I didn't edit my comment to fix my links, what are you talking about?
And your company misimplementing DEI is not a reflection of DEI itself, just a reflection of how difficult it is to get these kinds of things right.
> And your company misimplementing DEI is not a reflection of DEI itself, just a reflection of how difficult it is to get these kinds of things right.
Exactly the point I was making all along. The criteria for "diversity" used in research does not match what's almost always used in company DEI discrimination.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
It worked earlier today, IDK what to tell you.
And it's fine to criticize specific DEI implementations, and to look at the research and call out issues. But that's not what you're doing; you're saying that DEI as a whole is ineffective, which is objectively false.
I also removed "https://" in addition to substituting (dot) to trick HN formatting.
This one works because it points to the full link: "www(dot)mckinsey(dot)com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters"
You can't just drag-select links on HN, since it truncates links. Do right-click, copy link address.
Anyway, the McKinsey study just examined the representation of "ethnic minorities" which would include Asians:
> Similarly, the representation of ethnic-minorities on UK and US executive teams stood at only 13 percent in 2019, up from just 7 percent in 2014. For our global data set, this proportion was 14 percent in 2019, up from 12 percent in 2017 (Exhibit 2).
Rgr that re: links. HN is a terrible, terrible platform implementation, for many reasons. It was not meant for this kind of discussion.
But what I'm still not getting here is any justifiable reason for why "this study includes Asian people" is a problem. Maybe DEI has a problem where Asian folks don't get evenly represented on both sides of the measurements, but you'll have to show that's specifically happening in each study I've cited, as well as any others I might cite, in order for that to be valid criticism. Further, you'd have to demonstrate that it totally negates the positive effects found, as that's not a given either.
Edit: UC Denver (and this one is a really good resource): https://www.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider68/default-do...
If science showed that DEI were bad for company outcomes, would you oppose it?
Yeah, probably. Would depend on what "bad" meant here, and what specifically "science" was showing.
The key thing though is that I want to help people, and I want others to want to help people. If DEI wasn't it, we'd find something else to help people with, but DEI is helping, so let's figure out how it works and put more effort into the effective aspects of DEI and less effort into the ineffective aspects of DEI.
I can't find it because most of your links are either broken or paywalled. Go post the excerpts that say "we define racial diversity as...".
Here's an example of mismatch between one of your working links and our diversity policies:
> To draw an example from this study, if all of the teachers in a given district were white, the Blau index would be 0, indicating perfect homogeneity. If 25 percent of the teachers were white, 25 percent were black, 25 percent were Latino/a, and 25 percent were Asian or Native American (grouped as “other” for my purposes here), then the Blau index would be 0.75, indicating the highest level of heterogeneity achievable in a situation with four categories. As the number of categories increases, the highest possible Blau score increases.
By comparison, my company's diversity policies target equity. So Asian representation of 25% is not considered diverse, as they are only 6% of the population and thus 25% is nearly a 5x overrepresentation.
> Why are you discriminating against Asians this blatantly and obviously? It's wild, how you think this is okay.
I'm not! DEI policies are. But the research showing the benefits of diversity overwhelmingly do count Asians as diverse, hence the mismatch between the research and our DEI policies.