https://www.campusreform.org/article/ucla-med-students-alarmingly-sub-standard-school-cuts-corners-admits-applicants-based-race/25529
There's been al lot of talk about DEI recently. I think that those who have a problem with is are concerned that things like group status is given more weight in areas where competence is very important than it should be. When students applying to medical school, for example, are accepted with lower qualifications, that raises legitimate concerns for two reasons. 1. The disproportionate number of these students who can't hack it and drop out, saddled with massive debt and wasted years. 2. The quality of Drs and their ability to serve their patients. Medicine, engineering, and other STEM professions are based on the objective. We don't want someone who only got admitted to school based on DEI, and was bottom third in their class designing a bridge or operating on someone's brain. Certain fields of study have traditionally have been difficult to enter because of the high stakes of the work. Again, we want the best qualified people designing critical infrastructure, airplanes, and doing highly technical surgeries. If I get on a plane and was told that the pilot barely qualified and that this was their first flight, I'd justifiably be more concerned than if I knew that the pilot qualified as one of the best and had been flying for 10 years.
The problem with DEI is that it's treated as if it's an objective, important, metric in fields where it should be tertiary at best. I don't want the "best" Dr from a group that scores lower on all metrics, I want the best Dr available, regardless of their demographic makeup.
Eventually, we'll see patients who are harmed because some medical school graduated a student who was poorly qualified based on DEI. Eventually we'll see lawsuits against everyone involved. In short, it's not so much opposing DEI in all circumstances, it's elevating DEI over things like grades and competence where people have problems.
Apparently there was a significant study done to measure the effects of DEI training, and the results were not positive for the DEI worshipers. Shockingly the MSM chose to not report on this study and hoped that no one would find out. For someone like Dan who reveres the MSM, this seemingly automatically disqualifies this study from having any validity. I know that this is a strange and bizarre position to take, but there it is. Dan will likely poo poo this study, while likely choosing not to read any of it, nor will he offer any substantial critique of the study or it's methodology.
I apologize if some of these links seem repetitive. They are analysis of the study by various people.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dei-training-increases-perception-of-non-existent-prejudice-agreement-with-hitler-rhetoric-study-finds/
https://x.com/johnholbein1/status/1861173036784730541?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/1861115654818144728?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/swipewright/status/1861120111362613574?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/swipewright/status/1861085998379376997?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
23 comments:
You must have been monitoring other blogs.
Diversity is a BS metric if it means we need so many blacks, or women or homosexuals in order to enhance effectiveness. This has never been proven to be true in any way. Yet, that's the narrative.
Equity is also is a bogus angle as outcomes aren't required to be equal, which is the point of "equity". It's not "unfair" that I can't get a spot on a professional sports team, regardless of how natural my abilities, my access to tools, facilities and trainers or anything like that. It's only that I'm better than others vying for that spot. Period.
Inclusion is just another way to say "diversity" because it demands no one ever be excluded. That's just stupid.
At the same time, those who promote this nonsense are perfectly free to start their own businesses and hire based on whatever criteria they choose. And frankly, that's what their goal should be if caring for "the marginalized" is sincere. And if they can show that their business is superior to others of its kind, others will study them and try to adopt whatever they think is most beneficial to their own success.
Unfortunately, as you suggest, this "DEI" nonsense is no more than forcing people into positions where they wouldn't normally be recruited due to lack of merit or ability, simply because of the group into which they've been placed...either by God, personal choice, or whatever.
When those who advocate DEI, only choose to measure by things like skin color and ethnicity, they basically ignore other aspects of diversity that might actually contribute to something.
Equality of outcome is a fantasy. It's impossible to achieve without force, and unfair application of the law. Or, to quote Rush, "by hatchet, axe, and saw".
Inclusion is fine as long as it's applied to the wide end of the funnel, and is not a replacement for qualifications or competence. Obviously, one should want to cast the widest net possible in searching for a qualified/competent person to fill a role. However, as we're seeing with medical school applicants this is actually proving harmful. It harms future patients who can end up with an under qualified doctor, it harms the students by setting them up for failure and saddling them with debt, and it harms the rest of the program by taking resources away from those who can succeed.
The fact that these folx choose not to start their own businesses, schools, institutions, and apply their theories in real life is interesting. Clearly a business focused solely on DEI would have a high likelihood of failure.
Focus on individuals and their qualifications, not on groups.
There's am OT scripture that commands us not to engage in favoritism towards any one, especially based on economic circumstances. Strangely enough, DEI is pretty much all about engaging in favoritism.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-ways-dei-harming-your-company-how-resolve-brian-dapelo
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/exposing-the-lie-that-dei-is-compassionate.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/opposing_dei.html
https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/367513/the-dei-dilemma/
I present the above here for your perusal (and for anyone else to do so as well). I posted them under Dan's pro-DEI post and have not gotten around to studying any of her responses, though I did see one or two references to article authors as "white guys", because being that one speaking on anything Dan supports is a "white guy", they are automatically wrong, unqualified and that's all one needs to know. Given you're a "white guy", you're clearly wrong as hell.
Just Fyi...
Diversity, equity and inclusion are three different but interconnected concepts. They work together to create an environment of respect and fairness. It involves initiatives promoting the equal access, opportunity, employment and sense of belonging of underrepresented people in the workplace.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchhrsoftware/definition/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-DEI
It helps to be informed about a topic before staking positions based upon falsehoods, half-truths and misunderstandings.
Dan
Dan,
This is an excellent example of a couple of things you do regularly.
1. You make a statement that is technically correct, while also being misleading at best. Your statement ignores the reality that there is an entire infrastructure based around DEI which promotes DEI as one concept enforced by fairly rigid rules and structures, instead of 3 related concepts.
2. You make a comment that adds nothing to the conversation, doesn't further the conversation in any way, nor does it address anything that has been brought up previously.
You just make an idiotic statement, drop one link as if that is magically definitive, and disappear.
You all are caricaturizing what DEI is in the real world, building up a scary strawman that needs to be knocked down, instead of dealing with the reality of DEI as it is being actually promoted.
"if it means we need so many blacks, or women or homosexuals in order to enhance effectiveness."
That's not what it means.
"Equity is also is a bogus angle as outcomes aren't required to be equal, which is the point of "equity".
That's not what equity means in DEI.
"Inclusion is fine as long as it's applied to the wide end of the funnel, and is not a replacement for qualifications or competence...
Inclusion is just another way to say "diversity" because it demands no one ever be excluded.
That's not what inclusion means in DEI.
When those who advocate DEI, only choose to measure by things like skin color and ethnicity, they basically ignore other aspects of diversity that might actually contribute to something.
That's not what DEI does.
this "DEI" nonsense is no more than forcing people into positions where they wouldn't normally be recruited due to lack of merit or ability
That's not what DEI does.
Focus on individuals and their qualifications, not on groups.
The first half is PRECISELY what DEI does (focus on individuals and their qualifications) while paying attention at the same time to groups and a desire to have a diverse, just workforce. We can chew gum and walk at the same time, you see.
You see, what you all imagine and fear that DEI is, it's simply not. We are NOT talking about, "Let's put this disabled person in a role they're not able to do and they're not qualified to do."
THIS is why I gave you an actual resource so you can see what DEI actually is, as opposed to your grotesque monster strawman you're creating.
"You all are caricaturizing what DEI is in the real world, building up a scary strawman that needs to be knocked down, instead of dealing with the reality of DEI as it is being actually promoted."
In my post, I cited one specific example of unqualified students being admitted to medical school based on DEI metrics. You have not addressed this specific example, let alone offered proof of your claims.
Instead you post these un sourced, unidentified, "quotes" and simply disagree with them. You don't disprove them, you merely disagree with them. There is ample evidence of DEI being used to admit students to universities with lower qualifications, and those students under performing, when they could have been more successful elsewhere (beyond the medical school example).
That you disagree with anyone who makes any criticism of DEI is a given. When you disagree with these random "quotes" (not prove them wrong, merely disagree) you are literally arguing against straw men and caricatures. Just one more example of you engaging in behavior your bitch at others about.
I've posted multiple examples of DEI failures over the past months. That you've chosen not to engage with those specific examples, and instead engage in this vague, general, bullshit tells me pretty much all I need to know.
Dan's link is absurd. Like Dan herself, it simply makes assertions about what DEI initiatives do in terms of positive outcomes, but makes no effort to identify where that's ever happened. And the extent that any such outcomes occurred, it is assumed to have been the result of
Race.
Ethnicity.
Sexual orientation.
Socioeconomic status.
Gender identity.
Religion.
Language.
Age.
Marital status.
Veteran status.
Mental ability.
Physical abilities and disabilities.
...and not the actual work ethic of those hired to do the job, which was far more likely to be the case than any of those superficial traits and characteristics.
And not, when explaining what "diversity" means, the above list is provided, followed by the slightest of nods to "ideas, perspectives and values people have".
One of the areas which I find especially laughable, is "inclusion" defined as how welcome an employee feels. Seems to me that one is hired, it indicates they've been welcomed already. Why they might not feel welcomed might be a personal problem rather than and perceived "non-welcoming" attitudes of those surrounding them. I never felt welcome where I wasn't hired. I never feel welcome where I'm asked/made to leave. But "I've been here ten years and I never feel welcome"? Seek counseling!
It's also notable that Dan took the time to list a number of quotes that she claims is not what DEI is or does, but doesn't do much to clarify the opposite.
Finally, I posted the following a Dan's, but haven't gone back to see how she responded to it:
https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary/
Ethnicity.
Sexual orientation.
Socioeconomic status.
Gender identity.
Religion.
Language.
Age.
Marital status.
Veteran status.
Mental ability.
Physical abilities and disabilities.
Dan's myopic view of DEI is another example of his Pollyannaish devotion to anything the left offers as a Narrative, regardless of whether the evidence backs it up or not. The very fact that the groups protected are defined by things which do not measure skill or ability (as you note), while they ignore the diversity that might actually be beneficial (diversity of thought or viewpoint), tells us that his goal is to advance people based on their membership in a group not their ability. Now he'll argue that DEI wants the most qualified in those groups, but what if the most qualified person in X group is significantly less qualified than a person in another (excluded) group? What about the well documented differences if IQ between various demographic groups?
The notion of a subjective feeling of being welcome at a job is absurd. The fact that you've been hired is welcome enough. Beyond that it's up to the employee to develop relationships with other employees.
What a joke.
(Don't know how that list got reposted at the end of my last comment!)
One can applaud the notion of brotherhood and mutual respect and the desire to see it spread into the societal consciousness in a manner which results in those virtues being the natural default position of everybody. What a wonderful world it would be! But it actually conflicts with mankind's natural inclinations in dealing with differences. And more to the point, it's a matter of sticking one's nose into the business of others to demand they "give the guy a chance" when all the business owner wants to do is run his business. And if one is persuaded and the result is negative, what then? Now, in today's world, when one is hired, it's far more difficult to rid one's self of the person. And if that person is one of the listed groups, it's even more so.
As my last link clearly indicates, DEI isn't getting those inherent issues resolved at all. But it does make the lefties feel good about themselves.
And with regard to that last link, Dan began his response "Your white conservative Christian male author LEADS with...". Once again, despite her claims to the contrary, Dan expresses a distinct disregard for inclusion and diversity.
No big deal.
I agree that some degree of integration and brotherhood is implicit in the ethos of the US, but it can't be forced based on things like race and gender. When it comes to someone running their private business, it's a whole other deal. They should be able to hire the most competent, talented, intelligent, best fit for the position without having to exclude certain candidates based on criteria imposed by others. Hiring should be as blind to everything except qualification as possible.
As an aside, if you name you child something that conveys information about race/ethnicity/religion/etc, you might be placing that child at a disadvantage in a hiring situation.
Absolutely, the firing of an employee, no matter how incompetent is incredibly difficult now. Much more than necessary.
While the goals of DEI might be vaguely laudable in a broad and general sense, it's the practical application of discrimination and the pushing unqualified applicants into areas where failure is likely (as in the case of med school, potentially dangerous) where the problems arise.
The worst part about the DEI initiatives is they're being lauded as making a difference just on the say so of their proponents...such as Dan and others like her...and not on any actual measurements which can be evaluated by those who might wish to implement them. If they actually improved company culture and profits, major corporations wouldn't be eliminating them and altering them. (Some actually alter them with no more effective improvement than to change the words from "diversity, equity and inclusion" to something else.
That's why I tend to focus on specific cases like the UC med school example or college admissions/outcomes. It's really obvious when students who score low on their ACT/SATs but get into upper tier universities over more qualified applicants, and then proceed to do poorly in their studies. It's not that hard. When it comes to things like engineers, doctors, pilots, and similar jobs the only thing that should count is competence.
I do agree that the elimination of DEI programs in education and companies is an indication that it wasn't helping and was only being done under coercion.
RE: update
The NR piece reflects what I've been seeing. I have another piece which is quite detailed as well as was my last link above. In seeking out actual studies which show myriad problems with DEI initiatives...as the NCRI study in your NR link does...I had to wade through tons of links to articles which acknowledge the problems, but seek to improve the initiatives. Where I chose to look at any of them (and I saved one or two), they really don't present anything akin to true improvements, mostly because they don't seem to understand the underlying problems with the initiatives in the first place.
It seems clear to me that the underlying problem is in the fact that not everyone will be accommodated equally, because the goal itself is absurdly childish. The write it off as racism, sexism or some other "ism", when it's normally a lack of merit, or the inability of a given applicant to prove merit exists. And of course, the "diversity is our strength" nonsense, never proven in any way at all, is hammered constantly as if it has been.
I also found something common in the pro-DEI articles and even in some articles speaking to it's abject failure, and that's references to the "murder" or "killing" of George Floyd as having been the motivation for the great push for DEI trainings. (I think it was a Christopher Rufo piece which more honestly worded it "the death of George Floyd"). Exploiting the death of another thug to promote "anti-racist" trainings is vile and insulting to good people who've been denied on the basis of their race.
What I've gotten out of this study and the analysis is that DEI tends to foster a victim mentality in some people, who then let that dictate how they respond to others. The reality is that their goal is impossible to reach, which seems like it would also lead to frustration. On top of that, so much of the "research" that under girded this (Kendi) has been demonstrated to be bullshit, which doesn't help.
I agree that killing is the more accurate term based on what actually happened, although the fact that we have someone convicted of murder for the killing is problematic because it's not wrong.
I suspect that Dan will run and hide from this new information, he certainly will not deal with it seriously or debunk it.
"I agree that killing is the more accurate term based on what actually happened, although the fact that we have someone convicted of murder for the killing is problematic because it's not wrong."
Please clarify your meaning here, because the truth is that neither "murder" NOR "killing" is appropriate for the case of George Floyd. He wasn't murdered. He wasn't killed. He died while being detained for suspicion of a crime. If anyone was guilty of killing him, it was George Floyd himself, not Officer Chauvin, whose choice of restraint was appropriate, legal and necessitated by Floyd's actions (and physical size).
If the case of Floyd was reported honestly, it's possible the push for DEI would not have been so strong as to so badly stain and infect so many businesses and institutions.
The best definition of DEI is "Didn't Earn It."
The Truth is, regardless of your opinions, that Chauvin was convicted of murder. Therefore, referring to Floyd's death as a murder accurately reflects the legal outcome of the case. Until the conviction is overturned, it is legally accurate to refer to Floyd's death as murder.
As far as the term killing, the reality is that had Floyd not been detained it's possible (even likely) that he'd be alive today. Obviously his choices played a part in his death, and just as obviously he wouldn't have been detained had he not passed a counterfeit $20 and resisted arrest. It''s possible that he wouldn't have resisted arrest had he not taken the drugs. The reality is that I can't see how it's possible to accurately determine that his death was completely unrelated to the circumstances surrounding it, including his restraint.
Again, I agree with your larger point regarding the Floyd situation. Yet, I can also acknowledge the legal realities and not get hung up on semantic games.
Craig,
It's "semantic games" to insist that because Chauvin was wrongfully convicted of murder that it is thus OK to regard Floyd's death as the result of murder. The reality is that he wasn't murdered at all, and just as some insist we must call Bruce Jenner a woman because he demands that he is one, has legally changed his name to reflect it, but yet is not at all in any rational, honest sense a woman, so too is it true that Floyd was not murdered or killed by Chauvin and thus honest people should not say he was either.
No, it's a semantic game to pretend as though Chauvin's murder conviction doesn't make it completely correct to refer to Floyd as having been murdered. That you (or I) don't agree with his conviction, doesn't negate that fact of his conviction. The simple fact is, by both legal and semantic standards, that it is completely appropriate to refer to Floyd as a murder victim.
If one is "honest" wouldn't one therefore choose to agree with the legal reality that currently exists?
Again, you can refer to Floyd however you want, but the current legal status of Floyd is that of a murder victim and Chauvin a murderer. The problem with your example is that in no real sense is Jenner a woman, especially not biologically. Yet, in the legal sense, (which is kind of important) Chauvin is a murder and Floyd is a murder victim.
I do find it strange that, if the evidence is a slam dunk as you think it is and that Chauvin's actions contributed zero to Floyd's death, there hasn't been a successful appeal. Once they get the trial away from the folks threatening the jury to burn MPLS again, and to an appeals court, you'd think it would be an easy appeal.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/prosecutors-urge-rejection-of-derek-chauvins-bid-to-dismiss-civil-rights-conviction-in-george-floyd-murder/89-a34bf1fd-e6c3-4a52-bda2-0b624f23b652
Seems like SCOTUS might not agree with you. Note the phrase "n in the 2020 murder of George Floyd.".
If you want to argue about this stuff, feel free. I fail to see how arguing over my disagreeing with you about some minor aspect of something we mostly agree on is helpful.
"No, it's a semantic game to pretend as though Chauvin's murder conviction doesn't make it completely correct to refer to Floyd as having been murdered."
If he didn't murder him, it's a lie to say he did. If Bruce Jenner isn't a woman, it's a lie to say he is. Legal ruling doesn't make it true. It only makes it official. Many are ruled as guilty of a crime only to have the ruling reversed or overturned.
" That you (or I) don't agree with his conviction, doesn't negate that fact of his conviction."
I'm not arguing against the fact that he was convicted. I'm arguing against repeating the lie that he murdered Floyd. He did not.
"The simple fact is, by both legal and semantic standards, that it is completely appropriate to refer to Floyd as a murder victim."
But by standards of honesty and character, its is wholly inappropriate to lie. Floyd isn't dead because he was murdered or killed by Chauvin.
"If one is "honest" wouldn't one therefore choose to agree with the legal reality that currently exists?"
Only if the issue regards how the court ruled in the case. It isn't honest to dispute the reality that Floyd wasn't murdered.
"The problem with your example is that in no real sense is Jenner a woman, especially not biologically."
I don't know how far Jenner went with his personal lie, but he changed his name legally. I haven't looked it up (and am not likely to do so, though others have done this), but he may have changed his sex on all his official IDs and documents denoting his sex as "female". Thus, in the legal sense, he's a broad. This is no more true than it is that Floyd was murdered and far less so that Chauvin was his murderer.
"Seems like SCOTUS might not agree with you. Note the phrase "n in the 2020 murder of George Floyd."."
I don't put much stock in headlines meant to draw attention to the attendant article. I'd prefer more honesty in that regard, but I don't have any editorial authority to do so.
What SCOTUS might do depends upon how the case is submitted to them. But your article mentions much which is not true, such as evidence showing Floyd died by Chauvin's hand (or knee). It, for example, speaks of how the case made the news, referring to cell phone videos showing Floyd on the ground under Chauvin's knee claiming he couldn't breathe, without mentioning body cam footage showing him saying the same thing long before he was prone with a knee...not on his neck...but between the shoulders. Actual evidence showed no trauma to his neck or trachea. This was from the initial autopsy which was recanted under pressure in favor of a more favorable (to the Floyd people and prosecutors) report.
" I fail to see how arguing over my disagreeing with you about some minor aspect of something we mostly agree on is helpful."
Then you shouldn't have started arguing. YOU know the guy wasn't murdered. Why play this game?
Post a Comment