Tag: dei

By on

Glen Reynolds, Conservative/Libertarian pundit, had a meltdown about Jacob Savage’s The Lost Generation. Reynolds missed a lot of Savage’s point as did many other conservatives (see my previous post). Indeed Savage says he was an ordinary talent and he holds no grudges against the women and people of color who got the jobs he failed to get. It was bad luck for him that he was born during a time that more aggressive measures to right previous wrongs were being taken. He, unfortunately, didn’t make the cut.

Reynolds thinks that a whole generation was hollowed out because some white men didn’t get the jobs. While personally disappointing to some, Reynolds, in no way, proves the generational disaster he contends occurred. White men didn’t get all the jobs but somebody else did. So how was a whole generation hollowed out because some members of that generation didn’t get the jobs. The jobs were filled. People performed the tasks. TV shows were produced. History 101 taught to students. The only difference is the more of these jobs were done by women and people of color. How is this a disaster?

Reynolds unspoken contention is that the best people aren’t performing the tasks. Does Reynolds mean that when white men aren’t over represented in employment statistics, then the best people aren’t getting the jobs. For example, a piece of data that Reynolds refers to from Savage’s article points to a significant decline in white men presently in jobs in television writing. Yes, there was a significant decline in white males in these jobs but, then, what about the other piece of the data Savage writes about, and Reynolds ignores — the over representation of white males in these positions in the past. He doesn’t seem the least bit bothered that there was a deliberate exclusion of women and people of color from these positions that favored white men.

Also, these jobs are prestige jobs. An awful lot of people are vying for them and an awful lot of people are disappointed when they fail to get them. Even in the good old days when white men were over represented. Even today, an awful lot of women and people of color aren’t getting these prestige jobs. A lot of very talented people have to dust themselves off and find a different path. This has been going on since the founding of the Republic. Not everyone gets their dream job. Why Reynolds thinks this is such a national disaster is unclear. The only thing that Reynolds keeps yammering on about is that a white man didn’t get the job and white men are somehow always the best candidates for the job — even, say, jobs writing about a Black Woman on a television show.

This is a personal disappointment that most people will survive not a societal disaster. Since women and people of color now have a chance to get these jobs, there is even more competition for these coveted jobs. And this is a good thing. We are hearing from people who never had a voice and are now able to express it.

But what about the meritocracy? Give me a fucking break. By all means, lets work for a better process but the world isn’t coming to an end because for a very short time in the history of the country, we are, after all, talking about ten years here, white men have had more trouble getting jobs in the studio and academia. The DEI model is under attack and is likely to be replaced with a different model. Let us hope it is fairer. But it will not be perfect and things like family connections and money will still help people who have these advantages to get jobs that more talented people should get. There is no meritocracy solution that will stop this. So the next time Reynolds cries about the absence of meritocratic values in making decisions, he knows what orifice he can stick his whining ass.

By on

The big idea behind Trump and the Right’s anti-DEI stance is that race shouldn’t matter when making decision about who gets admitted into a university or gets a job. All that matters is quality.

The big idea behind Trump’s anti-immigrant stance is that the government should be able to stop any Brown person or anyone speaking Spanish to enquire about their immigration status because they might be here illegally. This strategy, just validated by the Supreme Court, doesn’t take into consideration that 19% of Americans are Latinos and 13% blacks. So over 30% of American citizens must live in fear of being stopped on the street and asked for their papers. Their papers. How American is that?

So while investigating the immigration status of a person the government can use race to stop any person they suspect as being here illegally but can’t use race when rewarding people for jobs or university placement, race is irrelevant.

Got it. But don’t tell me race doesn’t matter to you because obviously it does.

By on

Donald Trump is a mystery to me. I can’t understand why people vote for hm. I disagree with his politics. When he speaks, I immediately think what a pompous ass. I am deeply perplexed on how this vile unpleasant man is succeeding.

And it is breathtaking how successful he has been. The man has reshaped the Republican Party into his image against the wishes of the Republican Establishment. He has humiliated the Democratic Party twice. He wants to take over the Gaza Strip. The fucking Gaza Strip and people are actually considering it. The man has something going for him that I am missing but others find attractive. It is so irritating. Every time you think he has irredeemably screwed up, he comes out of it completely unscathed.

I once worked for an asshole. He was crude, not very bright, arrogant, a narcissist — well very much like Donald Trump. He was universally despised up and down the food chain. So how did he keep his job? I never understood but I got a glimpse when talking with two co-workers about him. They agreed he was an asshole but they also said that they thought he was the right man for the job because he got things done. He bulldozed his way to the finish line on time and on budget. His being liked was immaterial to what needed to be done. They both also, much to my surprise, said they would work for him again.

Assholes apparently have their place in the scheme of things. I don’t like it and it isn’t the way I would do things but millions of people voted for the man. Just look at his actions since becoming president. He has taken the initiative so aggressively that the Democrats can’t keep up with him. He has thrown so many ideas against the wall that some of them are bound to stick. He doesn’t want to just roll back DEI (diversity, equality, inclusion), he wants to destroy it so he has asked his Attorney General to pursue criminal charges against companies who continue to use it. The whole concept of DEI is in a defensive crouch.

Vast swaths of the American public are in trouble. Much of the public believe that government isn’t much help in dealing with these troubles. Education, which used to be a linchpin for future success, looks like nothing more than a meaningless money suck. I believe these ideas are wrong but this is irrelevant to the problem the Democrats have here. As long as people believe that government is more concerned in DEI than the ABC’s, the Democrats have a big problem because Trump has made the Democratic Party and Liberals the face of this failure.

I wish I had the answer to Trump’s frenetic attacks against government. They are damaging because they undermine the best ways in which regular people can better themselves. That doesn’t change one important fact — he is successful and part of his success is he has shown himself willing to shake things up in what people have come to believe are moribund and corrupt government institutions. Until this changes, the Democrats are on the defensive and Trump is in the driver’s seat.

Is there a liberal asshole out there up to the job of challenging Trump? So far I don’t see it.

By on

I am finding all of this antagonism towards DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) irritating. First, let me preface this with no system organized by human beings is perfect. The system needs to be improved as you see how the system is working. DEI is no different from any other system. Let’s look at it and improve it. Make it better.

But tossing it out wholesale though is wrong. The United States has a long history of racial prejudice and this prejudice has had a deleterious effect on people of color. Racial prejudice is still with us and is still a problem.

I am White middle class man. Historically, this means I have had an advantage in my job search. Not necessarily because I am white but because people told me about jobs where they worked. When I went into apply I had a name that gives me a leg up. The hiring manager knew someone who knew me. I have been remarkably successful at getting jobs this way. I never have been out of work for long and generally have had allies already in the company showing me the ropes.

But it isn’t in the least bit fair and it works against people who don’t know someone working for the company.

The counter argument to this is that, of course, people are going to hire friends and family because someone they know is recommending them. It gives the hiring manager an additional element of confidence in this person they don’t know who is looking to work for them. But how is this getting the best person for the job? Why do recommendations from people you do know carry more weight than people you don’t know?

We all know why and we all accept it without question. The hiring manager knows the person recommending the applicant. He is a good guy and he is saying that Tom, this stranger to me, is also a good guy. Now, this other person I am looking at, is just as qualified for the job but I don’t know him and I don’t know the person recommending them. Who gets the job?

Without DEI, this type of unfairness goes unchecked. Friends and family get the jobs while qualified strangers are passed over because they are unfamiliar. The connected get hired while the unconnected don’t. Family and friends get the jobs. Now if they happen to be all White that is just a coincidence. Not all hiring managers who work this way are prejudiced but it does allow for hiring managers who are prejudiced to stack the odds against people of color. DEI allows for imperfect measurement of what your work force should look like and it forces businesses to consider this when making their hiring decisions.

Is it perfect? No, but neither was the system before. There is this notion that in the good old days, businesses only hired the best. Since, in the good old days, people legally could discriminate against people of color and women, it lead to a workforce dominated by White me until DEI added an element of fairness for people who did not have connections. If you remove DEI, it makes it easier for hiring managers to hire people they know over trying to be fair to those without connections. Attempting to create a more diverse work force that includes more people historically discriminated is still important and should not be abandoned because it is imperfect process.

Lastly, please stop harkening back to the good old days when people only hired the best because they didn’t. The game was rigged and the process was unfair. DEI was one way to right that particular wrong. Can it be improved? By all means, every process can be improved. DEI is no different. Eliminating it, however, will only call into question how people of color and women are being treated in a market that historically discriminated against them.

By on

DEI is responsible for the Los Angeles fires now on going or so many conservatives believe.

I’m not sure why they believe this. There hasn’t been any evidence that women or people of color firefighters have failed during this fire. The critics keep coming back to an insanely stupid reply from a lesbian firefighter about carrying a big man out of burning building.

I mention that she is a lesbian because I think it added to the animus of the linked article. Hank Berrien, the author, made this ever so innocent statement about the firefighter’s involvement with Girl’s Fire Camps. Right. Important information. I don’t want to besmirch Berrien’s good name here but it was a gratuitous fact that had little to do with the rest of the article. What did her work with girls have to do with his point regarding DEI? Nothing, right. Lesbians. Working with children. Female children. I am not saying anything is wrong with that. Just noting this because it might interest our readers. With his little nudge he effectively lets everyone know she is both a terrible fire fighter and might possibly be a terrible person to boot.

On the other hand, the firefighter was asked a valid question and she botched her response. This hardly condemns DEI as a consideration in hiring as the LAFD is still primarily male, particularly in the fire houses. Males make up 97% of the department. How has DEI made Los Angeles less safe when the numbers reflect a mostly male fire department? All apparently strong enough to carry out a heavier man? Have there been complaints about women failing in their responsibilities? There is remarkably little evidence that there is a problem in this mostly male half white fire department.

No matter what, they focus on DEI as responsible for the catastrophe happening in Los Angeles now. Not 100 winds. Not lack of rainfall. Not unusually large amount of dried vegetation due to a really wet winter. Not that the fire ignited outside of the normal fire season. And, of course, the never mentioned climate change problem which isn’t a problem and no amount of evidence can change their minds. None of the these merit mentioning as causes.

Yet one female firefighter’s inability to give a good answer to a hypothetical question is the problem.

By on

The right wing media is spreading pernicious lies about DEI being a factor in the Los Angeles fires now burning. Forbes magazine, hardly a left wing source, found that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Some of this is based on speculation offered by Adam Carolla who when trying to apply to be a fire fighter many years agos was told that he wouldn’t be considered for 7 years because he was white man. Carolla also admits to having a 1.7 GPA which, and I am just speculating on this now, might have something to do with his long wait and the discouraging words he received at the fire house when asking for a job.

Anyway, a quick glance at the graduating class of 2024 proves Carolla wrong. There are a good number of white men in the group. In fact, if you look at the racial breakdown of Los Angeles Fire Department in 2018, Whites are a much larger portion of the fire department than their percentage in Los Angeles population — 49% Whites in Fire Department, 29% whites in Los Angeles and women make up barely 3% of the department with minority women making up less than 1%. So a department made up of 97% men which is important because one of the chief problems conservative critics have is the physical strength needed to fight fire. Men have more than women. There seems to be more than enough men out there working on the fire.

The unspoken subtext here is that somehow non-whites and women aren’t up to the job. Based on what evidence? Is there data that minorities and women are not performing their job? And if so, what are the problems and how do white men doing the same job compare? If someone graduates from the Fire Academy, doesn’t it mean they past the tests required by the LAFD to adequately perform their job? The critics keep returning to the lesbian women who lead the department. Where exactly have these women failed? Somehow the implication is that since DEI has been considered as a part of the hiring process that standards have somehow diminished. It isn’t like the good old days when only white men were running the LAFD.

But, of course, the good old days were not getting the best people available. They were limiting their search to white men and discriminated against people of color and women. How is this better? It is only when discrimination became an issue that women and people of color got a chance to become a fireman. The good old days. You know when Blacks need not apply for jobs they wanted. You didn’t have to consider women at all because they were the weaker sex. You know those good old days when discrimination was OK.

No one wants to hear about past discrimination when DEI is making it impossible for white men to advance now. Right. The thing is if Blacks and Latinos were given a chance 50 or so years ago to join the force DEI wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The problem is they were discriminated against and, because of that past discrimination, women and people of color are rightfully suspicious of their ability to be treated fairly. So ultimately DEI is the direct result of bad faith hiring from white men in the first place.

By all means, blame the Los Angeles Fires on DEI putting incompetents on the front line. I am sure it will encourage those brave people fighting the fires to give their all to put them out. Really, it is shitty way, particularly in the absence of evidence, to treat people who are putting their lives on the line.