This appears to be a clear violation of Federal law, if the facts as presented in the article hold up on examination. It's 'for a good reason' and 'on the right side,' though, so who knows if anything will be done about it?
Devilishly advocating for the bigots' side of things: "Diverse" is a synonym for "Minority" and "Minority" implies a segment of the population that is small and, consequently is in "short supply". Basic economics, not bigotry, demands a higher price for the scarce commodity.
It's been claimed, affirmed, and established in the US Supreme Court that securing a mixed-race, diverse, inclusive, (yadda yadda yadda) group for an educational purpose is of primary benefit to the individual of minority membership extended affirmative action. Instead, the benefit flows to the collective group, and more specifically to those of the group in the original majority, who gain experience and perspective and even more future advantage from allowing a few token "others" temporarily in their vicinity. (I may be mis-remembering and paraphrasing the claims as made to SCOTUS.)
Very recently, demonstrations of the chatGPT/AI tool show the benefits of asking for a complex topic to be explained -- as if teaching a nine-year-old third-grade child. (Or other level presumably lower than the interrogators actual age or educational attainment). How similar a benefit, then, to having a member of a disfavored, ill-educated, badly-diction'd "diversity" demographic on the team doing a group project. "Explain your idea to Jz'mahl, and if ze agrees we'll go for it." A lot of vague ideas and poor scientific publications would be eliminated, or improved, at very early stages by having a Jz'mahl around.
Finally, federal law is often an ass. Why should an enlightened and self-governing ivory tower pay any attention to the biases of a bunch of old and ugly dweebs in Washington D.C.? Why respect those whose only claim to authority is, not academic merit or ability to contribute, but a talent for fooling the voters?
That’s a clever defense. Indeed, why should any of us feel bound to obey Federal laws? They are, as you say, benighted at best (and more commonly corrupt).
Actually these are good arguments worthy of a real debate. I’ll let others respond instead of me.
Basic economics, not bigotry, demands a higher price for the scarce commodity.
This really is a strong argument; Jim Hanson of BLACKFIVE spent some time as an executive search guy, and diversity candidates who were qualified for high positions were hard to find. There was very intense competition and headhunting. You really do end up having to pay a high price in a market economy.
diversity candidates who were qualified for high positions were hard to find.
The traditional solution has been for an organization to create brand new, more or less non-functional, "high" positions, the qualifications for which include breathingand parroting jargon. Oh, candidates must also visibly diverge in facial appearance from the functional and original members of the team. A team of five becomes a team of seven or eight ...
Why such organizations led by such newly structured teams "go broke" is left as an exercise for the class.
5 comments:
Devilishly advocating for the bigots' side of things: "Diverse" is a synonym for "Minority" and "Minority" implies a segment of the population that is small and, consequently is in "short supply". Basic economics, not bigotry, demands a higher price for the scarce commodity.
It's been claimed, affirmed, and established in the US Supreme Court that securing a mixed-race, diverse, inclusive, (yadda yadda yadda) group for an educational purpose is of primary benefit to the individual of minority membership extended affirmative action. Instead, the benefit flows to the collective group, and more specifically to those of the group in the original majority, who gain experience and perspective and even more future advantage from allowing a few token "others" temporarily in their vicinity. (I may be mis-remembering and paraphrasing the claims as made to SCOTUS.)
Very recently, demonstrations of the chatGPT/AI tool show the benefits of asking for a complex topic to be explained -- as if teaching a nine-year-old third-grade child. (Or other level presumably lower than the interrogators actual age or educational attainment). How similar a benefit, then, to having a member of a disfavored, ill-educated, badly-diction'd "diversity" demographic on the team doing a group project. "Explain your idea to Jz'mahl, and if ze agrees we'll go for it." A lot of vague ideas and poor scientific publications would be eliminated, or improved, at very early stages by having a Jz'mahl around.
Finally, federal law is often an ass. Why should an enlightened and self-governing ivory tower pay any attention to the biases of a bunch of old and ugly dweebs in Washington D.C.? Why respect those whose only claim to authority is, not academic merit or ability to contribute, but a talent for fooling the voters?
Edit: " ... is NOT of primary benefit to ..."
That’s a clever defense. Indeed, why should any of us feel bound to obey Federal laws? They are, as you say, benighted at best (and more commonly corrupt).
Actually these are good arguments worthy of a real debate. I’ll let others respond instead of me.
Basic economics, not bigotry, demands a higher price for the scarce commodity.
This really is a strong argument; Jim Hanson of BLACKFIVE spent some time as an executive search guy, and diversity candidates who were qualified for high positions were hard to find. There was very intense competition and headhunting. You really do end up having to pay a high price in a market economy.
diversity candidates who were qualified for high positions were hard to find.
The traditional solution has been for an organization to create brand new, more or less non-functional, "high" positions, the qualifications for which include breathingand parroting jargon. Oh, candidates must also visibly diverge in facial appearance from the functional and original members of the team. A team of five becomes a team of seven or eight ...
Why such organizations led by such newly structured teams "go broke" is left as an exercise for the class.
Post a Comment