DEI and racism. | Imamother

amother

↑ OP ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 7:23 pm

I'm still not clear on how DEI won't inevitably result in hiring less qualified candidates SOME of the time?

If the goal is to hire 50% minorities when they only comprise 20% of the applicants, how would that not result in less qualified hires?

Looking at things the other way....the national basketball association is 90% black. If they wanted the game to be more diverse and reflect the population with the goal that in 10 years half the players will be white.

Would it be possible to do this without hiring less qualified players? This is the part I'm not getting. Thank you.

amother

Turquoise ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 7:53 pm

The elephant in the room is that the average black IQ is approximately 85 while the average white IQ is slightly over 100. The average Asian is over 105.

There are numerous studies confirming roughly these numbers. The biological reason is unclear although there is substantial linkage to brain size among the races.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/.....0137X

This holds true globally as well. The average IQ across the African continent is substantially below most of the globe- sub Saharan Africa averages an IQ in the 70’s.

Regardless of the reason the facts are that
there is a vast difference in aptitude that extends beyond just an IQ test. A 2001 meta-analysis of the results of 6,246,729 participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude found a difference in average scores between black people and white people of 1.1 standard deviations. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate settings and in the military.

It’s just an average, so you will have blacks who are brilliant with an IQ of 120 and whites who are subpar with an IQ of 80.

Nevertheless, if you are trying to fill a responsible position in a company and are looking for candidates with above average IQ and abilities, trying to hire an equal number of Asians, whites, and blacks and get top quality hires is going to put you in a bind , and likely force you to hire less than top candidates.

We’ve seen this phenomenon in NYC where recruiters were forced to dumb down the firefighter exam because they couldn’t hit their DEI numbers with candidates who could actually pass the test.

Although this is documented, and indisputable, it is politically untenable to say it like it is, so any time there is a disproportionate number of Asians or whites filling leadership positions in a company, even if the ratio accurately reflects the PERCENTAGE of high ability and achievement in each racial group,
the numbers are taken as evidence of racism and discrimination.

So yes, a DEI hire, while not necessarily unqualified, is statistically far more likely to have been hired for a position that they would not be qualified based on merit.

amother

↑ Melon ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 7:55 pm

amother OP wrote:

Ideally, they would shift their recruiting tactics to get more of the ideal applicants in order to meet their goals. They would need a good candidate pool to hire from.

And who says they're necessarily hiring the more qualified candidates when they're hiring white males?

Regarding basketball, are you saying thay black people are better at basketball and therefor hiring more white men means they'll be hiring less skilled players?

DEI can be well implemented and it can be poorly implemented. I wouldn't assume it's inherently going to.lead tonleas qualified hires every time.

amother

↑ OP ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 8:31 pm

amother Melon wrote:

Of course. Teams choose players exclusively on talent and that has resulted in 90% of the league being black. If they wanted to make the game more diverse they would be forced to take less talented white players to do so. Am I missing something?

Here's another example to think of. Close to 80% of teachers in the US are women. If the powers that be find this to be discriminatory and decided that every school needs to have close to a 50/50 ratio, that would certainly result in hiring less qualified men over more qualified women. The reason is because 80% if the applicants are women.

Imagine a school needs to hire 10 teachers. They have 100 applicants, 80 women and 20 men. To meet their goals they'd have to choose 10 out of the 20 men. That would mean they'd have to disqualify 70 out of the 80 women, regardless of skill or qualifications.

Can you give me an example where DEI can be well implemented in the NBA?

amother

↑ Turquoise ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 8:36 pm

amother OP wrote:

I think DEI could be effectively implemented in a situation where you have hundreds of applications for a job slot. DEI would mean not choosing the single most qualified applicant yet still choosing well qualified candidates from the large pool.

When there is only a small pool of qualified applicants, DEI is virtually guaranteed to result in under qualified hires.

amother

↑ OP ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 8:57 pm

amother Turquoise wrote:

Right, I think this is exactly what DEI does. It discriminates against better qualified white people in favor of less qualified (although still qualified) minority candidates.

I'm also wondering if anyone who is in favor of DEI would genuinely apply it in their own personal life in the way you describe it.

Would we accept a less qualified minority surgeon to operate on us? Would we hire less qualified salespeople in our own businesses if we anticipated they would be less profitable? Would we want our yeshivos to hire less qualified security to satisfy DEI?

Government can hire based on DEI because they don't care about efficiency and profit. Private owned businesses do.

amother

↑ OP ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 9:05 pm

Frumomsi wrote:

Whether or not you agree with DEI, calling someone a DEI hire is insulting.

The message is that they are unqualified and only hired for the diversity they bring to the table.

You can disagree with an idea without insulting a particular person. Just like not every white male is qualified, not every diversity hire is UNqualified.

As a poster above explained, DEI normally doesn't mean hiring unquailed people. It means hiring less qualified people.

I agree it's insulting but that's what DEI is. So when a well meaning person says the support DEI, they are essentially saying that they support hiring less qualified minorities in favor of more qualified white people.

It sounds like you support DEI. Can you give an example of how you would even theoretically support it in your own life? Would you want your school to hire the best teachers for your children or would you not mind if they hired lesser minority teachers that are still considered qualified?

Would you be ok with your kids going to school with a minority bus driver who has a sketchy record (but is still qualified) or would you rather the bus company hire the candidate with the best driving record even if they are white?

Cheiny ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 9:09 pm

Rubber Ducky wrote:

If you are not hiring on merit, then it's racist. Period.

This calls into question the ability of any woman/minority/homo-trans-other hire. This is most important in positions like doctors, pilots, and engineers, where incompetence can mean people die.

I don’t understand how the DEI candidate himself/herself doesn’t feel insulted and less than, knowing they were hired because of their race.

↑ Cheiny ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 9:12 pm

amother Peach wrote:

Your statement is fallacious because you are assuming that the person hired is not qualified.

The reality is that there are many "qualified" people and so how does one select among equally qualified candidates.

Historically - as I wrote - no one had an issue with white Xtian men being hired.

And your statement is racist because you are coming from a place where your assumption is that using diversity as a goal is going to result in unqualified people being hired - that there isn't a pool of very qualified individuals which corporations traditionally haven't hired because of bias among the people hiring them

That’s the woke way of explaining it away.
If they were highly qualified, they would get hired on merit. The fact that the criteria for hiring is based on race or gender itself makes it racist. And it does indeed mean that a more highly qualified candidate who doesn’t check off the DEI box will get turned down in favor of someone who may not be as qualified provided their skin color or desired gender falls into the DEI category.

↑ Cheiny ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 9:17 pm

ally wrote:

Lol. The whole need for DEI was because that was (is) the reality. People are discriminated against because of race, colour etc. Now those same people get to blame their bigotry on DEI.

So how is it that a black president and vice president (sadly) were elected, and there are black people in every industry and career, show business, you name it? Black-only colleges, how is that not racist? Would we be able to have a whites-only college? Black TV channels (imagine a white one), a Miss Black Beauty Pageant, etc., etc., etc. Those are all racist. But everyone is too afraid to say it or you get called a racist yourself.

People who buy into this stuff and defend it just want to be able to pat themselves on the back and feel good about being so “non-racist.”

↑ Queen Of Hearts ↓

Sat, Jul 27 2024, 9:41 pm

It's basically racism in reverse.

Do I have to be afraid to fly on my next flight if I know my pilot was a DEI hire and possibly not as qualified or experienced as the white male guy who was passed over Only Because of The Color of His Skin and Gender.

And what's gender anyway? Can't a man be a woman? And a woman be a man ( which for some reason is not as popular Scratching Head

)?

Libs basically contradict themselves all the time to suit their agenda.