[zephrx1111]

Diversity is based on the belief that some group‘s behavior patterns are fitting better with the environment, even temporarily and locally.

But DEI is denying this difference, expecting any behavioral pattern should deserve the same result.

They can’t even reach a logic consistency.

[bglazer]

No, you’re wrong. Belief in “diversity” is the belief that many different groups/identities can contribute, and that none are strictly “best”. DEI is an effort to include more groups in institutions, in order to benefit from the mixing of ideas that results.

[zzleeper]

Sorry but that's not how it has been over the last 5-10 years in most parts of academia.

I've been explicitly told "WE WILL HIRE A XYZ BECAUSE THAT WILL IMPROVE OUR US NEWS RANKING, AND ONLY THAT. BUT DON'T SAY IT OUT LOUD B/C IT'S NOT VERY LEGAL."

Beyond that, when I'm mentoring pre-phds that are preparing their applications, something I need to very carefully explain if they are white males (I'm a minority but I'm a male, fyi) is that they will have to do much better on the exams and predoc research than most of their peers in order to have the same success.

Now, everyone does their DEI incantations. Everyone puts their pronouns in their emails, their pronunciation link at the end of their signature (so they don't get mispronounced), and we participate in many alliship programs in coordination with our DEI leaders. But I doubt people really believe any of this, instead of mostly being in fear of getting fired or at the very least reprimanded. My ex-soviet colleagues joke that this is even worse than in the Soviet era, because back then you could at least joke in private about the speech being BS, but nowadays anyone would snitch on you.

[rayiner]

That logic is a hot mess. Why do you assume an implicit link between “different groups/identities” and “ideas?” It’s easy to accept your premise that everyone can contribute and that no group/identity is the “best.” But that just gets you to color-blind non-discrimination.

Your second point undoes your first point. “Ideas” can certainly be compared and ranked; there are good ideas and bad ones, ideas that have worked in practice and ideas that don’t work in practice. Defining people by “ideas” widely held by their group is a recipe for discrimination.

[khzw8yyy]

It's like buying a dozen Ford F-150s in different colors and claiming a diverse mix of capability.

After all, the elite applicants all have essentially the same background and identity, and the only difference is skin color.

Downvote away!

[drak0n1c]

If the desired outcome is to benefit from the mixing of ideas, is that best served by using mandatory diversity statements to narrowly filter the applicant pool?

[zephrx1111]

I'm not sure how I was wrong.

Diversity claims groups are different, hence there must be some different outcomes, due to their different culture, language, mindset, sex, etc. If the outcomes are the same, then the only difference will be just color. I'm sure it is not what you want.

Then, given the expected outcomes will be different, why DEI is asking for equity of outcomes?

A bag has 100 balls: 90 are white and 10 are black. Please randomly grab 10, and send to to university, or jail. In this the only way you can get your DEI equity.

[mynameisnoone]

I still don't know what "diversity" means. The modern use seems to mean that a person is inherently more valuable if they have less common appearance attributes, regardless of their character or the soundness of their beliefs. The problem with inverting bias discrimination is it tends to promote identity-based entitlement rather than accomplishment-based pride. Identity-based entitlement is a universally unhealthy outlook. My view is any group that needs help should have support and resource groups for them while the bar should stay simple, consistent, and high for all. Without this principle, society will unravel and technological leadership will founder.

PS: I saw an academic department with unwitting ideological and morphological homogeneity that couldn't see their hiring and selection biases. It wasn't done with malice, but most PI's hired people who looked like them because the dept chair was so hands off that there was no leadership conferred, i.e., blinding resume or CV details. The dept chair was rarely in and basically just a salesman and occasional figurehead.

[bakugo]

To understand what "diversity" truly means in a modern context, simply ask yourself this question: have you ever heard anyone claim that the NBA is not diverse enough?