Not the OP, but I believe any distribution of limited resources could be seen as inherently discriminatory or racist or classist or whatever ist one wants.
If there is only 1 job but 10 candidates, the job has to go to someone. If everyone has the same scores on an exam, what's the fair way? Flip a coin? Perhaps. What if there are intangible skills/knowledge that are important for the job? One person has a better score on the exam, another person speaks a language (or dialect) that is important for the job. Maybe 9 of 10 come from one academic background, the 10th comes from a different one...which may actually provide a different perspective and provide new insights and break group think. Maybe one comes from a culture that is more confrontational, which means they may speak out more than others.
So many factors are intangible or at least not explicit and I think that's where "merit" can become so dimensionally reduced, not realizing how multidimensional each individual is.
In academia, there are more qualified people than positions, on an extreme level in fact. I agree, we have to distinguish people. We must distinguish on intangible characteristics sometimes. Suppose I am hiring for a position in an department and there are three finalists. They are all extremely qualified. What is an acceptable way to distinguish people? "Alice was more thoughtful and well-spoken during than Bob and Charlie, I believe she will make a better colleague and mentor to our undergraduates. I suggest we accept her." Compare with the following. "Alice is a black, homosexual, woman unlike Bob and Charlie, who are white, presumably homosexual men. Our university has a stated DEI policy promoting the acceptance of more women and BIPOC faculty. Therefore we should admit Alice." Do you see the difference?
We do not need to enter a deep philosophical debate about what is "merit" and its many dimensions. I agree with you, it's complicated. But the issue is universities are explicitly discriminating and ranking candidates and students on the basis of DEI factors. We know this because, as in the CU case I have linked to already in other comments, their very own notes say so! This is just the tip of the iceberg.
> Alice was more thoughtful and well-spoken during than Bob and Charlie
Is a relative statement. Someone who expresses anger in one culture can be considered thoughtful and in another culture can be considered disrespectful.
I agree it's super complex and even believe that it may have been too formulated and structured. I personally want humans of different cultures to befriend each other. But intercultural connection can be uncomfortable and hard and have lots of conflict, and some people don't do that well without some nudging.
Again, I think the nudging has gone too far, yet I don't think the solution is to pendulum swing all the way back.
I think this is well articulated. My response would be: what is the north star? What is the aspirational state? It is perhaps inherently unachievable, but what should we be aiming towards? I suggest that that be the thing which guides all other policies. If we intend to admit students on the basis of ability, an SAT score is just about the fairest way to do that. The waters became very muddy over the last few decades because universities decided that having people of many different skin colours was the goal. They dressed that goal up by pretending it had something to do with diversity, but that fails the sniff test. A poor black and white man have much more in common with each other than they do a rich man. If diversity were the goal, students would have been selected on the basis of place of residence, wealth, religion, voting affiliation, values, and interests. Quite the opposite occurred. In many universities more than 90% of faculty identify as left wing. So the goal had nothing to do with diversity.
I suggest we instead return to the idea that aptitude be our north star. IQ tests were originally created to provide opportunity to underrepresented children who might otherwise have been looked over due to their socioeconomic conditions or race. Let us return to a colour-blind north star.
> If we intend to admit students on the basis of ability, an SAT score is just about the fairest way to do that.
(Bashes head on table.) Intelligence, aptitude, and potential are incredibly hard to measure and judge in a purely objective way. The SAT is just a thin slice of that picture.
> In many universities more than 90% of faculty identify as left wing.
And less than 10% of university astrophysicists think the world is flat. Where's the diversity?!
> (Bashes head on table.) Intelligence, aptitude, and potential are incredibly hard to measure and judge in a purely objective way. The SAT is just a thin slice of that picture.
What is a better test?
> And less than 10% of university astrophysicists think the world is flat. Where's the diversity?!
I suspect you wouldn't be making this naturalistic fallacy if the ratio were flipped. Either way, you appear to confirm that the purpose was not diversity.
As far as the SAT: You can take prep classes, hire a tutor, and do all sorts of resource-intensive things that will boost your SAT without really contributing to your overall intelligence. You can study for the test. And guess who is more likely to have resources available to access these things? Is a rich kid who spends a year in prep inherently smarter than a poor kid who can't afford a tutor and has to work an evening job to help her family make ends meet?
And why, more broadly, are we completely fine tilting the tables in favor of the wealthy and entrenched but the second something seems like it might give an ounce of advantage to a disadvantaged class people lose their minds?
We get rid of DEI, but I haven't heard a word about getting rid of legacy admissions and rooting out nepotism.
Um. Racism and sexism have not been eliminated in our country. I mean, just look at who's running the executive branch of the government at the moment. We need initiatives to lift up traditionally underrepresented groups now more than ever.
My guy you aren't getting it. You were lied to. You bought it. You are just plain wrong and openly propagating a lie as fact and you seem to be doubling down.
From psychology department at University of Washington [1]:
> I advise deleting the statement below as it shows that URM [underrepresented minority] applications were singled out and evaluated differently than non-URM applications (which is not allowed as [redacted] noted)
> At a faculty meeting, someone whose name is redacted “informed faculty that the Hiring Committee had three outstanding candidates and so they used DEI to distinguish and select a first offer"
Nobody is saying it's not happening but the notion that it's systemic -- as the opposite is -- is categorically a lie and, again, as you've been told a few times in this thread, DEI's goal is to prevent even this scenario from happening as its intended goal is to foster merit-only hiring.
My most charitable reading of your comment is that the DEI policies were simply grossly misunderstood by the department in this case. Therefore, it would seem that an unintended consequence of DEI policies has been to foster the scenarios it was designed to prevent.
> DEI's goal is to prevent even this scenario from happening as its intended goal is to foster merit-only hiring.
That was 20 years ago, today merit only hiring is called evil by the same people, there is a reason people started to get really against what they do lately.
(Psst: There's no such thing as purely merit-based hiring. And DEI's mostly just about just making sure perfectly capable individuals aren't passed over or alienated because they're not white men. Because that's what's been going on for most of the past -- checks notes -- 500 years of American history. Pass it on.)
I understand that that is the stated intention. I also believe they are racist and discriminatory.
> Not sure you’re aware of this, but academia used to be basically off-limits to anyone not white and male.
I also understand this. And now it is not. What is the point here?