Trump: Using race neutral criteria to achieve diversity is illegal. Agee or disagree, and why?

[Hello My Son]

Your measure of merit is not objective, but subjective for the needs of your organization.

You're confusing the terms. If merit measurements are quantified specifically to fit my organizational needs and the required expertise to do this job, then my measures of merit are quantified to attain my targeted outcomes. It would not be "objective" if I attempted to apply those standards to the general population, but it could be argued that the quantified process within my sample group would create an objective/standardized measure of identifying experts in that specific arena of skills.

Similarly, scores on a standardized test....lets just say the ACT....are standardized and objective measures within the target sample (i.e. Males and females aged 14-19 or something like that) but they are not objective measures of the entire population if anyone outside of those criteria were to take the ACT.

There is no objective measure of merit that assures only successful candidates will be hired. That is why organizations have probationary periods.

I've not claimed that there is a purely objective measure of merit across the board, but quantifying the necessary skills in order to create a reliably predictive measure of expert abilities is certainly attainable in any given job. The fact that probationary periods exist doesn't mean that standardized and reliable skill prediction scales don't exist or are somehow invalid.

 

[Hello My Son]

Apparently, its not good for them, as the administration trying to force them to abandon it.

BTW, if you have an uptick in minority hiring, the article suggests this might raise the administration's suspicion, and they might come and investigate you.

Again, none of that has anything to do with me or anything I've said.

 

[CSharp]

Absurd statements by whoever this is.
In my career I have hired probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 people.
I would put my hiring success rates against anyone else's.
And their sex/race/ethnicity has never, ever played a role. I could care less what level of pigmentation their skin has, or whether they have a penis or a vagina if the job is not hard physical based.
I have extensive experience in hiring, and trying to tell me merit based doesn't work?? HAHAHAHA!

Was the sarcasm too subtle?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Was the sarcasm too subtle?

Oh I got it - I was adding to it

 

[j brown's body]

Again, none of that has anything to do with me or anything I've said.

I was pointing out that the adminstration wants to stamp it out what you said was "good for them."

 

[Infinite Chaos]

My bad, It's not a term I use.
Is it your position we should lower admission requirements for people from rural areas?

My position is the there should be equality of access. All the rich kids get to buy into the best universities - fine. Then spend the money to build up the other universities for other kids to have equal access to the best teaching and learning resources.

So because some rich kids get to cut to the front of the line, we should also let poor people? What of the people who actually deserve it?

Rich kids have always cut to the front of the line, do you propose nothing is done to prevent that or do anything to help the ones who worked hard to earn a place at a good university?

 

[CSharp]

My position is the there should be equality of access. All the rich kids get to buy into the best universities - fine. Then spend the money to build up the other universities for other kids to have equal access to the best teaching and learning resources.



Rich kids have always cut to the front of the line, do you propose nothing is done to prevent that or do anything to help the ones who worked hard to earn a place at a good university?

Everybody has access to higher education in this country. You don't need to go to Harvard or Yale to be successful.

 

[Irredentist]

what? Why would you think that?

Why would you give educational grants to someone who has the money to pay out of pocket?

 

[Irredentist]

Have you ever been in an interview? Or are you arguing there are no universal truths?

Math is a universal truth. Aside from that, no.

 

[Irredentist]

Not of they are given for merit gains.
If you just hand out grants based on race - that is, itself racist.
If you have a kid that is financially screwed in his/her short life so far by bad parents - but is putting in the work, and making the grades - doing volunteer work a lot of the grants want to see etc. - that is still merit based.

That doesn't make sense to me. If grants are purely merit based, then they should be awarded regardless of how wealthy someone is. But what's the point of giving an educational grant to someone who already has the money to pay out of pocket?

 

[j brown's body]

Trump's policy is that a diverse community in the heavily racialized society that characterizes our history must happen by coincidence.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My position is the there should be equality of access. All the rich kids get to buy into the best universities - fine. Then spend the money to build up the other universities for other kids to have equal access to the best teaching and learning resources.



Rich kids have always cut to the front of the line, do you propose nothing is done to prevent that or do anything to help the ones who worked hard to earn a place at a good university?

1) Rich kids "buying" into colleges - not entirely true, the kid still has to have the grades to get it etc. - but, yes that is unfair, and probably never stop because those rich parents often are alma mater and raise shit tons of money for the school.
2) This is a small minority of kids. Really small.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

That doesn't make sense to me. If grants are purely merit based, then they should be awarded regardless of how wealthy someone is. But what's the point of giving an educational grant to someone who already has the money to pay out of pocket?

A lot of grants have max parental income limits

 

[Elmo]

There absolutely is. Merit is where you begin, it is not the entirety of why you hire who you hire - it is where you start. And if they don't have it, they don't get beyond first interview.
Understand that "merit" in hiring is a combination of job history, performance history and demonstratable skill qualifications.

Yes. Exactly. You're so close to getting it. A perfect meritocracy is the ideal solution. Everyone agrees on that. But such a thing is obviously impossible. It does not exist and has never existed. The "merit" information available to hiring managers and college admissions officers is simply insufficient and too imprecise for all decisions to be made off of it. It cannot predict long term success of the candidate.

But decisions still need to be made, so how do we fill in the gap that can't be filled by merit? Historically it's been a giant grab bag of racism, sexism, nepotism, friend networks, favors, etc. And all the people doing that bullshit would tell you they were in a meritocracy. They would say they are "just filtering out the lessers so they could get to the people with obviously better merits".

When you say we need to go back to a "meritocracy" without actually addressing or even acknowledging the very real and devastating problems past implementations have caused, I think you are ignoring important nuance to the topic.

 

[CSharp]

Yes. Exactly. You're so close to getting it. A perfect meritocracy is the ideal solution. Everyone agrees on that. But such a thing is obviously impossible. It does not exist and has never existed. The "merit" information available to hiring managers and college admissions officers is simply insufficient and too imprecise for all decisions to be made off of it. It cannot predict long term success of the candidate.

But decisions still need to be made, so how do we fill in the gap that can't be filled by merit? Historically it's been a giant grab bag of racism, sexism, nepotism, friend networks, favors, etc. And all the people doing that bullshit would tell you they were in a meritocracy. They would say they are "just filtering out the lessers so they could get to the people with obviously better merits".

When you say we need to go back to a "meritocracy" without actually addressing or even acknowledging the very real and devastating problems past implementations have caused, I think you are ignoring important nuance to the topic.

This is patently bullshit in my experience. I just hired a senior developer and the first thing I did was go through the stack of resumes from HR. I had no idea what the race was of anyone. The person who interviewed the best out of that subset got the job.
You're right that it isn't a perfect process though. If you know of a better way, I'm all ears.

 

[Irredentist]

This is patently bullshit in my experience. I just hired a senior developer and the first thing I did was go through the stack of resumes from HR. I had no idea what the race was of anyone. The person who interviewed the best out of that subset got the job.
You're right that it isn't a perfect process though. If you know of a better way, I'm all ears.

You could read their names right? That should give you some idea of their race.

 

[j brown's body]

Did Lindsey Halligan get her job based on merit?

 

[Elmo]

This is patently bullshit in my experience. I just hired a senior developer and the first thing I did was go through the stack of resumes from HR. I had no idea what the race was of anyone. The person who interviewed the best out of that subset got the job.
You're right that it isn't a perfect process though.

It's not bullshit, it is historical fact which denied generations of people fair opportunities. You may be an egalitarian and fair minded employer, but unfortunately there are still plenty of assholes making these sorts of biased decisions. And the data very clearly shows that minorities are still disproportionately impacted by those assholes. You have almost certainly seen these sorts of studies before.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Unpacking Name-Based Race Discrimination

We investigate the extent and underlying mechanisms of how race beliefs associated with applicants' names affect hiring decisions. Using nationally represe

papers.ssrn.com

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/A-Discrimination-Report-Card-1.pdf

If you know of a better way, I'm all ears.

We already have a better way. You have to correct for the assholes by giving the people they discriminate against a chance to prove themselves. The current term is "DEI", and Conservatives use it as a swear word. This system is also not perfect, and it can definitely fail in practice. But it is vastly better than previous attempts at "meritocracy". So I'm going to flip your question around. Conservatives don't like the current system and want a meritocracy instead. Fine. How do you implement a meritocracy in the real world without millions of assholes filling the huge gaps in their "merit estimates" with racism, sexism, and nepotism?

 

[Moderate Right]

"Basing admissions preferences on socioeconomic or geographic factors rather than race was supposed to be the compromise that appeased everyone. In polls, most Americans simultaneously say they support efforts to increase universities’ racial diversity but oppose the use of race or ethnicity in admissions. Class-based preferences, in contrast, earn wide support and can further both racial and economic diversity while sidestepping the constitutional issues involved in explicitly considering race. (The Constitution doesn’t include any prohibition on treating people differently based on family income or where they grew up.) ...The Trump administration, however, feels differently: It argues that even race-neutral admissions policies are illegal if they are intended to achieve racial diversity. And this interpretation is already starting to have an effect.

...The Trump administration has taken the position that colleges might be breaking the law either way. In February, the Education Department issued a “Dear Colleague” letter ...The letter argued that universities cannot use race-neutral proxies in an effort to boost diversity. For example, it claimed that schools’ eliminating standardized testing in order to achieve greater racial diversity would be illegal. ...Attorney General Pam Bondi released a memo warning universities against the use of race-neutral proxies....according to Bondi, a college that chooses to implement place- or income-based preferences in order to help preserve racial diversity would be running afoul of the law.

...the Trump administration appears to be appointing itself the arbiter of what counts as the right and wrong racial makeup of a student body. Universities are always reluctant to go to battle with the federal government. But if the alternative is appointing President Donald Trump as their de facto dean of admissions, they might have no choice."

Link

Why is Trump so opposed to diversity?

I didn't read what you posted because I already know there are laws against discrimination. If you discriminate in favor of blacks against whites, that is discrimination.

 

[CSharp]

It's not bullshit, it is historical fact which denied generations of people fair opportunities. You may be an egalitarian and fair minded employer, but unfortunately there are still plenty of assholes making these sorts of biased decisions. And the data very clearly shows that minorities are still disproportionately impacted by those assholes. You have almost certainly seen these sorts of studies before.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Unpacking Name-Based Race Discrimination

We investigate the extent and underlying mechanisms of how race beliefs associated with applicants' names affect hiring decisions. Using nationally represe

papers.ssrn.com

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/A-Discrimination-Report-Card-1.pdf

We already have a better way. You have to correct for the assholes by giving the people they discriminate against a chance to prove themselves. The current term is "DEI", and Conservatives use it as a swear word. This system is also not perfect, and it can definitely fail in practice. But it is vastly better than previous attempts at "meritocracy". So I'm going to flip your question around. Conservatives don't like the current system and want a meritocracy instead. Fine. How do you implement a meritocracy in the real world without millions of assholes filling the huge gaps in their "merit estimates" with racism, sexism, and nepotism?

LOL ummm no. No way in hell I'm taking a less qualified candidate to compensate for some other asshole that is hurting his business by hiring less than the best talent available. It's like you lefties are eternally shocked that the free market works.

 

[CSharp]

You could read their names right? That should give you some idea of their race.

No it doesn't. That's, like, the point.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Everybody has access to higher education in this country. You don't need to go to Harvard or Yale to be successful.

Funny, a lot of people focus for good or ill on African Americans getting into Harvard or Yale as a metric on racial success.
Ah well, that wasn't my point though, my point was about building up the other colleges and universities so they offer the same quality and output as your top tier universities. You asked about lowering admission requirements as a follow up to my link on the digital divide in the USA remember?
Everyone has access but the challenges different groups making the most of that access vary wildly. A bright kid who is also their parent's carer doesn't have the same luxury and access to time / resources as someone in a stable two-parent family and kids from those families don't have the same access to private tuition as the kids of rich parents.

I don't care about the individual exception who was born into a poor family, served in a kitchen and only has one eye, was born with half a head and yet made it to Yale. Broad statistics suggest and demonstrate that higher education and similar methods to changing your life through personal hard work are not equally available or accessible.

1) Rich kids "buying" into colleges - not entirely true, the kid still has to have the grades to get it etc.

[/sigh] There are plenty of studies that show bright kids from poor backgrounds being overtaken by their teens because rich kids parents hire tutors and do what they can to support their kids into higher grades. So yeah, by the time you are heading off to university and have had lots of private tutoring, you should be getting into good colleges.

Wealthy parents are spending $1.2m to get kids into top unis

With 24/7 tutors and lots of hand-holding, high-end consultants are taking the admissions race in the US to the next level.

www.afr.com

raise shit tons of money for the school.

Happens here too, Some billionaire guarantees entry to their kid by paying for a new Lab or research facility. You're not aware you are undermining your own argument.

2) This is a small minority of kids. Really small.

Proof?

Here's the opposite scenario so I'd like to see you break these down.

The Wealthy Kids Are All Right

In a tough economy with dwindling social supports, children of privilege have a bigger head start than ever.

prospect.org

No Rich Child Left Behind

Family income is now a better predictor of children’s success in school than race.

archive.nytimes.com

 

[CLAX1911]

"Basing admissions preferences on socioeconomic or geographic factors rather than race was supposed to be the compromise that appeased everyone. In polls, most Americans simultaneously say they support efforts to increase universities’ racial diversity but oppose the use of race or ethnicity in admissions. Class-based preferences, in contrast, earn wide support and can further both racial and economic diversity while sidestepping the constitutional issues involved in explicitly considering race. (The Constitution doesn’t include any prohibition on treating people differently based on family income or where they grew up.) ...The Trump administration, however, feels differently: It argues that even race-neutral admissions policies are illegal if they are intended to achieve racial diversity. And this interpretation is already starting to have an effect.

...The Trump administration has taken the position that colleges might be breaking the law either way. In February, the Education Department issued a “Dear Colleague” letter ...The letter argued that universities cannot use race-neutral proxies in an effort to boost diversity. For example, it claimed that schools’ eliminating standardized testing in order to achieve greater racial diversity would be illegal. ...Attorney General Pam Bondi released a memo warning universities against the use of race-neutral proxies....according to Bondi, a college that chooses to implement place- or income-based preferences in order to help preserve racial diversity would be running afoul of the law.

...the Trump administration appears to be appointing itself the arbiter of what counts as the right and wrong racial makeup of a student body. Universities are always reluctant to go to battle with the federal government. But if the alternative is appointing President Donald Trump as their de facto dean of admissions, they might have no choice."

Link

Why is Trump so opposed to diversity?

I think any effort to affect diversity and one way or the other should be absolutely illegal because it's just racism.

If you aren't having enough students of a particular stripe applying to your school do what you have to to attract them or live with the fact that they don't apply there

Lawbound racism is stupid even if you call it affirmative action or anti-racism or diversity or what other code were you use for your particular brand of racism.

Race is nothing and it's time to get past it.

 

[Elmo]

LOL ummm no. No way in hell I'm taking a less qualified candidate to compensate for some other asshole that is hurting his business by hiring less than the best talent available. It's like you lefties are eternally shocked that the free market works.

Strange that you and so many conservatives just assume DEI = "less qualified". I could try to discuss it to figure out where you got confused, but you have made it clear you aren't interested in a serious discussion. Goodbye.