Texas Bans DEI Programs

[TaKinGDeePanal]

New law, new stupidity. There again, what would you expect?

[BlackDude]

I, for one, think that’s a good thing

[topblkmale]

11 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I, for one, think that’s a good thing

 

Agreed. Its a good thing. 👍

 

Edited January 3 by topblkmale

[blackrobe]

@BlackDude and @topblkmale, I'm interested in the reasons and rationales for why you think banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is a good thing. Can you help me understand your thought process here?

[BootmanLA]

I'm going to disagree (politely, I hope) with @BlackDude and @topblkmale, with the understanding that as a white guy, my own experience with such programs is mostly lacking.

If we truly had a color-blind (and sex-blind) society, a la Star Trek's Next Generation era (TOS was sadly lacking on the sex-blind front), then sure, DEI would be essentially useless or superfluous. But we don't.

Broadly speaking, we tend to respond differently to (and deal differently with) people who are "like" us - whether it's racially, genderwise, or sexual-orientationwise - than those who are not. It may be subtle or not subtle, but it's often there, and worst, when it's subtle, we're often unaware of it. And those different responses can make the difference between a hiring "yes" or "no", between being admitted to a program and not being admitted, and so on.

We can talk till we're blue in the face about merit and "let the best person win", but the reality is that "best person" is a nebulous concept at best. Two candidates for a job, program or whatever are highly unlikely to be identical except for a couple of selected measurements (where it would be easy to pick the "best" one). Rather, it's more likely that A has three years of experience in exactly this particular job or program, while B has only 18 months of that experience but has four years in addition in a leadership role in a related field. In other words, the very act of picking which qualifications merit what kind of assessment for "best" is itself subject to personal biases - what do you value more?

And once you get into "what do you value more?", the inherent bias to look for "others like us" frequently kicks in without recognizing it. An assertive white guy, for instance, might well be ranked highly because he's considered a "go getter", while a woman displaying very similar personality traits can be thought of as "too aggressive" and a similar black guy might be considered "too militant".

Even if all of that is dealt with, somehow, there's still the inherent bias for, say, people from a similar educational background, or who had internships (frequently doled out to the kids of higher-ups in a given firm) with the kind of people we identify with. 

All of which is to say that "meritocracy" - let the best person win - is a mirage, for the most part. The primary beneficiaries of that mirage are (unsurprisingly) straight white males, often Christian ones, because those are the people who have the power and that power flows down through the people they hire, who are (again) the beneficiaries of that mirage of merit.

As long as that mirage exists, there's a place for DEI, if nothing else but to remind us to look more carefully at all the options out there (which is, after all, the original meaning of "affirmative action" - to affirmatively seek out qualified candidates who aren't like us, because they are likely to get passed over even when they're as qualified or more so than others).

[BlackDude]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:14 AM, blackrobe said:

@BlackDude and @topblkmale, I'm interested in the reasons and rationales for why you think banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is a good thing. Can you help me understand your thought process here?

Because many black people now have caught on to the “diversity” and “minority” game. Let’s look at this committee.

1. A white man

2. A white woman

3. A white LGBT person

4. A white disabled person

5. A Latino who identifies as white 

That’s often what we get from the DEI programs: the illusion of diversity. When in fact, it’s just like affirmative action. Alluding to racism as a reason for a policy, but written to ensure everyone else (especially white and white adjacent or aspiring) people get the benefits.

If people want to advocate for their groups, they should do so. But I'm also  for transparency. Many of these DEI programs were established with the intent providing the illusion of diversity 
 

 

[blackrobe]

11 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

Because many black people now have caught on to the “diversity” and “minority” game. Let’s look at this committee.

1. A white man

2. A white woman

3. A white LGBT person

4. A white disabled person

5. A Latino who identifies as white 

That’s often what we get from the DEI programs: the illusion of diversity. When in fact, it’s just like affirmative action. Alluding to racism as a reason for a policy, but written to ensure everyone else (especially white and white adjacent or aspiring) people get the benefits.

If people want to advocate for their groups, they should do so. But I'm also  for transparency. Many of these DEI programs were established with the intent providing the illusion of diversity 

To summarize what I think I heard from you:

"The DEI programs at Texas Universities did not effectively or authentically represent the concerns of black people and address their issues. That these programs were in fact a way of paying lip service to helping black people while instead providing a vehicle to help white people and those looking to pass as white.

Direct advocacy by communities and their organizations would be more effective at getting their issues addressed within the Texas university system."

As someone who's had to work inside a DEI structure to try and move forward a specific set of issues and concerns, I well aware of the way a DEI organization can structurally slow or prevent progress. 

Do you have specific data, citations, or evidence on how DEI in Texas universities failed and justified the creation of this ban? Based on the broad reporting it seems as though it supporters are more ideologically than specifically data driven. That is, I don't think the proponents of the ban are proposing a better, more effective solution for driving up under-represented minority enrollment and graduation, but instead simply wanted to remove the program and let the chips fall where they may.

The author of the bill that created the ban stated that his goal was in "promoting a merit-based approach where individuals are judged on their qualifications, skills, and contributions" which would seem to structurally disadvantage students across the black community and many others.

I'm trying to figure out if your support is based on specific knowledge of the situation in Texas, a general belief that DEI is always structured to fail or be unfair, or a simple idealogical agreement with those proposing and securing the ban.

[PozTalkAuthor]

I have no experience about Texas social backgrounds and cultures but, talking generally about "diversity equiti inclusion" I'm quite upset, scared, about bans. Banning these programs is, let's say, extreme; of course sometimes they need a change, but ban? No sense! 

For the matter of meritocracy I also could agree but this is not a fact of "DEI" but people's minds should need a "hard reset" like computers as in some situations we mostly tend to "forgive" something that wouldn't deserve to be forgiven, because we fear being judged assholes after having been unpolite to a person representing a "minority".

I could give you a stupid example: one of my closest friends is totally blind and last year I invited them at my place to have dinner, a talk, some piano play...

I've studied piano for years and love playing, so I said "try yourself, you've also played in your life, let's have fun"

My friend tried and my answer has been "not bad, for a person who hasn't played any longer in 11 years".

I could have simply said "you should train again, do more exercise, your fingers are quite rigid" but I've been afraid to humiliate, despite knowing this person for years. 

I think that if this is the mindset adopted for a DEI program, that one would miserably fail. 

Or I could refer to another friend who's deaf - he works in a company which has a long-time DEI program but guess what?

No subtitle or at least written support, when they have meetings, calls, events - also the ones regarding DEI.

Too easy to join prides, "black live matters", talk about fighting gender gap and violence, but then...

I have the sensation many people treat inclusion and diversity like something to show rather than something to do. 

At last, merit is a valid thing but when "merit" chooses the healthy, straight and white man rather than the woman, person with disability, gay or whatever... It becomes a biased selection and always the same people are left behind. And the opposite sucks too: if you select, for a university or a job, a person for their "diversity" regardless of their real skills, it becomes a failure. 

I experienced this myself when I came out with my HIV status at work. It was my deliberate choice, nothing mandatory. Luckily I had no discrimination then, but I've had some co-workers treating me differently. With more admiration than before. But why the fuck! I think these kinds of "exaggerations" can make "people with nothing in particular" feel the complex of "minority" and make them freak out.

In that case though, I say "welcome on board" as white-straight-male-rich is a combo that has dominated the world for centuries... Despite being the minority!

[BlackDude]

3 hours ago, blackrobe said:

To summarize what I think I heard from you:

"The DEI programs at Texas Universities did not effectively or authentically represent the concerns of black people and address their issues. That these programs were in fact a way of paying lip service to helping black people while instead providing a vehicle to help white people and those looking to pass as white.

Direct advocacy by communities and their organizations would be more effective at getting their issues addressed within the Texas university system."

As someone who's had to work inside a DEI structure to try and move forward a specific set of issues and concerns, I well aware of the way a DEI organization can structurally slow or prevent progress. 

Do you have specific data, citations, or evidence on how DEI in Texas universities failed and justified the creation of this ban? Based on the broad reporting it seems as though it supporters are more ideologically than specifically data driven. That is, I don't think the proponents of the ban are proposing a better, more effective solution for driving up under-represented minority enrollment and graduation, but instead simply wanted to remove the program and let the chips fall where they may.

The author of the bill that created the ban stated that his goal was in "promoting a merit-based approach where individuals are judged on their qualifications, skills, and contributions" which would seem to structurally disadvantage students across the black community and many others.

I'm trying to figure out if your support is based on specific knowledge of the situation in Texas, a general belief that DEI is always structured to fail or be unfair, or a simple idealogical agreement with those proposing and securing the ban.

I’m against any DEI program in general that does not specifically target and address the groups who were harmed. This includes tangible resources and punishments. 

Including words  like “minority,” “disproportionately” and “disadvantaged” are the same as doing nothing because it opens the door to diverting power and tangible resources, right back in hands of the majority. The only difference is that it gives the false appearance of equity.

 

Edited January 5 by BlackDude

[blackrobe]

1 hour ago, BlackDude said:

I’m against any DEI program in general that does not specifically target and address the groups who were harmed. This includes tangible resources and punishments. 

Including words  like “minority,” “disproportionately” and “disadvantaged” are the same as doing nothing because it opens the door to diverting power and tangible resources, right back in hands of the majority. The only difference is that it gives the false appearance of equity.

To your point, was the Texas university DEI a "not specifically target(ed)" program? What are the indicators of this? How did this manifest in Texas? Specifically, what outcomes did it need to meet that it failed in and for what communities? 

It seems like you have a standard in mind for what makes a group qualify for targeted assistance. What is that standard? What groups do you think qualify for some assistance? I'm really struggling to nail down where you think Texas actually failed, and what you think needs to be different to make an effective intervention. 

The implication is that somehow people who needed help got shortchanged and it went to people who didn't need it.  I'd love to see that data that leads you there. 

[BlackDude]

8 hours ago, blackrobe said:

To your point, was the Texas university DEI a "not specifically target(ed)" program? What are the indicators of this? How did this manifest in Texas? Specifically, what outcomes did it need to meet that it failed in and for what communities? 

It seems like you have a standard in mind for what makes a group qualify for targeted assistance. What is that standard? What groups do you think qualify for some assistance? I'm really struggling to nail down where you think Texas actually failed, and what you think needs to be different to make an effective intervention. 

The implication is that somehow people who needed help got shortchanged and it went to people who didn't need it.  I'd love to see that data that leads you there. 

Can you prove which people were helped by the program? were quantifiable metrics required? 

I explained to my previous answer how a policy can be written that can directly help that needs it the most

[blackrobe]

1 minute ago, BlackDude said:

Can you prove which people were helped by the program? were quantifiable metrics required? 

I explained to my previous answer how a policy can be written that can directly help that needs it the most

I was wanting to understand the specifics of this situation and the basis of your support for the DEI programs in Texas universities being banned.  

Your opposition to DEI programs seems general and not specific to the Texas case. That's all I needed to know.

 

[BlackDude]

1 hour ago, blackrobe said:

I was wanting to understand the specifics of this situation and the basis of your support for the DEI programs in Texas universities being banned.  

Your opposition to DEI programs seems general and not specific to the Texas case. That's all I needed to know.

 

I read about the program, specifically the DEI statements at UT-Austin. The initiatives are not specific, do not have tangible metrics to gauge success and are broad in definitions. 
 

[think before following links] https://community.utexas.edu/2023/12/14/all-campus-division-announcement-a-pledge-to-serve/

Edited January 5 by BlackDude

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, BlackDude said:

That’s often what we get from the DEI programs: the illusion of diversity. When in fact, it’s just like affirmative action. Alluding to racism as a reason for a policy, but written to ensure everyone else (especially white and white adjacent or aspiring) people get the benefits.

If people want to advocate for their groups, they should do so. But I'm also  for transparency. Many of these DEI programs were established with the intent providing the illusion of diversity 

and

17 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I’m against any DEI program in general that does not specifically target and address the groups who were harmed. This includes tangible resources and punishments. 

Including words  like “minority,” “disproportionately” and “disadvantaged” are the same as doing nothing because it opens the door to diverting power and tangible resources, right back in hands of the majority. The only difference is that it gives the false appearance of equity.

The sense I'm getting from your posts about this - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that the only people who should be helped by DEI programs are Black people.

I'm not going to pretend that other discriminated-against groups faced the intensity of the discrimination that Black people have in this country. But the reason we have (or had, at any rate) DEI programs was to approach discrimination holistically: to help everyone that the traditional power structure (overwhelmingly straight, white, Anglo-European, male, Christian) had discriminated against. That includes not just Black people (who, again, definitely had it worst), but also women (including white women), LGBT people (including white ones), Hispanic/Latino/Asian people (including many who identify as white) and non-Christians (including white-identifying Jews, Muslims, and other faiths, as well as those of no faith at all).

Diversity doesn't just mean a larger number of Blacks among Whites. It also means diversity of gender, diversity of ethnic origin, diversity of faith, diversity of sexual orientation, and so forth.

Now, we can argue how much of a DEI program should be focused on, say, Muslim students vs. Black students, and (again) in a nation where the worst discrimination for centuries was faced by Black people (most descended from people who were forcibly brought here), perhaps that's where the biggest effort should be made. But that's a determination to be made by the institution with the DEI policy and program, taking into account the experiences of all they seek to help.

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The sense I'm getting from your posts about this - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that the only people who should be helped by DEI programs are Black people.

Slavery was not holistic. The black codes were not holistic. Sundown towns were not holistic. Red lining was not holistic. Jim Crowe was not holistic. It was specific, and targeted.
 

That’s  why, As a black person, I’m going to look at any equity or reparative policy and see how it affects my group first.  Because the Harm was not equitable. And history has shown us (and the link to the UT DEI director’s page) that the premise of many of these DEI programs is that the issues of the most discriminated group in the country has needs that are no more pressing or important than anyone else’s. And I don’t agree with that premise. 

If women, Muslim, LGBT and other groups want to advocate for DEI groups that benefit them, that’s fine. They should! But I’m not going to advocate for any policy that tells me giving groups who are the majority additional resources and benefits is somehow equity. 

Edited January 6 by BlackDude