[flagged]
It doesn't appear to be voluntarily "changing politics" but instead a mandate from the feds to change ideology or not work with them.
Do we still do 'citation needed' around here? Find me one serious person who has ever argued for equality of outcomes. Even fucking Lenin said "He who does not work shall not eat".
Without commenting on or evaluating the merits or demerits of the argument, here is a representative example:
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equal...
“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”
This was a widely held stance in certain circles. Additional examples in different domains/disciplines are not difficult to find.
The main argument in favour of DEI is a cartoon about apples. We're all doomed, I guess.
When white and Asian males are eliminated if they didn’t attend a top-20 computer science program, but the existence of a degree doesn’t matter for anyone else, that’s equality of outcome.
When the stated goal of HR during an all-hands is literally to facilitate equality of outcomes.
Why do you use slurs here? Using slurs is a sign you aren't arguing in good faith here, meaning even if people provided that evidence you probably wouldn't change your mind, you are just trying to win this argument.
Name them. Please. Why do you all refuse to tell me who's doing all the bad things you're so worried about?
Equity means just and fair allocation of resources and opportunities, not equality of outcomes.
>we are talking more rightly about equity … it has to be about a goal of saying that everybody should end up in the same place
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LaAXixx7OLo
It is literally all about equality of outcomes.
https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-eq...
I think in practice, equity does in fact mean equity of outcome. Pretending that that's not the case feels like gaslighting to people, and drives people away from DEI initiatives.
Could you explain how you got to that definition? Being a non-native speaker, words do not have inherent meaning to me, and no matter how I look it up, this is not the definition I get. Instead, I get an explanation along the lines of "equality of opportunity additionally weighted against circumstances".
I understand that at a lot(?) of workplaces, sex and ethnic quotas did/do exist, and that there are folks who were hired over people who were better fit for the various positions (although my source for both of these is just accumulated and often blatantly biased internet gossip). But I don't see how these relate to the E in DEI necessarily, not any more than I see over-zealousness and malicious compliance towards an idea simply manifesting in this.
If the distribution doesn't look similar, why not? Is there a good excuse for being predominantly male, or predominantly white, or predominantly asian, or predominantly indian? What does that good excuse look like? I see people complain about these things all the time.
There's an assumption here that discrimination in the workplace only exists because of DEI which is a weird leap to make IMO. You could argue that DEI made the situation worse and that gets us somewhere but it's not clear to me whether that's your position.
My instinct is that it has to be addressed broadly across all stages of the pipeline for there to be any results.
Yes, if elementary school teachers discriminates against kids then that has to be fixed. And if its a funding issue for poor neighborhood schools then that has to be fixed. If good teachers refuse to work at poor schools due to crime and other problems, then that has to be fixed.
The fix should never be to discriminate based on race or gender, it should always be to remove discrimination. Positive discrimination based on race and gender will ultimately lead to more discrimination in other areas, since now race and gender is a sign you got positively discriminated and thus didn't compete on the same merits.
You will never remove the label "diversity hire" from peoples minds as long as you discriminate positively like that.
This gave me a funny thought, can you imagine the absolute shitstorm if the government mandated ethnic and gender quotas for every workplace? Now that'd have been some real popcorn time, if I get my eyes roll over from all the overreach and oppression talk here now, that'd be a thread I would not dare to open for sure.