Move is to comply with state law passed by Governor Ron DeSantis that prohibits public funding of DEI programs
Archived version: https://archive.ph/2NkY3
Move is to comply with state law passed by Governor Ron DeSantis that prohibits public funding of DEI programs
Archived version: https://archive.ph/2NkY3
Instead you give people a head start based on the color of their skin or the genitals that they posses. Both things irrellevant to academic progress.
They’re not irrelevant though and thinking they are shows that you don’t understand the issue.
In the case of gender, DEI programs should actually be helping men at this point because women are attending and graduating college at a much higher rate than men. But the programs haven’t caught up.
As for race, imagine a foot race where a white runner and a black runner are competing. The white runner starts 50 feet ahead of the black runner because the white runner isn’t dealing with the effects of socal inequities (things such as school funding, quality of teachers, extracurricular activities availability, stable home life, jobs, etc). So a black student of equal talent, but worse grades on paper has had to work much harder than the white student to get ahead. DEI programs are trying to make up for the fact that a black student has had poorer access to proper education.
Because without DEI, those white kids who statically have access to better schools would always come out ahead when strictly comparing test scores.
These programs also affect white students in poverty by helping them out too.
The entire thing is based on their refusal to think anything other than the starting point is equal. When you base your view on that, everything they are crying about makes sense. It explains a lot. They think being gay or Trans is a choice too.
And yet in the end, someone with worse grades gets the job because of the color of their skin. Fuck that. Reward people based on their achievements, test scores and grades. You wouldn’t let me into the olympics on the basis of the fact that I wasn’t a runner for 99% of my life. You wouldn’t give me a gold medal when I come in last, just because I was never a runner.
It’s not about someone coming last making first place. It’s about recognizing that grades and school performance is very much a function of the opportunities you’re afforded, the quality of education that’s available to you, and the support you receive. Hundreds of years of institutional oppression have prevented that kind of quality and support from reaching POC communities.
Except it is about giving prefferential treatment based on some arbitrary set of rules to silence the collective guilt. Nothing more. It’s good that the thing is outlawed now.
Just go away. You’re either a troll or someone who is incapable of seeing beyond their little bubble.
Ah yes, the everpresent “I don’t like what you are saying so I’ll gatekeep you”. Look at Europe and how it works there, and compare that to the US. A lot of countries banning prefferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, gender. The only allowed affirmative action is diverting more funding to schools that are in poor areas (therefore poorer schools). You talk about my little bubble and you can’t see that it is only present in the US, nowhere else, and inherrently unfair.
Grades aren’t the only thing that determine your potential. Being in a diverse school with others from different backgrounds helps expand your viewpoints and actually prepares you for a larger life after academia.
One of the many problems with our rural states and towns.
Of course not, but we’re more likely to put you on a Wheaties box over someone with similar results because you’ve overcome more adversity. It was more difficult for you. You achieved more.
We also might be more likely to start up a running program in your town, because clearly we’re missing out on great runners, who were never able to succeed because they were never able to get off the starting block.
Yes, and starting a new program, investing in poorer schools is fine. What doesn’t need to happen, is someone going over the map, circling predominately black neighborhoods, investing in just schools there, and adding points to applications of black people.
Simply don’t look at factors like race, gender to determine who can go into a university or not. Look at skills, look at a person that comes in now. I mentioned in a different thread Finland, where they need Swedish speaking doctors and lawyers. So they prioritize those people. The choice is based on an additional skills that are required to the betterment of society. They gain more points for something more that they can do that’s needed.
So, that’s the actual problem. If you don’t look at factors like wealth, race, primary language or gender, you can congratulate yourself in your process not being biased, but you will see biased results. Like it or not, people start in different places and face different obstacles, and the goal is to try to adjust for these so the results will be merit based or at least fair, and not racist or sexist.
If we’re playing baseball and I start off third base and score, is that the same merit as you getting up to bat, getting on base, working your way around the bases, and also scoring? Any coach would judge you to have shown higher merit despite our scores being the same
Your example doesn’t make sense. Being a specific race doesn’t make you better at science, or in your example doesn’t make the guy be 3 bases behind. This is just discrimination mixed with wishful thinking i.e. “if this guy would have lived with millionaire parents he would’ve scored higher” you don’t know that, nobody knows. So your example is completely inverted, where a kid from a wealthy family starts at the start and has to work hard, and the kid that had a poor family starts 3 bases ahead. Except now it is based on subjective reasoning and imaginary scenarios of “what if”.
Exactly, so why are the results so lopsided? Being brought up in an environment where you had less education opportunities for whatever reason, less opportunity to show your worth, can make you appear worse at science, when if you had the same opportunity, you might show our were as good or better. Why should we settle for good scientists being left behind by the circumstances of their birth or upbringing. If they’re good, they’re good.
Ok, fine, maybe a better example is:
You didn’t score, so should you be cut from the team? I scored and helped the team win, so do I deserve more credit? I didn’t show whether I could bat, get on base, or work my way around the bases. Am I better because I scored, or are you better because you showed more merit at more things, overcame a more difficult challenge, show a better likelihood of more contribution to the team over the season? The coach should consider all the facts before deciding who to cut, not just the score of one game
None of this is meant to give anyone a free ride, only an adjustment and only where appropriate
I recently had this conversation with my brother where he voiced a similar opinion to you.
In the end, what should matter is skills of a specific person and recruiting based on getting the best of the best. Otherwise it is lacking objectivity. Your brother’s example comes to mind - would the situation be better if they didn’t push unqualified people based on a less represented gender?
Overall what I am saying is this. You can take action, or you can decide not to. Taking action and it resulting in incredible bias, misogyny, misandry, racism is in the end worse, than if someone hadn’t prefferred employees / students based on the characteristics that make those things appear. Not having special programs based on background means it’s everyone for themselves, and the best candidate is selected. It seems extremely hard to have a perfect program that changes the hiring / enrolling students process. Otherwise I see two sides of the same coin - a company not hiring a 25yo woman, since she’s part of the demographic most likely to have maternity leave, and a company doing the exact opposite and hiring women because they are underrepresented in the field.
Please explain to be the need to have women in engineering / leadership. What’s a difference between a woman that knows CAD, went to study engineering / mechanics, etc, and a man that knows CAD, went to study engineering / mechanics etc. I see none. I wouldn’t hire someone because of their sex, had everything been equal (which we all know never are). If a woman has great work ethics and has the knowledge / expertise I need, I hire a woman. If a man has the knowledge / expertise I need and great work ethics, I hire a man. It doesn’t matter what sex they are, what they like to do in their own time, how they dress (maybe only when it’d be a customer facing job). What matters is how good of a worker they’ll be.
No, you even the field for everyone so that academic progress can happen based on talent and work.
Sure, but that isn’t going to happen overnight. School DEI programs are the best we have until schools are funded equally across the board. But that’s never going to happen, especially not if the Republicans get their way with Project 2025 and the school voucher program they want to implement.
Sooo achieving higher scores and being overall more deserving of a position isn’t a level playing field, because the other person is a different race. There isn’t any talk of talent or work here. It’s prefferential treatment based on stuff that isn’t possible to be controlled.
You’re very silly.