Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

[pcprogrammer]

By the way -- how can that chart list "employee donations" by company?! Do individuals who donate to a party have to declare which company they work for?!

Not sure but believe the employees can deduct these gifts from their income, so have to declare them on a tax form to be eligible for such a deduction.

[Halcyon]

We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.

[pcprogrammer]

I think politics are related, but not to the extend tszaboo brought on.

The question is where does the D.E.I gets it support from. Who is responsible for proper control in what is wrong and what is right in respect to the rules of hiring. Is it the politicians responsible for legislation or is it the global media (Journalism, social media, etc) just forcing them to make improper rules.

And also why can't they make air tight regulations that show clearly what needs to be done, instead of always very open to some interpretation, and leading to many different implementations of said rules.

[tszaboo]

We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.

How do you suggest we discuss identity politics, without politics?

[EEVblog]

We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.

How do you suggest we discuss identity politics, without politics?

We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?
The OP is after all after advice and is sharing his personal story.

[ebastler]

We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?

Good luck getting those worms back into the can... 

[tszaboo]

We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.

How do you suggest we discuss identity politics, without politics?

We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?
The OP is after all after advice and is sharing his personal story.

Ok, fair enough.

[EEVblog]

We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?

Good luck getting those worms back into the can... 

The other option is calling it done and locking the thread. I don't want to have to do that, as many posts are very insightful and helpful for the OP and many others. #
As always it only takes one or two people to ruin it though and get into a tiff that goes on for pages.

[Nominal Animal]

I wonder how large part of the objection to D-E-I is that it is never discussed, just adopted as axiomatically correct.

For whatever reason, it seems that people are adopting ideas and concepts and completely rejecting any kind of examination of them.

We will never be able to discuss say intersectionalism or the difference between equity and equality, because the willingness to examine the concepts is an even worse offense than simply rejecting them.  (Intersectionalism is related here because it is precisely the origin for equity replacing equality; and many of its proponents openly admit that they believe meritocracy, any kind of individual merit based systems, are their biggest enemy, worse than any oppression per se.)

To simplify a bit, it is easier to be a bigot, because then only your values differ from those of the D-E-I proponents.  If you demand meritocratic treatment, equality among individuals, and reject tribality, you violate their entire ideological basis, and are therefore a worse enemy.

For the same reasons I value diversity, I value discussions and arguments over important matters.  I know that if I was a ruler, I would be a despot; and that if I only explain how I see things, and let the majority rule (you know, democracy), then the results are likely to be better because the extremes tend to be "filed off" and something that a big majority can accept, will be done.  (Roughly speaking; power and money having such strong corruptive tendencies, and whatnot.)

Therefore, I find this rejection of rational, critical discussion about such core tenets and axioms, a deadly risk.

Companies and most organisations tend to have a hierarchical structure, which makes them at the same time more and less vulnerable.  More, because only a small number of executives need to be swayed, to sway the complete company.  Less, because if you have good executives (meaning hungry for money and power, but still team players and somewhat controllable by the board or owners so they won't simply sell the company for their personal benefit), they will be swayed more by commercial reality than the social one.  I know very few executives outside Finland, so I don't know where on that swayability spectrum typical ones lie, and it would be interesting to hear your views.

[IanB]

I wonder how large part of the objection to D-E-I is that it is never discussed, just adopted as axiomatically correct.

For whatever reason, it seems that people are adopting ideas and concepts and completely rejecting any kind of examination of them.

Sometimes it is discussed, and reasons are given. For example, having a diversity policy helps to maximize the pool of candidates when hiring. Also, having a diverse workforce helps to bring more perspectives to product design and development, and it helps to reflect more customer viewpoints and avoids narrow stereotyping, therefore potentially broadening product appeal. (It could help to avoid, for example, the famous automatic hand soap dispenser that only recognizes lightly pigmented skin.)

[james_s]

And that's 2014, if you would take that image from today  And the republicans now an extreme right wing party.
I'm against all radicalization, since I was born in a communist country, which then turned into a failed state, I know too damn well, that you have to keep the politicians in check. But the public in the US is asking for even more radicalization from the parties.

I largely blame social media for this. The algorithms create huge ideologically aligned echo chambers and the net effect of this is a positive feedback loop where any ideology gets more and more extreme and people get less and less exposed to dissenting views. Unfortunately short of somehow killing social media I don't see a way to change this.

[james_s]

You are right that woman should be introduced to engineering or technical professions early on. But I guess early on means just after the cradle. Don't push the stereo type gender specific toys onto kids and see if anything changes.

Nobody pushed gender specific toys on me as a kid. I wasn't interested in most toys, instead I was fascinated by lightbulbs and electricity since my earliest memories, in fact my first word was "light" and I still to this day tend to look up and see what sort of lights are in a room. I also naturally gravitated toward machines, cars, trains, airplanes, engines, I think it's obvious that some people are hardwired to have an interest in some things over others.

[IanB]

I largely blame social media for this. The algorithms create huge ideologically aligned echo chambers and the net effect of this is a positive feedback loop where any ideology gets more and more extreme and people get less and less exposed to dissenting views. Unfortunately short of somehow killing social media I don't see a way to change this.

It's also weirdly contradictory, since from most perspectives the Democratic party seems to be an alternative Republican party with an identity crisis.

[tom66]

I guess a really good question is while it is pleasant to believe a meritocracy exists, we have to accept a huge amount of where people get in life is just damn luck.

And I'm not just talking about the initial luck of e.g. having good parents or the right genetics or the right teachers, I mean throughout life, you will always have people where probabilities have lined up just right to produce the best outcomes.

For instance, I think it's difficult to believe that e.g. Bill Gates was a particularly skilled programmer, and that's why he became, at one point, the world's richest man.  No, it's more likely that he was just in the right place at the right time many, many times over.  He won the life-lottery, multiple times. 

That being said, I do not think this disposes of the idea of a meritocracy existing; it is reasonably obvious that those who are most successful did not achieve that by *just luck*, merely it is what accelerated their outcome from good to excellent.  Though, to counter this, you have individuals who have earned their position through nothing but luck.  To use an apolitical example, the Queen of England cannot have been particularly skilled to end up as monarch, she was just born into the right family.  There are plenty of other examples of meritless positions.

Can we ever claim to have a true meritocracy when meritless positions exist?

[IanB]

Though, to counter this, you have individuals who have earned their position through nothing but luck.  To use an apolitical example, the Queen of England cannot have been particularly skilled to end up as monarch, she was just born into the right family.  There are plenty of other examples of meritless positions.

This is true, but if you look at history, many monarchs have been bad at the job and have been failures with a short tenure. It might be argued that if kings and queens had been selected on merit rather than on right of succession there might have been fewer bad ones.

[james_s]

I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and we must simply accept that luck will always play a part. No matter what system one has there will always be a luck component. Sometimes a person will do everything right and things still won't work out, other times someone ends up in the right place at the right time and something falls into their lap, that's just part of life. Some people are born smarter, some better looking, some in better locations, some have better personalities and make friends with the right people, there's no way to change any of that, it just is.

[pcprogrammer]

Nobody pushed gender specific toys on me as a kid. I wasn't interested in most toys, instead I was fascinated by lightbulbs and electricity since my earliest memories, in fact my first word was "light" and I still to this day tend to look up and see what sort of lights are in a room. I also naturally gravitated toward machines, cars, trains, airplanes, engines, I think it's obvious that some people are hardwired to have an interest in some things over others.

I don't remember that much of my early years, but do know that I also had an interest in electrics. Maybe because my dad was an electrician and we got all kind of technical toys at some point. One recollection will shock most parents nowadays if it would happen. My brother and I were playing around a bit with small metal rods, wires and here it comes and extension lead. I was poking with a metal rod in one of the holes, while my brother stuck a bit of wire in the other hole. We were sitting on an insulated surface, so no problem so far. Until my brother touched me with the wire. Definitely not a nice feeling, but it did not drive me away from the field

[pcprogrammer]

I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and we must simply accept that luck will always play a part. No matter what system one has there will always be a luck component. Sometimes a person will do everything right and things still won't work out, other times someone ends up in the right place at the right time and something falls into their lap, that's just part of life. Some people are born smarter, some better looking, some in better locations, some have better personalities and make friends with the right people, there's no way to change any of that, it just is.

Only when back stabbing is called a skill then meritocracy was there to help many to the top. There are lots of people that force their luck. This too is a lesson learnt from history. How did some become kings in the first place and only held on with firm ruling. Most often over the backs of many good people.

How many managers only skills are a loud voice or a brown nose for that matter. Also a way to work yourself to the top.

If it was really about some technical skills alone, many of us would be the millionaires.

[fourfathom]

I guess a really good question is while it is pleasant to believe a meritocracy exists, we have to accept a huge amount of where people get in life is just damn luck.

This is hugely true, and those of us who have been lucky should never forget it. 

Engineering-related: I have friends who are probably smarter than me, and have worked harder than me in the same sector, but their companies/products crashed and burned while mine was a spectacular success.  The difference was marketing, sales, particular market niche, backing, timing, and a very large amount of luck.  I had very little to do with any of that -- I was given the task of building a team and developing a product.  I am quite proud of the job we did -- we definitely weren't the weak link in the chain.  But a chain we were.

I was talking with a friend the other day about the effects of technology, and how good ideas can have bad results.  I reminded him that we live in a chaotic world, and told him about the Ray Bradbury story "A Sound of Thunder", where a time-traveler to the age of dinosaurs accidentally steps on a butterfly, resulting in huge changes in the present. (On the same topic, "The Simpsons" has a funny episode where Homer, while attempting to repair a toaster, accidentally creates a time machine.)

I then pointed out that every day we are (virtually) stepping on butterflies.  You never know exactly what's going to happen as a result of your action (or inaction).  Of course this doesn't mean that we should do obviously stupid things, and the saying "You make your own luck" is to some extent true.  But it's all a bit humbling.

[tpowell1830]

I wonder how large part of the objection to D-E-I is that it is never discussed, just adopted as axiomatically correct.

For whatever reason, it seems that people are adopting ideas and concepts and completely rejecting any kind of examination of them.

We will never be able to discuss say intersectionalism or the difference between equity and equality, because the willingness to examine the concepts is an even worse offense than simply rejecting them.  (Intersectionalism is related here because it is precisely the origin for equity replacing equality; and many of its proponents openly admit that they believe meritocracy, any kind of individual merit based systems, are their biggest enemy, worse than any oppression per se.)

As I have watched various arguments on this topic, it seems that when the term 'equity' is used, it means equality of outcome. This gets stuck in my mind because it goes flatly against 'equality', in my mind equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome automatically supersedes the tenet of merit, in the case of job performance.

To simplify a bit, it is easier to be a bigot, because then only your values differ from those of the D-E-I proponents.  If you demand meritocratic treatment, equality among individuals, and reject tribality, you violate their entire ideological basis, and are therefore a worse enemy.

For the same reasons I value diversity, I value discussions and arguments over important matters.  I know that if I was a ruler, I would be a despot; and that if I only explain how I see things, and let the majority rule (you know, democracy), then the results are likely to be better because the extremes tend to be "filed off" and something that a big majority can accept, will be done.  (Roughly speaking; power and money having such strong corruptive tendencies, and whatnot.)

Therefore, I find this rejection of rational, critical discussion about such core tenets and axioms, a deadly risk.

Companies and most organisations tend to have a hierarchical structure, which makes them at the same time more and less vulnerable.  More, because only a small number of executives need to be swayed, to sway the complete company.  Less, because if you have good executives (meaning hungry for money and power, but still team players and somewhat controllable by the board or owners so they won't simply sell the company for their personal benefit), they will be swayed more by commercial reality than the social one.  I know very few executives outside Finland, so I don't know where on that swayability spectrum typical ones lie, and it would be interesting to hear your views.

Money is not evil, but the love of money and power often corrupts.

There is(was) a reason for the heirarchy being setup this way and it was to support the company to move forward into stability in the business world and to fend off issues that might trip up the company in making a profit, you know... capitalism, the system that allowed everyone involved to be pulled out of the wretchedness of starvation and poverty. IMO, this dystopia of DEI and other destructive ideologies that are now popping up, may topple capitalism and there will be mass famine in the world, which leads to wars and destruction. History teaches this, but we are doomed to repeat, seems like.

Don't get me wrong, in the true sense of inclusiveness and diversity, I totally agree and practice same, but not at the cost of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. As far as 'equity' is concerned, change it to equality, as in equality of opportunity and we could start making some headway into solving some of the issues.

Since I am somewhat conscientious, which means that I lean a bit to the right, my ideas are shouted down by the ones who are arguing these ideologies. I have leaned more and more this way over the years, seems like most everyone will eventually move a little more to the right as they age and see the reality of the consequences of bad decisions, based on ideology. Doesn't make me all knowing, it just means that I have noticed that I benefit more as I have gotten older by practicing this axiom as my POV has changed. This places me back to my previous statement about everything boils down to individual merit being the way forward.

[Nominal Animal]

For example, having a diversity policy helps to maximize the pool of candidates when hiring.

This I don't understand.  Isn't it more important to get good candidates instead of many candidates?
Or is the idea that as long as you have sufficient numbers of candidates, some of them will do?

I have the same problem with the premise of StackOverflow, where the idea is that the most popular answer is likely the correct one.  There is no proof of that, it's just an assumption, and it actually looks like easy wrong answers are much more popular than harder correct answers; the popularity itself skewing the most voted answers towards easiness instead of correctness.

Similarly, by making sure you have lots of candidates, you are NOT making sure you have good candidates: only that you have lots of them.  According to some studies, those with better than average skills and experience avoid such openings.  So, by making sure you have lots and lots of candidates, you may actually be also cutting out the most skilled and experienced candidates.  Is that rational?  Only when you consider everyone interchangeable representatives of some group.  I do not.

Also, having a diverse workforce helps to bring more perspectives to product design and development, and it helps to reflect more customer viewpoints and avoids narrow stereotyping, therefore potentially broadening product appeal. (It could help to avoid, for example, the famous automatic hand soap dispenser that only recognizes lightly pigmented skin.)

Those have nothing to do with D-E-I, and everything to do with ensuring the business works.  It's also exactly why I've done my best work in a team where we had very different viewpoints, and only slightly overlapping domains of core knowledge: such a team can cover a wider range than any single person.

Please, do remember that you don't need to convince any of us that having a workplace with individuals from different backgrounds is a good thing.  We already know that and agree.  We've also agreed that inclusion, accepting any individual regardless of their social attributes, is a good thing.  Both of these things can be shown to help create better products, and make a more interesting workplace.  They do not make up for lack of knowledge, skill, or experience, but when the necessary knowledge and skill and experience is there, the next thing to look for is diversity and inclusion.  Not because it's morally or ethically right, but because it can be shown to lead to better products and processes, given good enough administration.

It is the equity (equality of outcome), quotas, and tribalist attitudes, that are invariably claimed to be necessary for D-E-I, without discussion.
Even you yourself picked topics that are obviously useful for a company to consider, and then just claimed they somehow support D-E-I.
I do not agree.  I claim that the described actions are useful in any case, but that when it comes to D-E-I, they are too often associated with the tribalist/classist "we only award minority group members and females, because we're diverse and inclusive" that negates any positive benefits; and that it is this association that is axiomatic and outside any criticism.

Of course, that leads to  one of the strategies a good company PR person can adopt: just do business as before, but describe all actions using the D-E-I -speak.
(I couldn't do that myself, because I really, really hate misleading people like that, even when the purpose is a positive one.  But I can see how it would make sense for a business to adopt that; it could be the least risky option.)

[sokoloff]

Also, having a diverse workforce helps to bring more perspectives to product design and development, and it helps to reflect more customer viewpoints and avoids narrow stereotyping, therefore potentially broadening product appeal. (It could help to avoid, for example, the famous automatic hand soap dispenser that only recognizes lightly pigmented skin.)

Those have nothing to do with D-E-I, and everything to do with ensuring the business works.  It's also exactly why I've done my best work in a team where we had very different viewpoints, and only slightly overlapping domains of core knowledge: such a team can cover a wider range than any single person.

Please, do remember that you don't need to convince any of us that having a workplace with individuals from different backgrounds is a good thing.  We already know that and agree.  We've also agreed that inclusion, accepting any individual regardless of their social attributes, is a good thing.  Both of these things can be shown to help create better products, and make a more interesting workplace.  They do not make up for lack of knowledge, skill, or experience, but when the necessary knowledge and skill and experience is there, the next thing to look for is diversity and inclusion.  Not because it's morally or ethically right, but because it can be shown to lead to better products and processes, given good enough administration.

IanB doesn't have to convince anyone who is still reading page 11 of this thread; that's true. But I believe that people aren't born knowing that diversity of background and experience leads to greater lateral thinking and better products.

To me, the fact that the dose makes the poison is a substantial part of the difficulty of debating these topics. The optimum amount of DEI awareness/participation is neither zero nor infinite. If person A believes we've done enough, person B may experience that as thinking that person A thinks the right amount is zero. Conversely, when person B says we need to do more, person A can assume that person B thinks the right amount is infinite.

(I completely agree with your equality of opportunity vs outcome points.)

[pcprogrammer]

Slightly besides the topic, but certainly related in the long run.

In the Dutch news today some worry was expressed about illiteracy in the Netherlands. 2.5 million people of 16 and older, about 18% of the Dutch population, have problems with reading, writing and calculus. A minority that will need inclusion in the work force. Good for the end result I doubt it. Does it show that education is failing, most likely.

[fourfathom]

We've also agreed that inclusion, accepting any individual regardless of their social attributes, is a good thing.

Up to a point...

We also have to consider how an individual affects the team dynamics.  Some people, while perhaps being brilliant, have such poisonous personalities that nobody else wants to work with them.  I've had to deal with this kind of problem, and sometimes we can put the difficult case in their own bubble, alone or with a few others who can tolerate the situation  But other times we just have to terminate their employment.  Or, if we can spot it in time we just don't hire them.

Of course there's a continuum from easy to impossible, and most of us manage to get along quite well.  I am also aware that "team dynamics" can be a cover for racism / sexism / etc.

[IanB]

For example, having a diversity policy helps to maximize the pool of candidates when hiring.

This I don't understand.  Isn't it more important to get good candidates instead of many candidates?
Or is the idea that as long as you have sufficient numbers of candidates, some of them will do?

I think you are being willfully obtuse here. You have a pool to choose from. If you artificially restrict the size of the pool, it is possible you might have excluded the best choice. For example, suppose some hypothetical conservative company in prior decades were to pre-filter all the resumes and only keep the ones for males under 40 with western sounding names? Don't you think they would have a strong chance of missing out on some really good people?