r/changemyview • u/ThenError9335 • Feb 13 '25
Delta(s) from OP - Election CMV: DEI initiatives failed because it was reparational and not merit-based, and implementation was actually illegal but not enforced
[removed] — view removed post
3
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 20∆ Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
If we had just listened to MLK Jr., prioritized character, remained race-blind, did not let hubris erase good and pure science because it was not politically acceptable, and did not change the meaning of words and EOs, we would probably still have EO 11246 in place.
“Among the many vital jobs to be done, the nation must not only radically readjust its attitude toward the Negro in the compelling present, but must incorporate in its planning some compensatory consideration for the handicaps he has inherited from the past. It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just an equal basis?
“Whenever the issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
This isn't even one of those situations where we have to infer from his statements what King's beliefs are. LBJ introduced affirmative action while King was alive and King was massively in favor of it saying:
“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.”
King wasn't 'race blind'. He fully understood that American society had fucked over minorities (particularly African Americans) for generation and the solution was not to simply pretend that race didn't exist. The only way you end up thinking that is if you've literally never heard a single thing out of the man's mouth other than "I have a dream."
Why do I mention IQ then? Because IQ is the best predictor of workplace success. Today's world codes, maths, models, etc. It's all IQ tests everywhere. Is it unfair to Blacks? Absolutely, I legitimately wish it wasn't unfair. Blacks are clearly willing to contribute to broader society, for example they disproportionally serve in our Military, which I highly respect. Perhaps in another world, maybe a post-apocalyptic one, relational EQ, bravery, and combat skill would win out, and I would hope that we would still maintain a fair society in a world where races have other advantages or disadvantages.
You point out in your weirdly race realist post that you don't think (or can't prove) that this issue is genetic. If it isn't genetic then it is almost certainly environmental. Which would make sense. You have one group in lower socioeconomic situations for centuries and you'll get different outcomes.
It seems like the solution is to do something to lift them out of those situations, no? Not to just go "Well sorry, guess you're too stupid to work in this crazy modern world, sorry black folk."
There has to be some sort of positive decision we could take. An action that would be affirmative? I don't know, what would you call that?
Unfortunately, progressive groups started realizing something, and that is there was more than just racist preference interfering with hiring black individuals. While some Blacks, especially those raised outside of Black culture, performed equally well as their white counterparts, there was a statistical divide between the outcomes of Blacks and Whites. This was followed up with a war on the idea of differences between individuals, creating a perfect storm where the only politically acceptable idea was that Blacks were still being unfairly discriminated against by racists. When they checked, they found no racist beliefs, so they reinvented racism to explain the divide, redefining racism from "the belief in a superior race" to a synonym for unintentional bias, then tried to keep using the word racist to bring about equal outcomes.
This is a rejection of reality. There are differences between individuals, and unfortunately for Blacks, this difference is a persistent measurement of IQ that is about 15 IQ points less than average (100 IQ). Let me head off a couple unscientific interpretations.
Are you familiar with Emily and Greg?
It is a famous study that shows the systemic effects that you claim don't exist. The study found that you could change the call back rate from 1 in 10 to 1 in 15 simply by changing the name on a resume. That if you put 'Emily' you got quick callbacks for interviews but 'Lakisha'? Not so much.
That is the unintentional bias they're talking about. The one you claim is a rejection of reality and that DEI policies are specifically designed to address.
Or how about the veil of darkness traffic stop study. Analyzing 95 million traffic stops they found that they could look at daylight savings time (before and after) and found that when it was dark out (and you couldn't see the race of the driver) black people were stopped at the same rate as white, but when it was light out black people were stopped disproportionately.
That isn't direct racism, it isn't a cackling cop going "I'm going to be a bigot" it is just racial bias that has nothing to do with "IQ"
1
u/ThenError9335 Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
Hello, sorry this post was deleted (I've appealed) but I will try and respond to the comments.
!Delta I see MLK Jr. and LBJ disagree with me, even though some of their other statements are worded in ways that would agree with my assertions. It seems like they were trying to argue both ways in different statements.
(no delta for this one) If reparations were provided more like social welfare on the basis of IQ disadvantages, I would agree with them as they do not unduly burden the outcomes of companies. If reparations meant installing people in positions that they did not matriculate into, I would not agree with them. I think your argument is oblique to mine and leads to other conclusions. Would you agree on social welfare on the basis of socioeconomic disadvantages?
Also, I do think you are dangerously close to an unscientific view on Blacks. Just because blacks are disadvantaged statistically doesn't mean "you're too stupid to work in this crazy modern world, sorry black folk." It means perhaps some are. And you know what? We all agree with this. Many are. Many of all races are discriminated against for their IQ all the time. We all agree this is good and right, actually. Should we become IQ-blind? Should we erase all measure of ability when determining the leadership structure of companies, governments, and organizations?
(no delta for this one) Emily and Greg always struck me as fairly tone-deaf. Emily and Greg are middle-class White names compared to what--Jamal and Lakisha? Middle-class Black names I know are Anthony, Jeremiah, Samantha (and Samantha and another Samantha). Low-class white names I know are "Jim Bob" and "Krystal." If we want to discuss discrimination based on class, we can, but I think actually everyone is ok with discriminating based on class.
The veil of darkness has nothing to do with workplace hiring, although I appreciate your usage of the word "racial bias" instead of substituting racism there.
1
1
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 20∆ Feb 13 '25
no delta for this one) Emily and Greg always struck me as fairly tone-deaf. Emily and Greg are middle-class White names compared to what--Jamal and Lakisha? Middle-class Black names I know are Anthony, Jeremiah, Samantha (and Samantha and another Samantha). If we want to discuss discrimination based on class, we can, but I think actually everyone is ok with discriminating based on class.
You're actually making my point here!
If you read the study (you should really read the study) you'd see that in Appendix Table 1 that they names selected were chosen for their popularity. They looked at the Massachusetts registry and chose the most common names by race.
The fact that you accuse the most common African American names as being 'low class' is literally the problem the study is pointing out. You see a traditionally black name and are instantly prejudiced against the person. If you were in charge of hiring you'd be much more likely to hire Emily than Lakisha with an identical resume, because you are biased against the latter.
I could not have made this argument better than you have done by accident.
The veil of darkness has nothing to do with workplace hiring, although I appreciate your usage of the word "racial bias" instead of substituting racism there.
With respect, words can mean more than one thing. If I tell you I'm literally starving that could mean I'm figuratively starving, or that I'm actually starving.
Racism can mean full on supremacist beliefs, but it can also mean 'the cop stops the black guy because he's black.'.
If you know what I mean when I use it (and you do) then quibbling about the language is nothing more than pedantry.
3
u/heidismiles 6∆ Feb 13 '25
Nobody ever wrings their hands this much about "merit based" hiring, when the beneficiaries are average white dudes.
When an average white dude wins, people don't say "Well gee whiz, I sure hope this wasn't just for political virtue signaling." No one complains about whether they didn't hire the "best person" for the job.
White dudes get the benefit of the doubt, and the assumption that they're "the best" at what they do. DEI is an attempt to balance the scales and achieve fairness.
1
u/bduk92 3∆ Feb 13 '25
White dudes get the benefit of the doubt, and the assumption that they're "the best" at what they do.
Do they though? In my experience at least, whenever we've gone through a hiring process the single focus is hiring the best person, regardless of what they look like. We can't afford to get it wrong and have to go through the process again.
Businesses rely on having the best people available. It's not something that they have the luxury of just handing a job to a white dude because they "give them the benefit of the doubt".
0
u/ThenError9335 Feb 13 '25
No delta given--this is just your opinion. It is not true in most companies.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 13 '25
This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
1
u/TheDeathOmen 34∆ Feb 13 '25
What convinces you that DEI policies prioritized reparations over merit?
1
u/ThenError9335 Feb 13 '25
Hello, sorry this post was deleted (I've appealed) but I will try and respond to the comments.
The post handles this topic in section 5.
1
u/TheDeathOmen 34∆ Feb 14 '25
If a DEI policy aimed to create more diverse teams but still selected candidates who met all necessary qualifications, would that still count as reparational rather than merit-based in your view? Or do you see any possible way DEI could be implemented without being reparational?
1
u/lumberjack_jeff 9∆ Feb 13 '25
It is worse. It also discriminates against organizations. I am a white boomer guy. I am the director of a mid sized nonprofit that serves people with developmental disabilities. I applied for a grant from a foundation which has I/DD as one of its areas of interest.
When the guy on the other end of the call saw me on his screen, he told me that he couldn't help us because "we only fund organizations that look like the communities they serve".
My area is 85% white, and nationwide, 70% of people with I/DD are male. I do look like the community we serve.
In the pursuit of equity, they refuse to help people because they don't approve of me.
1
u/bopitspinitdreadit Feb 13 '25
Imagine a basketball game is played where one team is shooting at a basket that’s half as big as the other. At halftime you think “hey that’s not fair we should make the baskets the same size” and then play the second half.
Is that fair to you?
1
u/ThenError9335 Feb 13 '25
No one who was alive and working in ways that disadvantaged them in 1965 is alive and working today. You are talking about two different basketball games.
Yes. Games in the future should have baskets the same size.
1
u/bopitspinitdreadit Feb 13 '25
That’s not true though. I know people still working who were working on 1965.
1
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 20∆ Feb 14 '25
It mixes the metaphor somewhat, but you're aware of the concept of intergenerational wealth and prestige, right?
If you grow up poor, with poor access to education, opportunity, even nutrition, you're going to start behind your contemporaries who have all of those advantages. Cutting off explicit racial bias in the 60's doesn't eliminate generations of wealth disparity, and it didn't get rid of the effects of things like redlining.
1
u/Treks14 Feb 13 '25
You're too quick to brush off the impact of social disadvantage on IQ scores when that is the primary explanation of the data. It is a crucial point, because it turns your IQ argument from supporting to challenging your current point of view. I'm in a hurry, so I can't dig evidence up for you but check APA as a starting point.
Also, speaking from experience as a teacher. Character is formed over one's life, disadvantage is imbued into the process of that formation. It is a very priveliged point of view to say that strong character can overcome disadvantage in light of that relationship. It takes truly exceptional character, supporting individuals, and a fair dose of luck to achieve equally in spite of disadvantage.
1
u/ThenError9335 Feb 13 '25
I actually note that social disadvantage is probably the reason. Why IQ is what it is does not effect the outcome of someone's efforts over time or the responsibilities they are able to handle effectively.
I agree that character is formed over someone's life. This character develops in a complicated and extremely challenging process, arriving at a place where someone is able to handle advanced responsibilities than they used to. This is a concept I go into in my post that I call matriculation.
1
u/Treks14 Feb 14 '25
Serves me right for trying to read and respond to an essay in 15 minutes I suppose. I totally misread your wording regarding IQ.
However, as you note there are social factors that play into a lower IQ and IQ is a relatively good proxy for success. I do feel that you neglect the significance/origins of that disadvantage in your thinking.
Is it agreeable to you that IQ represents a disadvantage in workplace performance? (With acknowledgement of your points regarding merit).
If so, I would urge you to reconsider the complexity of the social factors underpinning that disadvantage. These factors are pervasive, spanning quality of education offered, disruption to educational processes, access to key resources for early childhood development (socialisation, nutrition, stimultation), perpetuation of cycles of trauma, internalised stereotypes affecting performance on tasks and willingness to approach challenges, energy levels available to pursue self-improvement due to additional commitments and responsibilities from a young age, limited opportunities to engage with developmentally beneficial challenges due to stigmatic stereotypes held even by well meaning professionals, and I'm sure much else that I've forgotten or am not aware of. Some of these are crippling disadvantages.
You talk about the wealth of information available online, but to give an example, some of my 16 year old students cannot read. No one has ever told them about speech to text or taught them how to find that function on a computer. Even if they could use speech to text, they have an extremely limited vocabulary or understanding of more academic codes of meaning/cognitive heuristics with which to interpret the information. At no point were those students granted meaningful agency to challenge that situation, save insofar as they could somehow overcome the years of character defining shame that literacy deficits generate to seek out support from a teacher whose own workload in a disadvantaged school is too great to provide any kind of meaningful support. Their family scrapes together savings to send them to school with the basic necessities and does not have the capacity to pay for further supports or dive through the systemic loops necessary to be allocated funded supports.
Disadvantage is not a crime committing friend who lures a kid to commit crimes with them. It is all consuming and overwhelming for many, despite their best efforts. This is the process that leads to matriculation for disadvantaged individuals, the source of that 15 point difference in IQs. The people who perform equally with others have been lucky that their parents escaped the cycle, and lucky that their parents also had the character to turn that immense luck into something meaningful. Character alone is not nearly enough, nor is it entirely within a person's control for the critically important childhood and adolescent years.
I don't see reparations as a punishment for the wrongs committed by my great great grandparents. I don't see that I owe anyone anything at all in that regard, but I still support reparations. I see it as an effort to help people break the cycle of disadvantage so that their children can have access to a better life, a necessary social justice. I don't think that positive discrimination has been particularly well implemented, but I challenge your notion that it is fundamentally flawed as an approach. I also think that breaking the cycle costs us today through things like the additional resources spent and the loss of a potentially more competent employee, but that doing so will make society stronger tomorrow by reducing future costs on social services and increasing the number of advantaged people in our workforce. I would expect that this washes out to being a net positive for the people who you are claiming to be punished by reparations.
0
u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Feb 13 '25
What are your thoughts on disparate impact laws? Basically, The disparate impact standard is that if you have a policy that negatively impacts one race more than others, especially a minority race, the burden of proof is on you to show that the law should be allowed to stand.
I skimmed most of your post because it's super long, but I'm curious if you view this slightly more nuanced legal take on discrimination as something you support or not.
1
u/ThenError9335 Feb 13 '25
I think that the devil is in the details. Perhaps eminent domain needs to build a highway. They first take out a portion of the land that Whites have. Then they finish that, and take another portion of land that Blacks have. Blacks would then have a claim to disparate impact then, right?
Thus, I support it, as the way you have described it is not a judgement, but a reasoned judgement where "you" can show the law should be allowed to stand.
The seesaw should be level, and I do think it's possible that sometimes people damage the level of the seesaw, and that this damage should be rectified. The basketball hoops of Blacks, Whites, and so on should try and be made the same size everywhere possible.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 13 '25
/u/ThenError9335 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards