> they signals it's the reason they got hired to this position
That does not follow. When an organization communicates that Obama was the first US president born in Hawaii, that does not signal that he was elected because he was from Hawaii.
The local paper had a short article last year that for the first time the entire crew of three people on a truck were women. The article added that the scheduling was happenstance, and not deliberately done.
A couple of years ago, Teri Eidson and her daughter, Nicole McAllister made the news because they were the first mother-daughter team to co-pilot an international flight.
Neither of these should be interpreted to mean that those women were hired specifically to get that reported result.
Sergei Volkov was the first second-generation cosmonaut, that is, his father was the cosmonaut Aleksandr Volkov.
When that made the news, did it also signal that the son got the position not due to abilities, skills, etc., but because of his father?
And so on, and so on, and so on.
It also does not follow because you have to know if there are complicating factors.
For example, if other cities discriminate against LGBT department heads while LA does not, then the population of qualified potential department heads would be higher for LA than other cities.
nepotism on one point
dei on another point
and meritocracy on the third
Each presents different ways to make selection and each has intrinsic biases which are in tension with one another. Neither one can be the end all be all solution because each leads to unhealthy endpoints if carried on for long enough. I suspect Sergei Volkov did in fact benefit from nepotism but maybe that's not a bad thing on its own?
If discrimination is on that triangle, where do you place efforts to counter discrimination?
You suspect because it fits with your worldview, or you suspect because of your knowledge of the cosmonaut program, and their willingness to have less-than-the-best in what is otherwise a very competitive field?
To be clear I think its not necessarily bad, its the dose. The Cosmonaut had proven genetics, that counts for something on top of meritocracy.
In many states, it is okay to discriminate based on political views. Here's an example of a socialist working at Goodwill who was fired for being a socialist - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/07/can-your-boss-fi... with the quote: “The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment.”
Is that form of discrimination either DEI or nepotism?
Some US veterans get preferential employment in the Postal Service.
Is that form of discrimination DEI or nepotism?
The Freedmen's Bureau assisted only former slaves. Was that discrimination? Was it DEI?
Japanese-Americans who were interned or their heirs received payment as reparations. Was that discrimination? Was it DEI?
Nepotism == My tribe > other tribe
DEI == Diversity > mono-culture
Meritocracy == job skills > political skills
Note there is no prescribed method how you balance those forces for "peak results" because there is no generic "peak result". Maybe I should have stated Meritocracy is also a form of discrimination but one where its "common-sense" standard. Restrictions on foreign influence in war time would be meritocracy and nepotism at the expense of DEI for example. Can you see any use in the above definitions or would you add another point to the tension graph? Or is there no use in considering these in tension with one another?
Like, the history of racism in the Americas recognizes a lot of different cultures, and even puts a hierarchy to them, typically with Blacks and Native Americans at the bottom, along with terms like mestizo and quadroon to describe different combinations of intermixing. A lighter-skinned Black slave is more likely to work in the house, while a darker-skinned one works the fields. A "swarthy" Italian might be white according to the law, but of lower social standing than other whites.
Let's suppose I had a mestiza mistress, a mulatto manservant, a dozen black fieldworkers, and a Chinese wash woman, and a white wife, all under a white supremacist patriarchy.
Sounds pretty diverse, yes? It certainly is not mono-culture. Does that diversity make it part of DEI?
While if we use the definition at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusi...
"Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability."
we can see that the mistress, wife, etc. are not able to engage in full participation like I am.
I therefore conclude that DEI is not simply the idea that 'diversity > mono-culture'.
Is there any definition you would use for "my tribe == other tribe"?
One of my examples was how women couldn't be in combat roles until recently.
Is that 'Nepotism'? No, not unless you have a very strange definition of "tribe" such that men and women are in different tribes.
Is that 'DEI'? No, not unless you have a very strange definition of culture such that men and women are in different cultures.
In both of those strange definitions, where do you stop? How does the tribe of "American" overlap with the tribe of "woman" overlap with the tribe of "State U. graduate" overlap with the culture of "Southern" overlap with the culture of "menopausal" overlap with the culture of "home owner", and so on.
And to be clear, discrimination is not always bad. We have bona fide occupational qualifications, like how a church can discriminate on the basis of religion, and a strip club is not required to accept male strippers. We have age restrictions, like how the president must be at least 35 years old. We can fire people with excessively foul body order, even if they have the right job skills.
So when you ask "What kind of discrimination isn't covered by motives of nepotism or DEI?", the range is quite large.
It can range from explicit efforts to actively reach out to candidates from schools with students predominantly from historically-disadvantaged groups, to outright "no hiring of white men this quarter" (which is one of the more egregious documented cases, https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi...).
What I think most conservatives think it is: When choosing between a more qualified white cis man and a less qualified "diverse" candidate, some companies will pick the latter specifically due to DEI policies. I am very sure this is actually happening (see also e.g. the above source).
Turns out people don't like being explicitly discriminated against, even if they're from a majority group.
Speaking as part of a video that aired during a commercial break for the FOX show 9-1-1 about firefighter capabilities, Larson said, "Am I able to carry your husband out of a fire? He got himself in the wrong place"
DEI means lowering standards to accomodate minorities and discrimination against more qualified white males
DEI can be implemented badly, but that doesn’t mean that DEI is bad
why it should be in proportion? This argument is flawed as it ignores that not everyone in general population has the same abilities.
You can look at the roster of any top performing NBA team and tell me if their players population represents general population.
Companies and organizations want to hire the best for any given job, and given this preference, there will always be discrepancy btw hired and general population.
In fact the only case when both population would be equal, is if hiring decisions are based on random chance
This is an assumption, not a fact. Companies hire less-qualified candidates all the time through nepotism.
But there are cases when nepotism is a job requirement, as in being connected to a powerful network is job description. You can find it in investment banking, big law, VC, sales when people are hired because they know the right people and can get the right results through back-channels/established network.
You cannot make the same argument however in favor of hiring lesbians, unless being a lesbian is a job requirement
I really doubt that DEI per your definition above can be implemented for a general benefit. Fundamentally you need to show that not hiring the best candidate is best. This is typically squared by saying that group dynamics and output improve with diverse viewpoints, which I actually agree with within limits (the limit being that if nobody agrees nothing gets done). But here we made a sleight and equated diversity based on innate properties to diversity of viewpoints, which are different things and it’s actually rather stereotypical to equate them.
Of course you will have an answer, but how various things are weighted when making a decision is pretty subjective.
But yes, I do have an answer, which is that excluding factors that do not relate at all to job responsibilities is strictly better than including those, even if the result is still subjective.
Of course it can often be easy to identify the most salient factors, but that doesn't make it a concrete activity.
how is being a black lesbian part to any job whatsoever ?
You are focusing on factors that you consider obvious, which is exactly my point, using your subjective judgement doesn't give you a framework that isn't subjective.
Everything involving human judgement will be subjective, yet we still can distinguish between good and bad decisions and discuss tradeoffs about being less wrong while being subjective
Like people are freaking out about any sort of DEI factor even getting considered and then actually hiring based on how Phil vibes with the candidate. Good stuff.
I will settle for the most salient factors if that sounds more precise to you. I will interpret that as a large number of sigmas, but we don't have to agree on the exact number of sigmas here!
Just fair competition and pick the best candidate you think will do the job best. If you see the population is unbalanced (too many males or whites for example) => you go to the root of the problem and address the underlying root cause, not try to cover up the discrepancy by reverse discrimination at the end of the hiring pipeline.
There are a lot of societal problems in America and under-represented minorities absolutely have it worse than the generally well-off white population. But this is the argument to go and fix the root cause: income inequality, education inequality, lack of jobs, housing, etc.
The moment America decides to improve poor people's lives, not just promote and hire rich people with the "right" diversity traits, is when the whole country will improve in terms of outcomes
"The Rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Practitioners in Academic Nursing" at https://ojin.nursingworld.org/table-of-contents/volume-27-20...
> Efforts to strengthen diversity in nursing have not targeted race alone. That is because the nursing profession also lacks gender diversity, with the vast majority of nurses (over 87%) being female (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.). In addition, the racial demographics of faculty reflect a body of academicians who are 82% White, 9% Black/African American, 3.4% Hispanic/Latino, 2.9% Asian, and 93% female (NLN, 2021). Ideally, the nursing workforce should closely align with the racial, ethnic, and gender makeup of the U.S. population.
Women are perfectly capable of working in firefighting, the military or police. I've personally seen a female police officer of barely 1.60m throw a drunk 2m Russian dude on a rampage in a bar fight onto the ground and tie him up alone, about a solid third of the volunteer force in my THW unit are women, a good friend of mine is a trained volunteer firefighter at about the same height as the police officer, and the IDF has women in active fighting roles since the 70s, and fully equal to males since 2000 - and look where the IDF is, they are without question the top dog in the MENA region, despite all the cries about women threatening the fighting capability.
"DEI" means opening up the gates for everyone on actual merit. For women, it can sometimes mean having to rely more on skill than on brute strength (as in my first example), but in the end it doesn't matter much.
> "Am I able to carry your husband out of a fire? He got himself in the wrong place"
You’re making points that women can be physically strong. Nobody is doubting this, the parent was providing evidence that these women themselves say they are not strong.
Yeah and that's where the last sentence with the skill I wrote comes into play. Instead of just "manhandling" said husband and carry him in the front of you, lift him on your back, and anyone too heavy for that will also be too heavy for most male firefighters (bodybuilders are rare, especially in volunteer corps most people will be of average strength and body stature). That's also one part of why firefighters always go in pairs (besides providing backup for personal safety) - you never know who and what you come across.
Besides: Carrying a person in front of oneself is a movie cliche about firefighters, it's extremely rare to see it in practice and banned outside of actual life-and-death emergencies because it's dangerous as fuck - trip over a hose or debris and suddenly you're falling with the full weight of you and your gear onto the already injured person, possibly injuring yourself in the process. Not nice.
Lifting someone onto your back still qualifies as carrying someone out of a fire which this firefighter says she can’t do.
Got in their car and left.
I tried to find an equivalent male example, but every newspaper was writing about this particular case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting
me thinks if newspapers can only write about one case, it's not that widespread
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/07/13/uvalde-sho...
It's interesting there was a trial, because in America police have no specific duty to protect the public.
In the case I link, the trial was about abandoning their fellow policemen in danger, not the public. They probably view things differently when they themselves are affected.
Which makes efforts to recruit as many women into firefighting as possible a sad ideological travesty, and people are perfectly right calling it out. There is a difference between emancipation and group delusion. There are meaningful physical differences between the sexes, and everyone knows that, even people who try to engage in sophistry when it comes to this topic.
BTW the IDF, which conscripts women out of necessity, tries to keep them away from the most dangerous combat roles, and employs them mostly in support roles. Your description is very misleading. The vast majority of the really dangerous stuff in IDF is still done by men, not least because of the risk of rape when falling into hands of enemies. IIRC only about 1 in 20 of the "enemy-facing" IDF soldiers like helicopter pilots are female.
My point is the need for this ability is next to zero because it is extremely dangerous, and yet women are judged by that on their inability to be a firefighter at all? That's bullshit, pardon my French.
> The vast majority of the really dangerous stuff in IDF is still done by men, not least because of the risk of rape when falling into hands of enemies.
A lot of the men that got taken hostage or got found dead on Oct 7 were raped as well. And yes, IDF tries to dissuade women from enemy-facing action, but if a woman decides she accepts this risk, she can go for any role she wants.
That is an absolute non-sequitur. Yes, it is dangerous to carry a person out of a fire. But it is still an expected, though infrequent occurrence during duties of a firefighter. By deliberately striking this capability from list of demands, you are also deliberately restricting the total life-saving capabilities of the firefighting crew, all for checking some ideological boxes.
I am absolutely against this and I want firefighters in my city to be physically capable of doing such tasks. It may happen that my life or life of my loved ones is actually at stake, and such capability will make a difference.
On the other hand, I couldn't care less about diversity checkboxes. The idea that a firefighting corps is better for having more women is as weird to me as the idea that a firefighting corps is better for having more Taylor Swift fans.
Fact is, volunteer corps are already struggling with obtaining and retaining volunteers. Excluding women excludes 50% of the potential force.
If volunteer firefighting is a people repellent now, the "repellent" part needs to change, unless the "everybody needs to be equally miserable" hairshirt version of equity applies.
I think this is a quick explanation.
Many people on the left complain about the “old boys club” where “white men” hire each other and control all the power without merit for their authority, and DEI seems to be a way to smash the patriarchal old boys club and enforce the new regime where women, and minorities are in control.
Shouldn’t the people be wary of any type of authoritarian cabal?
Yeah, and how do you expect the status quo authoritarian cabal to be dismantled while they are in power?
If the system isn’t working, fix the system don’t just adapt the broken system to serve your needs.
I don't know of any other way a social system has been fixed that couldn't be reduced to this approach.
People can simply be good at something. Maybe lesbian firefighters actually work very hard to overcome the expectations against them.
The connection of Nobel prize to race/ethnicity, as well as a claim that jews are supposedly smarter than everybody else (to the extent of dominating nobel nominations) is incredibly racist and is false.
Its basically the same ubermensch/untermensch argument made by adolf hitler in Mein Kampf about "superior Aryan race" but this time applied to jews as ubermensch. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3190562/
And similarly we have no evidence that lesbian firefighters who gain leadership positions got there through either genetic predisposition or bias. Maybe they just had the right attitude and the right mentors, like those researchers.
No, because Ashkenazi Jews have been demonstrated to perform significantly better on IQ tests on average, and performance on IQ tests is associated with various intellectual outcomes like winning the Nobel Prize. On the other hand, lesbians haven't been demonstrated to perform better on any kind of metrics associated with success at firefighting, and the greater difficulty women face gaining muscle mass puts them at a disadvantage.
Rabbinal Judaism has existed for nearly 2000 years, and prizes debate and logical examination.
Jewish people, particularly those that left the Middle East during diaspora, tend to have high IQ when measured, and tend not to marry outside their group. The brain is not special and different groups people differ in that organ the same way different groups differ in their muscles and blood.
Finally and quite sadly many Jewish people have been targeted viciously by individuals and governments and invading systematic execution requires a certain degree of wits.
Or that IQ tests predict physics Nobels?
My lord…
* newsclues: "the Woke Marxist DEI industry is a racket designed to install commissars for its ideology"
* slt2021: "DEI means lowering standards to accomodate minorities and discrimination against more qualified white males"
Help me out here.