Prior to the decision, anerican colleges were allowed to admit who ever they want so they could have a diverse student body regardless of academic standing.
It's why there was a common joke about being, " native American" as your golden ticket to the ivy leagues.
With the strike down, it refocuses admissions solely on academic performance which was what they used to be based on before the 1960s.
I am pointing out that the WP explicitly says here that Harvard and others were using race-based admissions as opposed to a more center-left friendly phrasing that schools couldn't use race as a factor for admissions or that the Supreme court struck down affirmative action.
Oh, I didn't read the cynicism in your comment. I didn't really think the quote sounded like an uncharacteristically frank choice of words (or at least, not so much as to warrant mocking their usual choice of words).
As someone who works in a very diversified company, and frequently hires candidates of all cultures and creeds, the entire "DEI" discussion is deeply cringe-worthy to me, especially the comments under this article.
A company that is homogenous in race and culture turns out products that don't support, they turn out ads that get called out for racial and cultural insensitivity, and actually exclude people that aren't reflected by the population making it's products. Running a company that excludes non-majority race and cultured employees is a deeply political statement that caters to old-world ideals that are dying fast, just like the politicians pushing them.
There is deep rooted bias around the entire world, to act like it doesn't exist is simply coddling the classic narratives of racial superiority propped up for ages by people who are creating a cultural advantage for themselves. We battle the ideal of immigration for some cultures, while other cultures can travel anywhere they want freely, and it highlights a willful ignorance and mentality that is deep rooted, but also contradictory to progress and innovation. It may feel comfortable to only be surrounded by people with the same cultural norms and upbringing as yourself, but if you only live in that bubble, you're part of the problem. Life is far better when we open up to new experiences and people, and that's exactly what diversity represents...
There is a far more fair way to interview candidates, where bias can be eliminated, but most companies foist untrained, unskilled, and politically biased leaders into leadership positions all the time without any sort of accountability. So many companies completely miss the mark on why diversity is necessary, even governments miss the plot completely. There are still so many racially homogenous countries out there build on ideals of racial and cultural superiority that it infects the world deeply in some of the most disguised ways possible.
On the inverse, as Bill Burr cited numerous times [Language Warning] (e.g. -- https://youtu.be/O1xgXJ5_Q34?si=n5XZ2MqPhHHgvSdu&t=195), Diversity and inclusion programs often are frequently led and geared towards the advancement of already privileged Caucasian women, which although rightfully under-represented, rank far above racial minority women and often above racial minority men in terms of pay and responsibility.
They can fight all the political wars they want over this issue, but in my long history of work, I have never seen a culturally homogenous business succeed in the long term, without differences in experience and culture, ideas are stale and tone deaf. It works in all ways too of course, but these days, the biggest indication of flawed leadership is a company or agency leadership photo where the majority percentage of the people in it are all the same skin tone.
> It may feel comfortable to only be surrounded by people with the same cultural norms and upbringing as yourself, but if you only live in that bubble, you're part of the problem.
What problem?
> Life is far better when we open up to new experiences and people, and that's exactly what diversity represents...
Why do you believe you know what a good life is for other people?
> I have never seen a culturally homogenous business succeed in the long term
I'm sorry but there is so much nonsense in your comment, it's hard to know where to begin.
You've made no point as to your views, you've only picked out parts of mine and then played higher ground.... There's nothing really to respond to in essence.
Tell me why you're personally against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (With key skills and experience as the primary measure)?
In my book, all of those things work better for everyone in finding success.
I don't believe there's any intrinsic value in diversity. I believe that there's truth in the argument that heterogeneity leads to lower group cohesion and solidarity. Personally I think that in business neither is it something desirable nor is it undesirable. As such, I'm against wasting resources and potentially hiring unsuitable candidates because some people believe it's morally correct.
I'm decidedly against equity for multiple reasons. First off it's impossible to achieve. If you think even just of your own extended family, what would it take to achieve equity in say income and status? Who deserves how much in order to achieve equal outcomes? Secondly, who gets to decide all these things? Who's disadvantaged and why and by how much? How much is their own doing? How far are you going to drill down? There's so much potential for abuse for whoever makes those decisions.
"Inclusion" I'm going to ignore because honestly suggesting someone is against it is mainly bait. The term seems to just be bunched in there with the other two, because it gives the acronym as a whole a stronger defense.
>I have never seen a culturally homogenous business succeed in the long term
This is a confusing statement. Of course, most successful businesses historically have been culturally homogenous, not necessarily because their biases kept out "others", but because there were very few "others" to keep out. Even if we ignore the cases of segregation (explicit or systemic), this is just generally true of groups of humans that work together - not just successful businesses, and not just businesses. People who didn't have similar goals, attitudes, values, or whatever, were generally either physically absent from the region, or simply were not interested in the group. The world was - and a chunk of the world still is - homogeneous in this way.
I.e. even if we oversimplify and say yes, "diversity" is purely good, it still seems patently wrong to assert something so extreme as implying that a successful organization of humans who are culturally similar is rare. It feels like I'm missing some additional qualifiers that you're leaving implicit.
>the biggest indication of flawed leadership is a company or agency leadership photo where the majority percentage of the people in it are all the same skin tone.
Does this opinion come from your actual experience or just from your ideological indoctrination?
Virtually all non-western businesses have zero concern about fostering racial diversity, they are all failures in your opinion?
You can't solve social issues by forcefully addressing the symptoms. Diversity, in most of the ways the word is used, is one of the issues this principle applies to the strongest. A less subtle example: You can't solve economic inequality by a forced one-step redistribution of trillions of dollars, due to the ephemeral nature of the solution, collateral damage, and severity of the backlash, to put it lightly. You have to fight to address the system, which unfortunately is hard to accomplish, hard to get right, and takes decades to produce results, so no wonder we want to cheat. It's the same with social inequality, but with even less clear options for addressing the system. It's an unfortunate reality of being human. One must accept that diversity is not an all-or-nothing topic. The human part of the equation is too intrinsic, fundamental, and enormous.
The movement to diversity Texan universities died this year thanks to Dan Patrick's incessant attacks on the university system. Before the new law, our deans and associate deans actively encouraged hiring POCs and women faculty but it was always challenging.
25 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 66.8 ms ] thread"After the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions at Harvard and other schools"
It's why there was a common joke about being, " native American" as your golden ticket to the ivy leagues.
With the strike down, it refocuses admissions solely on academic performance which was what they used to be based on before the 1960s.
This is all very coded normally.
A company that is homogenous in race and culture turns out products that don't support, they turn out ads that get called out for racial and cultural insensitivity, and actually exclude people that aren't reflected by the population making it's products. Running a company that excludes non-majority race and cultured employees is a deeply political statement that caters to old-world ideals that are dying fast, just like the politicians pushing them.
There is deep rooted bias around the entire world, to act like it doesn't exist is simply coddling the classic narratives of racial superiority propped up for ages by people who are creating a cultural advantage for themselves. We battle the ideal of immigration for some cultures, while other cultures can travel anywhere they want freely, and it highlights a willful ignorance and mentality that is deep rooted, but also contradictory to progress and innovation. It may feel comfortable to only be surrounded by people with the same cultural norms and upbringing as yourself, but if you only live in that bubble, you're part of the problem. Life is far better when we open up to new experiences and people, and that's exactly what diversity represents...
There is a far more fair way to interview candidates, where bias can be eliminated, but most companies foist untrained, unskilled, and politically biased leaders into leadership positions all the time without any sort of accountability. So many companies completely miss the mark on why diversity is necessary, even governments miss the plot completely. There are still so many racially homogenous countries out there build on ideals of racial and cultural superiority that it infects the world deeply in some of the most disguised ways possible.
On the inverse, as Bill Burr cited numerous times [Language Warning] (e.g. -- https://youtu.be/O1xgXJ5_Q34?si=n5XZ2MqPhHHgvSdu&t=195), Diversity and inclusion programs often are frequently led and geared towards the advancement of already privileged Caucasian women, which although rightfully under-represented, rank far above racial minority women and often above racial minority men in terms of pay and responsibility.
They can fight all the political wars they want over this issue, but in my long history of work, I have never seen a culturally homogenous business succeed in the long term, without differences in experience and culture, ideas are stale and tone deaf. It works in all ways too of course, but these days, the biggest indication of flawed leadership is a company or agency leadership photo where the majority percentage of the people in it are all the same skin tone.
What problem?
> Life is far better when we open up to new experiences and people, and that's exactly what diversity represents...
Why do you believe you know what a good life is for other people?
> I have never seen a culturally homogenous business succeed in the long term
I'm sorry but there is so much nonsense in your comment, it's hard to know where to begin.
This was literally all Western businesses until quite recently.
Tell me why you're personally against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (With key skills and experience as the primary measure)?
In my book, all of those things work better for everyone in finding success.
I'm decidedly against equity for multiple reasons. First off it's impossible to achieve. If you think even just of your own extended family, what would it take to achieve equity in say income and status? Who deserves how much in order to achieve equal outcomes? Secondly, who gets to decide all these things? Who's disadvantaged and why and by how much? How much is their own doing? How far are you going to drill down? There's so much potential for abuse for whoever makes those decisions.
"Inclusion" I'm going to ignore because honestly suggesting someone is against it is mainly bait. The term seems to just be bunched in there with the other two, because it gives the acronym as a whole a stronger defense.
Would you care to elaborate?
This is a confusing statement. Of course, most successful businesses historically have been culturally homogenous, not necessarily because their biases kept out "others", but because there were very few "others" to keep out. Even if we ignore the cases of segregation (explicit or systemic), this is just generally true of groups of humans that work together - not just successful businesses, and not just businesses. People who didn't have similar goals, attitudes, values, or whatever, were generally either physically absent from the region, or simply were not interested in the group. The world was - and a chunk of the world still is - homogeneous in this way.
I.e. even if we oversimplify and say yes, "diversity" is purely good, it still seems patently wrong to assert something so extreme as implying that a successful organization of humans who are culturally similar is rare. It feels like I'm missing some additional qualifiers that you're leaving implicit.
Samsung / WeChat / Bosch / Pirelli?
I'd wager that for decades these companies were culturally homogenous (from a Western perspective), and these examples weren't hard to find...
Does this opinion come from your actual experience or just from your ideological indoctrination?
Virtually all non-western businesses have zero concern about fostering racial diversity, they are all failures in your opinion?