Why do you keep saying DIE? Is it a passive aggressive bit? A mistake you've committed to?
Good question. The answer is yes.
When I talked about DEI broadly, you said I was conflating DEI with DEI statements, and that this conversation was about the latter. You then proceeded to post a quote from your own article that's about broader elements of DEI.
So let me get this straight. You don't think it's normal and accepted for employers to ask candidates about values or principles they have identified as relevant to the role?
So... teamwork, self-sufficiency, a commitment to the work that the organisations undertake. Employers never ask about any of this.
I'd hardly really call those values. Those are values so broad that calling them values at all is meaningless. Saying I'm comitted to the job is all well and good, the values of said job are going to vary based on the nature of the job itself. For instance, one job might involve caring for the elderly, another might involve caring for the environment. Those are worthy pursuits, but the values of one job aren't really the same as the other.
The "haha conservative" bit is just kind of childish. Do you genuinely believe anti-conservatives must be against /anything/ staying as it is? So... doors have worked on the hinge/rectangular model for millenia, so anti-conservatives must hate them! Give me a break. There is no way for employment to function if employers cannot ask employees about things they think are relevant. That's not "conservative".
Well, butting in (again), it's not just conservatives objecting to these things.
This passage doesn't address the point made in the bit you quoted. You're still not addressing the flaw in the logic.
You saw examples of X in some instances of Y. You then concluded that Y is, by its nature, the problem-- rather than X.
Very few things are going to be 100% true 100% of the time, one can still have an issue with the broader issue at hand. A pacifist would be against war in all its forms (generally), even if they'd probably also acknowledge that the moral weight of different wars varies.
But if you want to know my issues with DIE, as is, it can be summed up as:
-I think it's questionable to put that much effort on diversity. Diversity, as I see it, is value neutral, and there's all kinds of types of diversities in the world, even if universities tend to focus on some rather than others.
-Equity is highly contentious, since it conspicuously isn't equality. Equity sounds great, but then you have examples such as the pricing system based on ethnicity I mentioned earlier in the thread (i.e. discrimination based on ethnicity), or the removal of advanced courses in schools because some students are out-performing others, or quotas/affirmative action.
-That a DIE statement is required to gain access to employment
-That an application for employment can be rejected based purely on the DIE statement
-That it's clearly hindering some individuals' abilities to do their job
-That it's added a layer of burucracy to universities that's hardly wanted nor needed.
And look, sure, none of what I said is going to be 100% true 100% of the time. But you don't need to reach that threshold to have issues with something.
Of course it's still a "you said, they said". But you implied that you were siding with experience. But you weren't: there's experience on both sides. You just happened to read some articles from one side that peaked your sympathies, and then assumed that's where the weight of experience lies.
You seem to believe that segregation is unavoidable in DEI, despite how many times its been pointed out that its not.
[/quote]
Look, serious question - does something have to occur every single time for someone to have a problem with the occurrence?
There's very little in the world that's absolute. No, segregation isn't going to occur every single time the above principles are implemented, that's true of every single issue. Not every man is going to abuse a woman, that doesn't mean domestic violence isn't an issue. Not every Russian supports Putin's war, that doesn't change the fact that Russia is still waging war. But if you want to talk about segregation, my position is:
-Segregation based on ethnicity/race is wrong. Period. Putting a smiley face on it doesn't change that.
-Diversity and equity, as it's been practiced in many cases, has led to segregation, and at times, discrimination. I've given the playdate, dorm, and graduation examples, affirmative action would come under discrimination. Defenders can call it positive discrimination, it's still discrimination nonetheless.
This is part of a wider shift that seems to have occurred within the US and UK (not in Aus, thankfully, least not yet) that I won't get into, since it goes far beyond DIE statements as a whole (it would come under what I'd define as wokeism, but again, that's a broad topic), but often, it feels like I'm going insane. That things that are so fundamentally wrong on a moral level are being celebrated as progressive. As Coyne himself points out, liberals fought against segregation 60 years ago, but now, are often the ones championing it.
Teamwork is a value. Self-sufficiency is a value. Fairness is a value. An identification with the work that the organisation undertakes is a value.
Said something similar, but yes, these are values, but these are vanilla-based values. Saying "I value teamwork" or "I value fairness" is the bare minimum of values. They're the things you might get asked about in a job interview, but they're not personal values. They're not values that tell anyone much about a person. Saying "I value fairness" doesn't tell you much about me, because most people, generically speaking, value fairness.
When I'm talking about values, I mean it's something that's valuable to you on a personal, fundamental level. Unless they're directly relevant to the profession, they aren't the kind of values an employer should ask about in a professional context - as I've said, I've had job applications, I've had performance reviews, those kind of values have never come up. So with DIE, if someone doesn't value equity, but the position requires you to value equity...well, sure, it's within the employer's prerogative to require the applicant to value equity to get the position, doesn't mean that I or people like Haidt or Coyne have to agree.