you imply are substandard admissions and “white standards”? What about other groups admitted such as first generation college or legacy?

But 2 out of 3 are not. They were admitted due to skin color - and employers KNOW that. Thus, they wonder if the black applicant from Excellent University is as good as the white applicant, and there is a reluctance to hire. If there WERE no AA, then employers would know that the black applicants are every bit as capable as the whites.

Employers don’t look at admission, they look at results and graduation.

And THIS is the way to move forward: not continue with an artificial system that as admits the majority of blacks under lesser standards, and then force, via societal pressure, employers to hire them. Let blacks and whites compete under equal standards, and then everyone would know that the blacks who graduated from Excellent U will be just as much of an asset as the whites.

You miss a key concept in your obsession with racial admission: graduation.

 

[JoeB131]

gree on all counts.

There should be no spot on applications to indicate race. As it stands now, it is OPTIONAL. I recall 25 years ago when my office was adjacent to the HR director’s office, and I could hear through the walls, she (who was black) was on the phone asking if it were legal to REQUIRE applicants to check the race box. She was a diehard black activist who wanted to only consider blacks and dump all white applications in the trash.

Time to stop this.

And given what you've said here, you'd dump the black applicants given the chance.

While I kind of doubt that story is true, who knows why they were in a big push. Company I worked for in the 1990's was being sued by a female supervisor for gender discrimination. (She was actually fired for being grossly incompetent and fucking one of her co-workers). But the company was so panicked about this EEOC lawsuit the promoted a woman with no qualifications to show how fair they were. She proved to be equally incompetent, of course.

Ugly truth- Affirmative action helps white women more than it does people of color.

 

[Lisa558]

I had such admiration for Seattle's Swedish Hospital when I started working there. It was an honor to be employed there and a good part of my professional self-image, to work for an institution with such a sterling public image.

They completely destroyed that image in my mind when, years later, after I had gone to work at a different hospital, I applied for a job in another department of Swedish, which was awarded to a radically less qualified POC. This was a job in a patient care capacity, which carried a lot of responsibility as a member of a team that routinely saved lives.

The message was unmistakable -- our SJW image in the community is more important than the well being of our patients. When a health care entity stops caring about their patients, they stop deserving a positive public image, and I did everything I could to tarnish their image.

Same thing has happened with our “woke” military. It was only a few months ago that a general, together with the Sec of Defense, said that the goal was a more diverse military.

NO. The goal should be the most prepared, capable military. Skin tone should be irrelevant.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Same thing has happened with our “woke” military. It was only a few months ago that a general, together with the Sec of Defense, said that the goal was a more diverse military.

NO. The goal should be the most prepared, capable military. Skin tone should be irrelevant.

Such an easy thing to comprehend. Why is it so hard for the brainwashed evil?

Oops! I just answered my own question, didn't I?

 

[Flash]

: Keep standards and expectations high while also making sure that all are given a fair shot.

Except Libtards don't do that.

Just look at this affrimative action idiot these Libtards have nominated to the Supreme Court as an example. She has a terrible record on the bench being overturned many times. There are thousands of people in the US more qualified than her but Potatohead wants her because he promised a Negro woman.

Despicable, isn't it?

 

[JoeB131]

Diversity is the enemy of excellence. This is undeniable.

The best solution is one that I've read about in a few places recently: The abolition of the race/ethnicity classification. Prohibit the request for, notation of, recording of, and use of race or ethnicity for any purpose in Academe and employment. You may not ask it, you may not offer it, it will not be counted or tracked. If you ask a school what percentage of Blacks in the student body, the response would be, "We don't know; we don't care."

About 40 years ago, as part of the commentary about sanctioning "affirmative action" in a case on college admissions, a naive Supreme Court justice supposed that in 20 years or so, affirmative action would not be necessary. That would have been 20 years AGO, and where are we now?

But if all selection were based on merit, then school demographics would go back to where they were in 1955 - single digit percentages of the "oppressed" demographics.

Maybe because we haven't made the progress we expected. 40 years ago, I had a much different plan on where I'd be in 40 years.

Let's take my alma mater of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Go Flames, said no one, ever!

UIC was SPECIFICALLY built as "Circle Campus" in the 1960's to be the "commuter campus" that would serve the inner city youth. Today, less than 9% of UIC"s enrollment is black.

Part of it is because increasing tuition priced black students out of the market.
Part of it was because merger with the Health Science Center changed the demographics.
Part of it was that they openly tried to recruit out of state students by building dorms.

 

[Lisa558]

Ok….say it is to be 100% meritocracy. How are you going to measure it?

I‘ve given my recommendation before. The top 5% of every graduating class in every school get automatic admission to State U, tuition-free. We could drop that down to top 10% for auto admission. It would be measured as it used to be - GPA and test scores.

Do you have any actual data to show this? What about graduation rates? How can you tell who was admitted under what you imply are substandard admissions and “white standards”? What about other groups admitted such as first generation college or legacy?

Of course the “black standards” are lowered. This is why blacks get admitted to competitive programs with substantially lower grades and scores than the whites who are rejected. Nobody other than a blind leftist would deny this.

Graduation rates hide the real story. The blacks who are academically behind the whites, yet admitted anyway, require handholding and tutoring all the way through. The LAST thing the leftist universities want out is that their AA admits flunk out at a much higher rate, so they work hard to prevent it.

You don’t think this type of thing is tracked? We know which black kids got in under below-par standards, and which blacks got in with the “regular” highly competitive standards. These latter blacks did NOT require all the tutoring.

Employers don’t look at admission, they look at results and graduation.

And as I said, the graduation rate doesn’t tell the whole story.

You miss a key concept in your obsession with racial admission: graduation.

My so-called obsession with racial admissions came after years of work in higher Ed admissions - and the recognition of blatant racism associated with who gets in and who gets rejected.

And again, graduation rates count for little. I graduated at the very top of my class and never had a tutor for anything. (I actually tutored others - as a volunteer job.) My roommate squeaked through with Cs, an occsssional D, and an even rarer B - and that was WITH tons of tutoring. Yet we would appear equally qualified - we both graduated - even though that wasn’t true.

 

[JoeB131]

Same thing has happened with our “woke” military. It was only a few months ago that a general, together with the Sec of Defense, said that the goal was a more diverse military.

NO. The goal should be the most prepared, capable military. Skin tone should be irrelevant.

Um, okay, let's look at that.

The military desegregated in 1948. So they've been "Woke" before you were born. Before that, blacks served in segregated units with white officers who were not considered the best and brightest. These units came out of World War II, some of them having distinguished themselves.

In the 1970's, a lot more opportunities were opened to women in the military. Despite some issues, these women have done a fine job.

In the 1990's, Clinton stopped discrimination against gay soldiers with "Don't ask, Don't Tell". Eventually, Obama got rid of that and let gays serve openly.

It would seem more diversity has been GOOD for the military.

(And since only one of us has a DD214, you are probably better off quitting now.)