What is DEI, and why is it dividing America?

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, KJW said:

For the proud hardcore bigot, that's no doubt true. But for those less inclined to reveal their bigotry, the relative obscurity of meaning provided by the initialism does provide some cover to those who express their dislike of DEI, bearing in mind that the meaning of "DEI" can be distorted to a strawman much more effectively than the meaning of "diversity, equity, and inclusion".

See also "Antifa" vs anti-fascist.

[CharonY]

Or national-socialism (nazism) vs socialism. I honestly couldn't believe how otherwise seemingly very intelligent folks fall for that one (strangely, all examples were libertarian with small vs large government perspectives).

[swansont]

Trump (via Hegseth) fired the head of the joint chiefs, a black man, and the proposed white replacement is not qualified to take the job, and so will require a presidential waiver.

The kind of situation DEI was designed to avoid. But that’s the point of getting rid of DEI; gotta have white guys in charge wherever you can.

[CharonY]

I think the idea is for male white straight and loyal guys. We gotta keep the talent pool as shallow as the intellect.

[MSC]

Diversity, equity and inclusion is not dividing America, by it's very nature DEI is the opposite of divide and conquer tactics. The philosophy within DEI policies is about creating a diverse, unified and harmonious society that everyone can thrive and prosper in. So it is the natural target of those who stand to benefit from a divided populace where all the little guys are at each other's throats instead of looking at the people who are legitimately making things horrible for everyone, IE the mega rich. 

Wrapped up in the rhetoric of "DEI is evil" is the underlying desire to fire or refuse to hire based on race, sexual orientation, age, disability, gender etc. There is also the claim that non-whites and women couldn't possibly be as qualified as a white man with a rich daddy. 

Its just ridiculous that the words diversity, equity and inclusion are being spun as dirty words. Oh desiring a fairer society is evil now? Its like arguing that up is in fact, down. Falls on its face.

[TheVat]

Yes, once again the adjective Orwellian comes to mind.

Making reform measures sound harmful goes way back.  London had all the information needed to know it needed to put in dedicated sewer lines by the early 1800s.  Thanks to the "shopocracy," (voting laws meant that mainly prosperous merchants voted) this knowledge wasn't acted upon for fifty years.  As many as a hundred thousand died from cholera, typhoid and pathogenic serotypes of E. Coli, as a result.  Affluent people didn't want to pay the extra taxes.  Cause taxes harm business, right?  

[dimreepr]

On 1/31/2025 at 9:39 PM, Phi for All said:

I can't help drawing a parallel between the stories I'm hearing about TFG supporters who are happy he's going after Obamacare, as long as he leaves the ACA alone, and all the misinformation surrounding DEI. People in democracies in general are in favor of initiatives aimed at supporting people from all walks of life, that try to be just and fair with everybody, and allow everyone a seat at the table when it comes to important decisions that affect them, yet many of those same people have been told it's bad when you call it DEI.

That's, the ghost of Tom Joad  

On 2/24/2025 at 7:35 PM, TheVat said:

Yes, once again the adjective Orwellian comes to mind.

He's not the only one, although John, is an American...

Edited February 26 by dimreepr

[Trurl]

Who said any process is fair. Try getting into the union without knowing someone.

I would say if everything was based on merit DEI is unnecessary. I mean merit should be the best way; the most unbiased way to get a random sample you science guys are always looking for.

A letter grade of A over C should be independent of race, income, religion.

When I applied for college the process seemed fair, although I only know my own case.

But I blame the psychologists always labeling, classifying, and categorizing. I mean people are very similar and the education system always has a way to classify them.

If we ignore race and gender is a classification on “Merit” still fair?

What is merit. And why is it I am based on how fast I run 2 miles, shoot 70%, or get a perfect spelling test? It shows aptitude and motivation. But at the same time it qualifies or disqualifies me. Can’t we work and learn without metrics?

I have seen plenty of women with better metrics than me. But as with Artemis space mission, I wouldn’t spend a trillion dollars to put her on the moon just because of DEI😜

[toucana]

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

Can’t we work and learn without metrics?

And how would you assess work performance, professional competence, or individual  learning progress without a test or metric of some description ? Karmic vibration ? Body aura ? Telepathy ? Or do think that just any random person who pleases should be allowed to rock up and become a brain surgeon, or an airline pilot, or an engineer running a large nuclear reactor ?

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

would say if everything was based on merit DEI is unnecessary. I mean merit should be the best way; the most unbiased way to get a random sample you science guys are always looking for.

I don't any one disagrees that merit (experience, education, skill, ability, etc) should be determinant above race, gender, religion, etc. The exaggeration in the conversation is the suggestion that they is always an individual superior choice and that due to DEI that choice isn't selected. 

Provided all applicants meet the qualifications everything else is subjective. I think athletics drafts are a good analogy. Teams attempt to pick the absolutely best athlete they can find using stats, in-person workouts, and interviews. Yet some of the greater athletes in history were past over in favor of inferior ones. Pick the singular best person for something is actually very difficult. 

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

A letter grade of A over C should be independent of race, income, religion.

Yes, that is already the standard. You are saying it "should be" and it is. 

 

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

If we ignore race and gender is a classification on “Merit” still fair?

Individuals that meet the standards outlined for a position or role have the merit required. What gets wrestled with is the competition between greater leaves of merit. Which are seldom even applicable. Most of the time, provided everyone meets the minimum standards, enthusiasm is probably the best attribute. 

In society assumptions get made and we often look for the more perfect candidates. Amongst student athletes competing to be the Center on a basketball team the tallest athlete probably gets it. The assumption being height provides an advantage. Simply being the tallest is no guarantee of athletic ability though. It is just coaches playing the odds and being willing to invest more in one athlete over another. Height is merit if we are defining merit as earned skills and abilities. 

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

What is merit. And why is it I am based on how fast I run 2 miles, shoot 70%, or get a perfect spelling test? It shows aptitude and motivation. But at the same time it qualifies or disqualifies me. Can’t we work and learn without metrics?

There are minimum standards. There aren't maximum standards. It's all subjective above the minimum standards. Some standards are arbitrary some are crucial. That is why standards are routinely updated and revised. 

[MSC]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

don't any one disagrees that merit (experience, education, skill, ability, etc) should be determinant above race, gender, religion, etc. The exaggeration in the conversation is the suggestion that they is always an individual superior choice and that due to DEI that choice isn't selected

I just want to springboard off your point a bit, to add that if we really really wanted to look at merit honestly and we cross referenced with actual metrics from academic institutions and the workplace, what we'd find is that more often than not, women perform better than men in the workplace (on average they are harder workers) and girls perform better than boys in academic settings and are far more likely to go to college and less likely to drop out than their male counterparts. 

This is in effect why DEI policies are valuable, because without them, we are free and clear to steer away from merit whenever we want. 

Like the term "corruption", merit is differently defined and conceived in MAGA world (because what is a cult without it's own vocabulary?). For example for people like us; merit is competency, intellect, ability to apply knowledge effectively etc. In MAGA world; Merit is tribal loyalty, submission to authority and a commitment to uphold a social norm that favours rich white men over others, as they are the authority. You don't have to be a rich white man to have this kind of merit, you just have to be working in their favour or specifically in favour of the rich part of that, in order to have the kind of "merit" they want. 

This relates to their conceptualisation of "corruption" as corruption is anything that subverts the authority of the rich, usually under the guise of claims of moral corruption, tied to white Christian nationalism. 

If I had to pinpoint one failure of DEIA, is that it doesn't address socioeconomic class and doesn't protect it. If it had been doing so more effectively from the get go, poor white families would have been less likely to buy into the propaganda against it. While some places include socioeconomic class in their holistic review process, they are not legally compelled to do so. 

There are even legal loopholes here in the United States, taken advantage of by upper caste Indians, who carry on caste based discrimination here in the USA, even though such a thing is now illegal in India, because few states or the federal government define caste as a protected characteristic. 

The cold hard truth of the matter is that without law telling people what not to do, people will do it. 

Also there is a distinct flaw in the reasoning against DEI in that it discriminates against white people. So the argument; anti discrimination laws make it easier to discriminate against white people, inherently relies on the existence of what it is arguing against, in order to argue against it. "We shouldn't have laws against discrimination, because discrimination is bad, because those laws say it is bad."

[Trurl]

13 hours ago, toucana said:

And how would you assess work performance, professional competence, or individual  learning progress without a test or metric of some description ?

Yes the difficulty in assessment. Merit based is still subjective as Ten Oz states with the sports example. I know we have to have standards but as with the sports example you still don’t get perfect results.

 

Yes, we need standards. The standards protect the student from corrupt assessments. Standards can also also be used to discriminate. That is where DEI is to protect. However some believe DEI is against evaluation on merit.

 

I am just noting standards of merit is subjective. If you are below standards you fail. If you are above standards evaluators we seek to utilize you. Which could be good or bad.

 

My question to you guys is what is a fair standard? Most are easy. But so much of success is determined by the evaluation of the examiner.

 

 

[toucana]

27 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I am just noting standards of merit is subjective. If you are below standards you fail. If you are above standards evaluators we seek to utilize you. Which could be good or bad.

My question to you guys is what is a fair standard? Most are easy. But so much of success is determined by the evaluation of the examiner.

If you are taking a higher level exam in maths, physical chemistry or biology then there is very little that is subjective in the assessment taking place. Your answers are either right or wrong. If you get more than a certain percentage of the answers wrong, then you will fail the exam.

The same is true if you are taking a viva-voce language test - you can either speak the language and  perform translation accurately in it or you can’t. Ditto if it’s a history exam or an economics term paper. You either know the factual basis of the subject well enough to write an reasoned and well informed paper - or you don’t.

If you are an engineering apprentice in a trade with a high premium on practical experience and in-field training, then the same applies. You will be judged on your proven ability to do the actual job in hand.

To anyone who lives in the real world and has real life experience of training, mentoring and assessing students and apprentices, there is no great mystery about any of this.

[swansont]

21 hours ago, Trurl said:

Can’t we work and learn without metrics?

How would you assess whether or not it’s quality work?

21 hours ago, Trurl said:

I have seen plenty of women with better metrics than me. But as with Artemis space mission, I wouldn’t spend a trillion dollars to put her on the moon just because of DEI😜

You might have to explain what you mean by this. If a woman was chosen because of DEI (the actual meaning, not the GOP caricature) it means the woman is more qualified. DEI ensured she got considered. 

1 hour ago, toucana said:

If you are taking a higher level exam in maths, physical chemistry or biology then there is very little that is subjective in the assessment taking place.

What constitutes a passing score, and the divisions between grade levels is subjective.

1 hour ago, toucana said:

Your answers are either right or wrong.

Partial credit exists for “wrong” answers.

[iNow]

The challenge is even merit judgements are subjective and we tend to unconsciously favor those who are like us. We don’t even realize we’re doing it. If the person is similar to us, we prefer them. 

In a world being run by white males, more white males get selected due merely to being similar but not due to being better.

The need is to correct for that existing bias, and what we’re seeing is people attacking the correction mechanism for being biased. I’m tired of living in this bizzarro world alternate reality. 

[Trurl]

I watched a video of Edward Frenkel. He was Jewish and didn’t know it. They tested him for the Moscow University. But his test was more advanced.

So whoever sets the standards must be just and the evaluator must be fair.

If you are taking a higher level exam in maths, physical chemistry or biology then there is very little that is subjective in the assessment taking place. Your answers are either right or wrong.

Yes put the test creator determines the difficulty. Some professors design the tests so a portion of students fail. It was discrimination in Frenkel’s case. But is this always necessary? Are people failing because they don’t meet the standard or do the standards set them to fail?

Again we need standards. But how can you be sure standards of merit are right? Standards are hard to set.

[CharonY]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

What constitutes a passing score, and the divisions between grade levels is subjective.

Also, there are occasionally application-based questions, which can be fairly open ended and are not merely graded by true/false parameters. They are also immensely disliked by students.

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

The challenge is even merit judgements are subjective and we tend to unconsciously favor those who are like us. We don’t even realize we’re doing it. If the person is similar to us, we prefer them. 

In a world being run by white males, more white males get selected due merely to being similar but not due to being better.

The need is to correct for that existing bias, and what we’re seeing is people attacking the correction mechanism for being biased. I’m tired of living in this bizzarro world alternate reality. 

True and in while it might be somewhat certain in assessing really low performance, it is often unclear what the correct parameters for high performance are. There are general correlations with productivity parameters for example, but there is little evidence that folks are able to even somewhat consistently pick the best in each given cohort.

As such, any standard we set will be biased to various degree. This is why in some cases folks are stepping away from "hard" parameters in certain jobs. But frankly I still think that beyond a certain level of qualification all of this is really just rolling dice.

[Trurl]

On 3/4/2025 at 9:22 PM, swansont said:

You might have to explain what you mean by this. If a woman was chosen because of DEI (the actual meaning, not the GOP caricature) it means the woman is more qualified. DEI ensured she got considered. 

Well I am just making joke. I know there are highly qualified women. They can out perform me. But while touring Kennedy Space Center there were videos about a manned moon mission. It said it would put the first woman on the moon. Which is a good achievement. But why does Artemis moon mission cost a trillion dollars?

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But why does Artemis moon mission cost a trillion dollars?

For starters, it doesn't. I think the estimate are closer to a 100 billion. And one big driver of the cost is tech. In contrast to previous missions the idea is not just take a look and then buzz off, but to build something that can be the foundation of future exploration. Similar reason why ISS is markedly more expensive than Sputnik

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

But why does Artemis moon mission cost a trillion dollars?

a) does it? (is this another joke?)

b) the cost has nothing to do with DEI

[Phi for All]

46 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Well the video highlighted the mission would highlight that women and minorities lead the mission. Which is ok. I am just poking fun of the fact that it is costing a 100 billion dollars

No, you were poking fun at the cost of a trillion dollars, which you either made up or didn't bother to check after you heard it. Let's be clear about your intentions.

49 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Yes I know these women are good astronauts. Putting someone on the moon is great, but if you say first woman on the moon, $100,000,000,000. Eliminating the need for DEI, priceless.

I don't think you understand any of this. Your arguments are childlike, as if your experiences haven't taught you how to reason correctly. Like many conservatives, you have a caricature in your mind about most of the things you don't understand. It's what's held up progress for as long as humans have been around. Progressive thinking got us to the moon, while the conservatives argued it was a big waste, just like every other major innovation humans have accomplished. When it comes to progress, there's never a conservative contributing to the future.

If you truly wanted to eliminate the need for DEI, your methodology is unacceptable. Your prejudices are too prevalent.

 

[zapatos]

On 2/4/2025 at 11:26 AM, Airbrush said:

Why?  Please explain.

I personally enjoy diversity.  It makes MY life more interesting.  I also approve of equity, and inclusion.  What would the GOP prefer?  UNIFORMITY, INEQUITY, & EXCLUSION (UIE)?  What divides America more, DEI or UIE?  If anyone thinks the Dems are doing DEI wrong, then fix it!  Do DEI the right way.

"Diverse perspectives bring a variety of ideas and approaches, fostering innovation.  Teams with members from different backgrounds often find unique solutions to problems due to their varied experiences.

Diverse groups tend to analyze situations more thoroughly and consider more options, leading to better decision-making.  Studies show that inclusive teams can make decisions twice as fast with half the number of meetings.

Companies with strong DEI practices often outperform their peers financially.  Research by McKinsey & Company found that companies in the top quartile for ethnic and gender diversity are more likely to have above-average profitability.

Inclusive workplaces tend to have higher job satisfaction and lower turnover rates.  Employees who feel valued and included are more likely to be engaged and productive.

DEI initiatives attract a wider range of candidates, giving organizations access to top talent from all backgrounds.  This helps in addressing skill shortages and promoting merit-based growth.

Organizations committed to DEI are often seen as ethical and socially responsible, which can attract customers, clients, and investors.  A strong DEI reputation can also lead to better community relations and customer loyalty.

DEI initiatives help build cultural awareness and sensitivity, which is crucial in a globalized world.  This fosters better communication and collaboration in diverse settings.

DEI programs promote fairness and equity, helping to identify and reduce systemic barriers.  This leads to a more inclusive environment where everyone has equal opportunities to succeed.

Diverse teams are more effective at anticipating customer needs and addressing challenges because they can draw from a broader range of experiences and knowledge.

DEI initiatives contribute to building more equitable societies, reducing inequalities, and fostering social cohesion.  They play a role in empowering underrepresented groups and promoting social justice."

Diversity, equity, and inclusion - Wikipedia

I am having a hard time finding your quote in the Wikipedia link you provided. Is it me or your link?

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I do not object to a woman on the moon. I just making fun of the fact it costs so much money.

Hate to ruin all the fun you are having making fun of DEI, but the purpose of the mission is not to 'put a woman on the mood because it's never been done before'. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Hate to ruin all the fun you are having making fun of DEI, but the purpose of the mission is not to 'put a woman on the mood because it's never been done before'. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

bit of an unfortunate typo...😊

Edited yesterday at 03:11 AM by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

bit of an unfortunate typo...😊

🤣