Where in any actual DEI programs or initiatives have you seen that “Equity as defined in D.E.I. means equal outcomes without equal effort, achievement or merit.” I have been in this space for many years and have my own concerns about some of its shortcomings; however, I have never heard Equity described as anything other than providing s…
Where in any actual DEI programs or initiatives have you seen that “Equity as defined in D.E.I. means equal outcomes without equal effort, achievement or merit.” I have been in this space for many years and have my own concerns about some of its shortcomings; however, I have never heard Equity described as anything other than providing support respectively so every individual has equal opportunity to participate. There is no emphases on equal outcomes whatsoever.
Here is a key paragraph (with some comments from me interspersed):
>However, actions and programs that are diversity- or inclusion-focused do not always result in equitable outcomes. As an illustration, many organizations have developed leadership programs for women in pursuit of more gender diversity in senior leadership roles. These programs often are intended to promote diversity and enable a culture in which the program participants feel included. Yet, many organizations may not update systemic processes, such as internal mobility or performance management practices, that may serve as barriers to equitable advancement.
OK, so far, nothing really objectionable, though it's unclear what these "systemic processes" in need of "updating" might be.
>A focused program does not guarantee equity for those program participants. Instead, equity acknowledges that the organization as a system is designed to give everyone—with both consideration for and regardless of identity—equitable opportunities to thrive.
Still pretty OK, though "consideration for ... identity" gives me pause. But let's go on to the last sentence of the paragraph:
>While the representation of women in the workforce may be increasing globally, the fact remains that for every 100 men who are promoted, only 87 women are promoted—and women leaders are still leaving organizations at higher rates than men.
Now they have given away the real game. Having a promotion rate for women that is 13% below the promotion rate for men is taken as evidence that something is wrong, that the organization is not working hard enough to achieve "equitable outcomes".
So in the end, only quotas matter. This is the true goal of DEI programs, always revealed at the end, after you push through the chaff.
If what you are saying were true, there would be no need for a new term. There is a reason it is named equity instead of equality. It is the reason given for ridding universities of standardized test (some groups don't score as high as others so the test must be banished) or even credit scores (some groups have lower credit scores so we will take points from high scores and allocate to lower scores). There are numerous sources. I think Kamala Harris actually did a little skit or commercial explaining the difference during the 2020 campaign or right after.
I am a firm opponent of equity, as well as anything connected to the "woke" mentality. However, I DO NOT support standardized tests, because they measure only certain types of intelligence and gauge good outcomes in only certain types of fields where memorization and mechanistic thinking are required (e.g., STEM careers and law). And some people are just not good test-takers, and some demographics have advantages over others in terms of having a seemingly immutable talent for this (e.g., often in Asians, which is why support for their fair inclusion in academia often entails support for standardized testing).
For instance, I was a terrible test-taker, yet I was very good at expressing myself with words and creative thinking. Hence, there are plenty of useful things I can do well even if I am not suited for vocations requiring the skills that standardized tests can determine. So, does this make me a worthless "failure"?
There are plenty of ways to gauge competence in certain areas of endeavor other than by testing. I do not agree with any system of education designed for everyone that is designed to "weed out" instead of identifying individual skill sets and gauging their merit and hard work with an appropriate methodology for that skill set.
For example, there are plenty of ways to determine skill, competency, and merit in various creative arts that do not entail strong emphasis on memorization (especially when skill at research is part of your ability set); a purely "logical" way of thinking (there are ways to solve problems that differ from utilizing mathematical formulae); and critical thinking skills are often not adequately measured by standardized testing (our mandatory schooling system pretty much ignores critical thinking since people with that skill do not make good cogs in a machine run by others). In other words, people more inclined towards creativity than pure logic can solve some problems and add much to the table of human progress that the latter cannot -- and vice versa, of course.
So, did I deserve to be weeded out and left by the wayside, as a system based on standardized testing and grading suggests I should have? I like to think that my being a published author and essayist suggests that I have merit and ability in a specific type of contribution to society that does not require scoring high or "average" on math, logic, or rote memorization.
There are other ways to properly and fairly gauge merit than holding everyone to the standards of one specific set of educational methodology. And I also do not believe that I would ever need to rely on equity as equitists define it to prove I can write or edit a book or essay and deserve merit-based work in these vocations. I would never demand "equal outcome" in the sense that someone with my skill set should be allowed to become a doctor or engineer despite lacking the merit to become those specific things.
So, here's my take on some skill sets. I think when we are talking about proficiency in math, English, and Reading these tests can be useful to determine where someone may or may not excel. I thunk we have out educational system completely out of whack. My idea would be to have everyone learn and test out each year until 9th grade. At that point, an honest discussion should be made with each student. Here is where we find your strengths and weaknesses. If you are someone who struggles to keep up or consistently underperformed on some metrics, maybe you take a creative path out of high school and your degree will show that. If you think you'd be better off learning a trade, let's choose that path for your degree. If you want to be a lawyer or a doctor, you can get another degree that prepares you for that. I don't believe in throwing anyone away. I just think everyone is different and forcing some students to sit through geometry class when they could be mastering a creative writing class is ridiculous. People will say that you are too young to make that choice at that age, but people choose to drop out at that age, so I don't think anyone is too young by high school or 10th grade. Trade routes could work with community colleges and have jobs set up for graduates. I just think it depends on the child and I think the whole thing needs to be revamped.
This is more on the German model, which seems to work quite well for them. Unfortunately one of the legacies of the 1960s (at least in the US) was the idea that everyone had to go to college. Full stop. And over time it grew to if you wanted to be considered a useful person in society you had to go to college. The BA or BS is nothing more than a paid high school diploma these days, which has left us woefully short in the trades and created at least a generation saddled with unnecessary debt, inflated expectations, and no idea of how to deal with failure or setbacks.
Yes! We are on the same page. I think the college crap is so much ridiculousness. They started doing this because they can charge people for 4 years for degrees that are almost worthless. It's a profit machine. There are a few 4 year degrees that are actually worth it, but they are so very few. If a person doesn't plan to get a Master's or more, best skip it. It's not worth the cost. Trades pay better, but we don't teach that.
If memory serves the German degree is a two year program. And here the typical four year degree is 120 hours...and maybe 40 of that is your actual major.
Thank you for your response, Brandy. I can agree that these tests can be used to determine proficiency in the areas you mention, but they are instead widely used (as I noted) to "weed out" rather than to determine a good direction we should go with our education.
"If you want to be a lawyer or a doctor, you can get another degree that prepares you for that. I don't believe in throwing anyone away. I just think everyone is different and forcing some students to sit through geometry class when they could be mastering a creative writing class is ridiculous."
I fully agree with you there. I spent much more time in high school staying after school with my teacher attempting to force me to learn geometry rather than having me spend time on the areas of academia in which I excelled. They wanted you to be "well-rounded," as they put it.
"People will say that you are too young to make that choice at that age, but people choose to drop out at that age, so I don't think anyone is too young by high school or 10th grade."
As a youth liberationist, I fully agree. I think students of all ages should be guided, not compelled, and by fellow students excelling in certain areas, not just adult teachers, the latter of whom are as responsible for imposing the DEI nonsense as any younger person.
"I just think it depends on the child and I think the whole thing needs to be revamped."
Full agreement. And thank you for the valuable insights!
Go to any unversity, corporation or other enterprise that has a DIE office-it is on full display with no embarassment as to its ideology which is clearly anti merit, anti American values, and anti Semitic to the core
I am curious, at how many educational institutions have you worked? It may be that your experience is not reflective of the mass of educational institutions.
You don't need to have to worked at such institutions-the literature that profiles the Anti American anti merit and anti Semitic nature of the DEI enterprise is available foir any concerned citizen to read and digest
Where in any actual DEI programs or initiatives have you seen that “Equity as defined in D.E.I. means equal outcomes without equal effort, achievement or merit.” I have been in this space for many years and have my own concerns about some of its shortcomings; however, I have never heard Equity described as anything other than providing support respectively so every individual has equal opportunity to participate. There is no emphases on equal outcomes whatsoever.
You sound like a delightfully sincere, caring person. But I'm afraid your perception flies in the face of the entire equitist enterprise.
So I googled "DEI equal outcomes". This was the top hit:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2023/diversity-equity-inclusion-belonging.html
Here is a key paragraph (with some comments from me interspersed):
>However, actions and programs that are diversity- or inclusion-focused do not always result in equitable outcomes. As an illustration, many organizations have developed leadership programs for women in pursuit of more gender diversity in senior leadership roles. These programs often are intended to promote diversity and enable a culture in which the program participants feel included. Yet, many organizations may not update systemic processes, such as internal mobility or performance management practices, that may serve as barriers to equitable advancement.
OK, so far, nothing really objectionable, though it's unclear what these "systemic processes" in need of "updating" might be.
>A focused program does not guarantee equity for those program participants. Instead, equity acknowledges that the organization as a system is designed to give everyone—with both consideration for and regardless of identity—equitable opportunities to thrive.
Still pretty OK, though "consideration for ... identity" gives me pause. But let's go on to the last sentence of the paragraph:
>While the representation of women in the workforce may be increasing globally, the fact remains that for every 100 men who are promoted, only 87 women are promoted—and women leaders are still leaving organizations at higher rates than men.
Now they have given away the real game. Having a promotion rate for women that is 13% below the promotion rate for men is taken as evidence that something is wrong, that the organization is not working hard enough to achieve "equitable outcomes".
So in the end, only quotas matter. This is the true goal of DEI programs, always revealed at the end, after you push through the chaff.
Sounds right.
If what you are saying were true, there would be no need for a new term. There is a reason it is named equity instead of equality. It is the reason given for ridding universities of standardized test (some groups don't score as high as others so the test must be banished) or even credit scores (some groups have lower credit scores so we will take points from high scores and allocate to lower scores). There are numerous sources. I think Kamala Harris actually did a little skit or commercial explaining the difference during the 2020 campaign or right after.
I am a firm opponent of equity, as well as anything connected to the "woke" mentality. However, I DO NOT support standardized tests, because they measure only certain types of intelligence and gauge good outcomes in only certain types of fields where memorization and mechanistic thinking are required (e.g., STEM careers and law). And some people are just not good test-takers, and some demographics have advantages over others in terms of having a seemingly immutable talent for this (e.g., often in Asians, which is why support for their fair inclusion in academia often entails support for standardized testing).
For instance, I was a terrible test-taker, yet I was very good at expressing myself with words and creative thinking. Hence, there are plenty of useful things I can do well even if I am not suited for vocations requiring the skills that standardized tests can determine. So, does this make me a worthless "failure"?
There are plenty of ways to gauge competence in certain areas of endeavor other than by testing. I do not agree with any system of education designed for everyone that is designed to "weed out" instead of identifying individual skill sets and gauging their merit and hard work with an appropriate methodology for that skill set.
For example, there are plenty of ways to determine skill, competency, and merit in various creative arts that do not entail strong emphasis on memorization (especially when skill at research is part of your ability set); a purely "logical" way of thinking (there are ways to solve problems that differ from utilizing mathematical formulae); and critical thinking skills are often not adequately measured by standardized testing (our mandatory schooling system pretty much ignores critical thinking since people with that skill do not make good cogs in a machine run by others). In other words, people more inclined towards creativity than pure logic can solve some problems and add much to the table of human progress that the latter cannot -- and vice versa, of course.
So, did I deserve to be weeded out and left by the wayside, as a system based on standardized testing and grading suggests I should have? I like to think that my being a published author and essayist suggests that I have merit and ability in a specific type of contribution to society that does not require scoring high or "average" on math, logic, or rote memorization.
There are other ways to properly and fairly gauge merit than holding everyone to the standards of one specific set of educational methodology. And I also do not believe that I would ever need to rely on equity as equitists define it to prove I can write or edit a book or essay and deserve merit-based work in these vocations. I would never demand "equal outcome" in the sense that someone with my skill set should be allowed to become a doctor or engineer despite lacking the merit to become those specific things.
So, here's my take on some skill sets. I think when we are talking about proficiency in math, English, and Reading these tests can be useful to determine where someone may or may not excel. I thunk we have out educational system completely out of whack. My idea would be to have everyone learn and test out each year until 9th grade. At that point, an honest discussion should be made with each student. Here is where we find your strengths and weaknesses. If you are someone who struggles to keep up or consistently underperformed on some metrics, maybe you take a creative path out of high school and your degree will show that. If you think you'd be better off learning a trade, let's choose that path for your degree. If you want to be a lawyer or a doctor, you can get another degree that prepares you for that. I don't believe in throwing anyone away. I just think everyone is different and forcing some students to sit through geometry class when they could be mastering a creative writing class is ridiculous. People will say that you are too young to make that choice at that age, but people choose to drop out at that age, so I don't think anyone is too young by high school or 10th grade. Trade routes could work with community colleges and have jobs set up for graduates. I just think it depends on the child and I think the whole thing needs to be revamped.
This is more on the German model, which seems to work quite well for them. Unfortunately one of the legacies of the 1960s (at least in the US) was the idea that everyone had to go to college. Full stop. And over time it grew to if you wanted to be considered a useful person in society you had to go to college. The BA or BS is nothing more than a paid high school diploma these days, which has left us woefully short in the trades and created at least a generation saddled with unnecessary debt, inflated expectations, and no idea of how to deal with failure or setbacks.
Yes! We are on the same page. I think the college crap is so much ridiculousness. They started doing this because they can charge people for 4 years for degrees that are almost worthless. It's a profit machine. There are a few 4 year degrees that are actually worth it, but they are so very few. If a person doesn't plan to get a Master's or more, best skip it. It's not worth the cost. Trades pay better, but we don't teach that.
If memory serves the German degree is a two year program. And here the typical four year degree is 120 hours...and maybe 40 of that is your actual major.
Thank you for your response, Brandy. I can agree that these tests can be used to determine proficiency in the areas you mention, but they are instead widely used (as I noted) to "weed out" rather than to determine a good direction we should go with our education.
"If you want to be a lawyer or a doctor, you can get another degree that prepares you for that. I don't believe in throwing anyone away. I just think everyone is different and forcing some students to sit through geometry class when they could be mastering a creative writing class is ridiculous."
I fully agree with you there. I spent much more time in high school staying after school with my teacher attempting to force me to learn geometry rather than having me spend time on the areas of academia in which I excelled. They wanted you to be "well-rounded," as they put it.
"People will say that you are too young to make that choice at that age, but people choose to drop out at that age, so I don't think anyone is too young by high school or 10th grade."
As a youth liberationist, I fully agree. I think students of all ages should be guided, not compelled, and by fellow students excelling in certain areas, not just adult teachers, the latter of whom are as responsible for imposing the DEI nonsense as any younger person.
"I just think it depends on the child and I think the whole thing needs to be revamped."
Full agreement. And thank you for the valuable insights!
Go to any unversity, corporation or other enterprise that has a DIE office-it is on full display with no embarassment as to its ideology which is clearly anti merit, anti American values, and anti Semitic to the core
I am curious, at how many educational institutions have you worked? It may be that your experience is not reflective of the mass of educational institutions.
You don't need to have to worked at such institutions-the literature that profiles the Anti American anti merit and anti Semitic nature of the DEI enterprise is available foir any concerned citizen to read and digest