Tag: inclusion

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.