• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Unintended Consequences of Diversity Statements

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
28,189
Points
1,160
Oh hell yeah....


Pro-diversity messages are everywhere, whether you’re searching for a job, playing soccer, or watching the Oscars. Their point is simple: Diversity is good and we need more of it. In the business world, for example, we know that more-diverse groups tend to be more innovative, creative, hard-working, and better at solving problems. Yet despite the proliferation of interest in diversity and costly initiatives aimed at increasing it, discrimination continues to be a major problem in the labor market.

In trying to address discrimination, many organizations now explicitly advertise their dedication to diversity, identifying themselves as “equal opportunity” or “diversity-friendly” employers. The thinking, presumably, is that such statements will increase the diversity of their applicant pool and ultimately of their workforce. We know a lot about how effective these diversity statements are, and, unfortunately, the answer is “not very.” They can even backfire by making organizations less likely to notice discrimination.

On the other hand, we know relatively little about the steps minority job seekers are taking to avoid anticipated discrimination. One way racial minorities may be trying to avoid discrimination is via a practice called “resume whitening” — concealing or downplaying racial cues on a job application to increase the chance of getting a callback for an interview. Resume whitening goes hand-in-hand with the desire to “tone down” or “downplay” race and to maintain a relatively “raceless” workplace identity.

To address this gap, we recently conducted three studies, which will appear in Administrative Science Quarterly, to learn more about whitening and how it is influenced by organizational diversity statements — and about how organizations respond to whitening.

In our first study, we interviewed black and Asian university students who were actively searching for jobs or internships. We found that roughly one-third of our sample had engaged in whitening, and two-thirds knew someone else who had. The main areas where this whitening occurred were with names (e.g., using a “white” first name such as Jenn instead of an Asian first name such as Jing) and descriptions of experience (e.g., dropping “Black” when listing membership in the “Black Engineering Students’ Association”). Among the motivations that interviewees mentioned for whitening, the main reason was to tone down their race in order to avoid discrimination. Importantly, interviewees indicated that they whitened less or not at all when applying to jobs for employers who explicitly state that they value diversity.

In our second study, we tested whether minorities do indeed whiten less when applying for jobs that include pro-diversity statements. We tested this by creating job ads that did or did not mention diversity, asking half of the participants to craft resumes for the pro-diversity jobs and half to craft resumes for the jobs that did not mention diversity. We then compared the resumes that participants created during the experiment with their full resumes that they submitted to us beforehand. Sure enough, participants were half as likely to whiten their resumes when job ads included pro-diversity statements.

Finally, we wanted to examine the consequences of this resume whitening for employment decisions. We created realistic resumes for black and Asian applicants that varied in how much racial information was apparent. We sent these resumes out to 1,600 entry-level jobs posted on job search websites across 16 metropolitan areas in the U.S. Critically, half of these job ads mentioned valuing diversity and the other half did not, which allowed us to see whether diversity statements actually make a difference when it comes to hiring decisions. We created email accounts and phone numbers for our applicants and observed how many callbacks they received.

We found that the whitened versions of both the black and Asian resumes were more than twice as likely to result in a callback as unwhitened resumes, even though the listed qualifications were identical — in line with other studies showing lower callback rates for minority applicants. Most importantly, the discrimination against unwhitened resumes was no smaller for purportedly pro-diversity employers than for employers that didn’t mention diversity in their job ad.

A critical implication of our studies is that to the extent that pro-diversity statements encourage job applicants to let their guard down and disclose more racial information, these statements may be doing more harm than good. If appeals to diversity encourage applicants to reveal racial cues to an organization that has not adequately addressed discriminatory hiring practices, then pro-diversity statements may effectively expose minorities to greater discrimination. Unless the biased evaluation of racial minorities in this critical step for entry into the labor market is addressed, pro-diversity statements may have the exact opposite of their intended effect.

So where do we go from here? Employers need to acknowledge that discrimination still exists and that bias is hardwired into the system. When we are asked to process large amounts of information quickly, cognitive biases such as prejudice and stereotyping tend to prevail. We need innovations in recruitment to disrupt the bias that exists in human brains. Technology may be able to help with this, as can policies such as blind recruitment, where information that could be a clue to any biasing characteristic including race, age, gender, or social class are removed from resumes before they reach the hands of hiring managers. Humans have limited cognitive capacity and naturally rely on shortcuts, so why not only provide the information relevant to the hiring decision?

Minority job seekers reading this might wonder whether they, too, should whiten their resumes, given that it seems to result in more callbacks. Although our results do indicate that whitening can lead to higher callback rates, it is important to remember that it can also mask an applicant’s potential value to a firm. Some of our participants reported deleting prestigious scholarships or involvement in nationally recognized professional societies because these achievements highlighted their racial identities. Masking such accomplishments hides the full value that applicants bring to a job. The only way to get the most from our workforce is for employers and policy makers to implement real initiatives that thoroughly combat biased hiring practices. Moreover, resume whitening won’t prevent employers from discriminating against job seekers during the interview process, or against new hires once they get in the door.

Organizations that put diversity initiatives into place do so with good intentions. They recognize that discrimination is a problem and that embracing diversity has substantial social and economic value. Simply advertising oneself as an equal-opportunity or diversity-friendly employer, however, does not solve the underlying problem of discrimination. Pro-diversity statements may give you a more diverse applicant pool, but it takes more to make workplaces truly fair and inclusive.

 
Dewokening.


Kemi Badenoch: Britain’s diversity drive has backfired​

Inclusive policies in the workplace must not come at the expense of white men, says Business Secretary

Daniel Martin, DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR20 March 2024 • 12:01am




Kemi Badenoch

Mrs Badenoch commissioned a report into whether diversity schemes offered value for money CREDIT: Androniki Christodoulou

Britain’s diversity drive has been “counterproductive”, Kemi Badenoch has said as she warned that inclusion policies must not come at the expense of white men.

The Business Secretary commissioned a report which found that the majority of spending on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) was a waste of money.

The report calls on bosses to take into account disadvantages faced by the white working classes when shaping diversity schemes, rather than focusing on “visible” quotas.

It comes amid a wider government crackdown on wasteful diversity schemes, with Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, using his Budget earlier this month to urge councils to cut spending on such policies and Rishi Sunak appointing a “common sense minister”.

Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Badenoch, who is also equalities minister, says: “The new report shows that, while millions are being spent on these initiatives, many popular EDI practices – such as diversity training – have little to no tangible impact in increasing diversity or reducing prejudice.

“In fact, many practices have not only been proven to be ineffective, they have also been counterproductive.”

She adds: “No group should ever be worse off because of companies’ diversity policies – whether that be black women, or white men ... Performative gestures such as compulsory pronouns and rainbow lanyards are often a sign that organisations are struggling to demonstrate how they are being inclusive.”

Expensive schemes​

Mrs Badenoch commissioned the independent Inclusion at Work Panel last year to investigate whether EDI was working in Britain amid concerns that too much money was being spent on the schemes.

Diversity training aims to help staff understand the types of discrimination, including direct, indirect, harassment and victimisation, and how to treat others with respect.

But the Business Secretary claimed that it had little impact in increasing diversity or reducing prejudice, pointing out that the number of employment tribunals hearing cases brought under the Equality Act had seen a “notable uptick”.

Experts also said that the “well-intentioned” attempts to boost visible diversity could lead to organisations breaking the law by discriminating against white candidates for jobs.

They found that one in four business leaders said their approach to diversity was reactive, such as being “in response to societal events like the Black Lives Matter protests” that started in 2020.

The report recommended that bosses avoid diversity schemes which alienate certain groups – such as the white working class – cause division, and have no impact. It called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to clarify the legal status for employers in relation to diversity and inclusion practice.

It also urged bosses to take into account disadvantages faced by the working classes when shaping diversity schemes, concluding: “Employers must also consider less visible diversity, including socioeconomic and educational background.”

Mrs Badenoch – who last year said that Britain was “the best country in the world to be black” – hits out at “snake oil” diversity schemes and tells firms that their equality strategies must uphold “fairness and meritocracy”.

She says some firms had broken the law under the guise of diversity and inclusion by “censoring beliefs or discriminating against certain groups in favour of others”.

“The report finds that, in some cases, employers are even inadvertently breaking the law under the guise of diversity and inclusion by censoring beliefs or discriminating against certain groups in favour of others,” she says.

“This Government believes that EDI policies should unite rather than alienate employees, and crucially uphold fairness and meritocracy.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/20/kemi-badenoch-clumsy-diversity-drives-no-substitute/
The report cited the example of Cheshire Police, which in 2019 had to pay out £100,000 after being found to have discriminated against a white applicant on the grounds of sexual orientation, race and gender.

RAF discrimination​

The panel also highlighted the RAF’s discrimination against white men as part of its drive to improve diversity. Last year, it admitted that initiatives to increase the numbers of women and people from ethnic minorities had led to unlawful positive discrimination.

An internal inquiry was sparked by the resignation of a female RAF group captain who told her superiors the policy penalised white men. The inquiry found that she had faced significant and unreasonable pressure to meet diversity targets.

Earlier this year, The Telegraph revealed that military personnel wanted to relax clearance checks for ethnic minority officers in a push to hit diversity targets.

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, said the findings showed a “woke” and “extremist culture” had been allowed to infiltrate the Army.
The independent panel said firms should ensure that the number of EDI staff they had represented “value for money”, pointing out that the UK appointed twice as many as any other country.

Freedom of Information requests submitted in 2022 to 6,000 public bodies including the NHS found they employed around 10,000 diversity and inclusion staff, at a cost of £557 million a year to the taxpayer.

Mrs Badenoch is considering a further crackdown on EDI spending in government, with a possible new rule that external consultants should not run such schemes.

It comes after Mr Hunt told government departments last year to sack diversity managers if they wanted to bring in more staff, saying: “Smashing glass ceilings is everyone’s job – not a box to be ticked by hiring a diversity manager.”

Pamela Dow, the chairman of the independent panel, from think tank Civic Future, said: “It has been a privilege to work with such expert colleagues, united in the goal of fairness and belonging in the workplace. Our aim was to support leaders in all sectors to spend time and money well.

“The insights from our wide discussions show how we can build a useful evidence base, track data, improve confidence and trust, and reduce burdens, for organisations across the UK.”

 
Dewokening.




I can’t read past the sub-headline due to paywall, but it says that the efforts haven’t changed prejudices.

Now, those prejudices could be “DEI = Quotas”, but if not, then that seems like a different argument than “DEI disadvantages Caucasian men”.
 
I can’t read past the sub-headline due to paywall, but it says that the efforts haven’t changed prejudices.

Now, those prejudices could be “DEI = Quotas”, but if not, then that seems like a different argument than “DEI disadvantages Caucasian men”.
I thought I copied the article in its entirety....
 
I can’t read past the sub-headline due to paywall, but it says that the efforts haven’t changed prejudices.

Now, those prejudices could be “DEI = Quotas”, but if not, then that seems like a different argument than “DEI disadvantages Caucasian men”.
All she had to do was read Jordan Peterson's letters. Could have saved herself the cost of the survey. Quotas have always resulted in discrimination and discrimination always results in anger and resentment.
 
Going to keep following this. Interesting.

My thoughts? I know a few self highly achieved successful black people and asian people, who absolutely hate this modern woke and DEI crap. But then again they are my age (50) and built their success through hard work, blood, sweat and tears. No free hand outs for them ever.
 
More on the backlash theme...

Time is called on Oregon’s decriminalisation experiment​

The replacement might be where they should have started​


Florists are usually cheerful places. But Gifford’s Flowers, in downtown Portland, has been going through it of late. It’s been broken into three times and employees have been attacked and even bitten, says Jim Gifford, who has been running the store for half a century. Mr Gifford blames Oregon’s decriminalisation of the possession of drugs, which, he says, has led to more “people in drug episodes” coming to his shop. “A blue city in a blue state should be leading,” the lifelong progressive Democrat says. “But also not forgetting about the people that work hard and play by the rules.”

In 2020 Oregonians voted to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin. It was the first (and so far only) state in the country to do so. The change was a massive experiment in treating addiction as a public-health problem. But the state has now concluded that the experiment failed. This month, in the face of ever-increasing overdose rates and public complaints such as Mr Gifford’s, the Democratic-controlled legislature overwhelmingly passed a measure recriminalising the possession of drugs. The governor, Tina Kotek, has said she will sign it.

Overdose deaths have spiked in Oregon, increasing by 42% in the year to September 2023 (compared with a national increase of 2%). Researchers disagree on how much decriminalisation versus the spread in fentanyl is to blame, but none thinks that the state’s experiment managed to decrease deaths. Oregonians are frustrated. Open-air drug use has become particularly blatant.

The replacement law makes the possession of a small amount of drugs a misdemeanour crime punishable by up to 180 days in jail. It does provide paths to addiction care, by offering drug offenders the chance to go directly to detox facilities instead of jail (and to try it again if the first time doesn’t work). “It’s time to reset our guardrails,” Andy Mendenhall, the head of Central City Concern, an addiction-services provider in Portland, told lawmakers. He pointed to people who found choosing between prison and treatment to be a “powerful part of their pathway of recovery”.

Praising the bill, Paige Clarkson, the district attorney in Marion County, believes that the new provisions will allow prosecutors to focus on drug dealers while prioritising treatment for addicts. “Police, sheriff’s deputies, district attorneys, we don’t want to criminalise addiction,” she says. “We want to use the criminal laws to motivate those individuals to get healthy.” Oregon’s new regime would still be quite enlightened.

But its drug experiment is likely to become a cautionary tale anyway, says Floyd Prozanski, the state senator who led the charge in enacting it. Although he still believes in the mission, Mr Prozanski recognises that advocates are going to “have to rebuild the confidence of people not only in Oregon, but around the country. And realise that when we implemented it, we did it wrong.”


 
I can’t read past the sub-headline due to paywall, but it says that the efforts haven’t changed prejudices.

Now, those prejudices could be “DEI = Quotas”, but if not, then that seems like a different argument than “DEI disadvantages Caucasian men”.

I posted the original in a hurry with no commentary.

Here are the bits that grabbed my attention.


The report calls on bosses to take into account disadvantages faced by the white working classes when shaping diversity schemes, rather than focusing on “visible” quotas.

It comes amid a wider government crackdown on wasteful diversity schemes, with Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, using his Budget earlier this month to urge councils to cut spending on such policies and Rishi Sunak appointing a “common sense minister”.

Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Badenoch, who is also equalities minister, says: “The new report shows that, while millions are being spent on these initiatives, many popular EDI practices – such as diversity training – have little to no tangible impact in increasing diversity or reducing prejudice.

“In fact, many practices have not only been proven to be ineffective, they have also been counterproductive.”


She adds: “No group should ever be worse off because of companies’ diversity policies – whether that be black women, or white men ... Performative gestures such as compulsory pronouns and rainbow lanyards are often a sign that organisations are struggling to demonstrate how they are being inclusive.”

Expensive schemes​

Mrs Badenoch commissioned the independent Inclusion at Work Panel last year to investigate whether EDI was working in Britain amid concerns that too much money was being spent on the schemes.

Diversity training aims to help staff understand the types of discrimination, including direct, indirect, harassment and victimisation, and how to treat others with respect.

But the Business Secretary claimed that it had little impact in increasing diversity or reducing prejudice, pointing out that the number of employment tribunals hearing cases brought under the Equality Act had seen a “notable uptick”.

Experts also said that the “well-intentioned” attempts to boost visible diversity could lead to organisations breaking the law by discriminating against white candidates for jobs.

They found that one in four business leaders said their approach to diversity was reactive, such as being “in response to societal events like the Black Lives Matter protests” that started in 2020.

The report recommended that bosses avoid diversity schemes which alienate certain groups – such as the white working class – cause division, and have no impact. It called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to clarify the legal status for employers in relation to diversity and inclusion practice.

It also urged bosses to take into account disadvantages faced by the working classes when shaping diversity schemes, concluding: “Employers must also consider less visible diversity, including socioeconomic and educational background.”

Mrs Badenoch – who last year said that Britain was “the best country in the world to be black” – hits out at “snake oil” diversity schemes and tells firms that their equality strategies must uphold “fairness and meritocracy”.

She says some firms had broken the law under the guise of diversity and inclusion by “censoring beliefs or discriminating against certain groups in favour of others”.

“The report finds that, in some cases, employers are even inadvertently breaking the law under the guise of diversity and inclusion by censoring beliefs or discriminating against certain groups in favour of others,” she says.

“This Government believes that EDI policies should unite rather than alienate employees, and crucially uphold fairness and meritocracy.”

My take on it is that the report found that discrimination is discrimination and discriminating now not only doesn't undo discrimination then but it both hurts the people currently being discriminated against but also impacts those that are supposed to be favoured. Resentment against them builds.

Which where Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King got to in their thinking.

The only way to stop a thing is to stop.
 
More on the backlash theme...

Time is called on Oregon’s decriminalisation experiment​

The replacement might be where they should have started​


Florists are usually cheerful places. But Gifford’s Flowers, in downtown Portland, has been going through it of late. It’s been broken into three times and employees have been attacked and even bitten, says Jim Gifford, who has been running the store for half a century. Mr Gifford blames Oregon’s decriminalisation of the possession of drugs, which, he says, has led to more “people in drug episodes” coming to his shop. “A blue city in a blue state should be leading,” the lifelong progressive Democrat says. “But also not forgetting about the people that work hard and play by the rules.”

In 2020 Oregonians voted to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin. It was the first (and so far only) state in the country to do so. The change was a massive experiment in treating addiction as a public-health problem. But the state has now concluded that the experiment failed. This month, in the face of ever-increasing overdose rates and public complaints such as Mr Gifford’s, the Democratic-controlled legislature overwhelmingly passed a measure recriminalising the possession of drugs. The governor, Tina Kotek, has said she will sign it.

Overdose deaths have spiked in Oregon, increasing by 42% in the year to September 2023 (compared with a national increase of 2%). Researchers disagree on how much decriminalisation versus the spread in fentanyl is to blame, but none thinks that the state’s experiment managed to decrease deaths. Oregonians are frustrated. Open-air drug use has become particularly blatant.

The replacement law makes the possession of a small amount of drugs a misdemeanour crime punishable by up to 180 days in jail. It does provide paths to addiction care, by offering drug offenders the chance to go directly to detox facilities instead of jail (and to try it again if the first time doesn’t work). “It’s time to reset our guardrails,” Andy Mendenhall, the head of Central City Concern, an addiction-services provider in Portland, told lawmakers. He pointed to people who found choosing between prison and treatment to be a “powerful part of their pathway of recovery”.

Praising the bill, Paige Clarkson, the district attorney in Marion County, believes that the new provisions will allow prosecutors to focus on drug dealers while prioritising treatment for addicts. “Police, sheriff’s deputies, district attorneys, we don’t want to criminalise addiction,” she says. “We want to use the criminal laws to motivate those individuals to get healthy.” Oregon’s new regime would still be quite enlightened.

But its drug experiment is likely to become a cautionary tale anyway, says Floyd Prozanski, the state senator who led the charge in enacting it. Although he still believes in the mission, Mr Prozanski recognises that advocates are going to “have to rebuild the confidence of people not only in Oregon, but around the country. And realise that when we implemented it, we did it wrong.”



Full marks to Mr. Prozanski. "We did it wrong."

If only more people could say that.
 
Another big thing with DEI initatives they don’t end. Right now the Public service is over 50% women yet it still has preferential hiring for women. The moment you go past the equality point it seizes to be equity and becomes oppression/discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong, hiring someone solely due to the colour of their skin, choice of religion, or sex is just as wrong as not hiring someone due to one of those characteristics.
 
Another big thing with DEI initatives they don’t end. Right now the Public service is over 50% women yet it still has preferential hiring for women. The moment you go past the equality point it seizes to be equity and becomes oppression/discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong, hiring someone solely due to the colour of their skin, choice of religion, or sex is just as wrong as not hiring someone due to one of those characteristics.
I know women that hate diversity goals because they feel devalued by them and feel all their accomplishments are viewed as tainted by preferential hiring targets.
 
I know women that hate diversity goals because they feel devalued by them and feel all their accomplishments are viewed as tainted by preferential hiring targets.
That is a common complaint against all affirmative action, and it's unavoidable. Are you there on merit, or are you there because you got extra points for something else? Everyone can ask; everyone can answer for themselves; and everyone can privately factor his answer into everything he does as long as he maintains the appearance of non-discrimination.
 
That is a common complaint against all affirmative action, and it's unavoidable. Are you there on merit, or are you there because you got extra points for something else? Everyone can ask; everyone can answer for themselves; and everyone can privately factor his answer into everything he does as long as he maintains the appearance of non-discrimination.

That is the problem with all laws though, isn't it? You can control deeds but you can't control thoughts.
 
That is the problem with all laws though, isn't it? You can control deeds but you can't control thoughts.
Sure, but so what? The problem here is pretty specific. People fought for various forms of unquantifiable favouritism to be replaced by advancement criteria based on merit (probably for millennia), and in short order it gets pissed away for a return to unquantifiable favouritism. "How black is that person, exactly?"
 
Sure, but so what? The problem here is pretty specific. People fought for various forms of unquantifiable favouritism to be replaced by advancement criteria based on merit (probably for millennia), and in short order it gets pissed away for a return to unquantifiable favouritism. "How black is that person, exactly?"

I have in-laws searching to find out how metis their metis ancestor was to see if they qualify as indigenous.
 
Back
Top