And it's hard to wisely intervene without "undesired side effects".
I don't have the answer, either.
And yes, as I noted - in the ideal case, somebody chosen via AA is just as competent (or very close) as the person who was passed over. In the real world, that doesn't always happen tho. I was reading somebody whose …
And it's hard to wisely intervene without "undesired side effects".
I don't have the answer, either.
And yes, as I noted - in the ideal case, somebody chosen via AA is just as competent (or very close) as the person who was passed over. In the real world, that doesn't always happen tho. I was reading somebody whose boss was convinced there was an unlimited supply of qualified Black doctors, so they could focusing on hiring almost exclusively those doctors, until decades of past practice had been balanced out and the total workforce (of this institution) was proportionate to the population. The correspondent was saying that in practice, there just were not enough such physicians, so they either had to understaff (unacceptable), hire more Asians and whites than they wanted, or reduce the quality they expect. No magic pills to avoid those tradeoffs (other than waiting many years).
I don't like that situation, I'd much prefer that the boss's illusions were true. Sometimes maybe it is, and that's good. Other times it's a tight market for employers, and they can't afford to pass up too many good and available employees to find enough people who fulfill the diversity goals. Hopefully that will change over time.
One of the purest meritocracy examples I've heard of is the practice of doing blind auditions for major orchestras - the candidates play behind a cloth, so the reviewers have zero knowledge of their sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, appearance, etc. This was demanded of them back in the 60's and 70's. However this process has consistently resulted in greatly disproportionate hiring of Asians, slightly disproportionate hiring of whites, and too few Latin and Black hirings - compared to the overall population. Of course, talented musicians in different groups may be attracted more or less to classical music for their expression. But to fix that, the major orchestras in the US have abandoned blind auditions, so they can deliberately choose certain groups more often and be socially accountable. The assertion is that top musicians are so close that they are functionally indistinguishable - but they have been being distinguished for many years without any prejudice involved at all, so the new paradigm is to deliberately distinguish so as to meet diversity goals. I am not that much into US orchestras, so it doesn't matter a lot to me, but it's objective evidence that Kendi is wrong in asserting that the ONLY explanation for different outcomes is racial discrimination. This practice may still be justified in the big picture, but not on the basis that it's *reducing* discrimination and bias, but rather on the basis that it is practicing "positive discrimination" (as the AA concept is sometimes referred to in England). That is, a major improvement in social justice (represented by the proxy of proportionate hiring) may arguably be more important than the minor hit to merit. However, I wonder if there is any dynamic here which will ensure that the hit to merit really is only minor.
Agreed. It's unfair.
And it's hard to wisely intervene without "undesired side effects".
I don't have the answer, either.
And yes, as I noted - in the ideal case, somebody chosen via AA is just as competent (or very close) as the person who was passed over. In the real world, that doesn't always happen tho. I was reading somebody whose boss was convinced there was an unlimited supply of qualified Black doctors, so they could focusing on hiring almost exclusively those doctors, until decades of past practice had been balanced out and the total workforce (of this institution) was proportionate to the population. The correspondent was saying that in practice, there just were not enough such physicians, so they either had to understaff (unacceptable), hire more Asians and whites than they wanted, or reduce the quality they expect. No magic pills to avoid those tradeoffs (other than waiting many years).
I don't like that situation, I'd much prefer that the boss's illusions were true. Sometimes maybe it is, and that's good. Other times it's a tight market for employers, and they can't afford to pass up too many good and available employees to find enough people who fulfill the diversity goals. Hopefully that will change over time.
One of the purest meritocracy examples I've heard of is the practice of doing blind auditions for major orchestras - the candidates play behind a cloth, so the reviewers have zero knowledge of their sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, appearance, etc. This was demanded of them back in the 60's and 70's. However this process has consistently resulted in greatly disproportionate hiring of Asians, slightly disproportionate hiring of whites, and too few Latin and Black hirings - compared to the overall population. Of course, talented musicians in different groups may be attracted more or less to classical music for their expression. But to fix that, the major orchestras in the US have abandoned blind auditions, so they can deliberately choose certain groups more often and be socially accountable. The assertion is that top musicians are so close that they are functionally indistinguishable - but they have been being distinguished for many years without any prejudice involved at all, so the new paradigm is to deliberately distinguish so as to meet diversity goals. I am not that much into US orchestras, so it doesn't matter a lot to me, but it's objective evidence that Kendi is wrong in asserting that the ONLY explanation for different outcomes is racial discrimination. This practice may still be justified in the big picture, but not on the basis that it's *reducing* discrimination and bias, but rather on the basis that it is practicing "positive discrimination" (as the AA concept is sometimes referred to in England). That is, a major improvement in social justice (represented by the proxy of proportionate hiring) may arguably be more important than the minor hit to merit. However, I wonder if there is any dynamic here which will ensure that the hit to merit really is only minor.