There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal.
The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation.
We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating).
Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.
As I understand it, “equity” in this content generally refers to equality of outcomes between groups. I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible.
Would you explain why you believe that equity is important?
It means equal outcomes for arbitrary groups. We should expect fairly similar outcomes for groups based on arbitrary differences. If we don’t, it should concern us.
Non-arbitrary issues should obviously affect outcomes, but the prevalence of melanin should affect skin cancer rates, not incomes.
> This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life
Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done.
There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists.
> we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs
It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.
>Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done.
My point is that there are plenty of -isms going around and focusing on race alone completely ignores the fact that our lives are impacted in different ways. When we take a flat reductionist view, as if Sasha and Malia Obama face the same challenges as some randomly chosen person of the same race, we have the potential create a significant class divides within communities, as the folks of a certain race with a privileged background fill the rolls that ought to be set aside for folks who are still dealing with the significant economic after-effects of a discriminatory past.
>It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.
The point and the problem is that there is no coordination, so if everyone is trying to make a positive impact, it is very likely that we will overshoot. This is always the case when you have an uncoordinated approach to dealing with a lagging indicator.
> My point is that there are plenty of -isms going around and focusing on race alone completely ignores the fact that our lives are impacted in different ways.
No it doesn’t. We have other means of support for people whose lives are impacted by e.g. poverty.
> When we have a flat reductionist as our view, as if Sasha and Malia Obama face the same challenges as some randomly chosen person of the same race, we have the potential create a significant class divides within communities.
There are already significant class divides in the community. Our system specifically encourages that sort of thing. The idea that a few high performers get the same benefits (ones that aren’t already means tested) as the poorest is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
> The point and the problem is that there is no coordination
A interesting point. I suspect it’s not true, but either way this is the first I’ve heard anyone arguing for better coordination. I don’t see that present in any of the current efforts.
>There are already significant class divides in the community. Our system specifically encourages that sort of thing. The idea that a few high performers get the same benefits (ones that aren’t already means tested) as the poorest is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
I think this is where we might disagree most. I see racism as a form of stupidity, that is, a general induction error given perception bias, where you generalize the examples of a small sample size to a group and draw a wrong conclusion... based on race. Here, due to the history of discrimination, we have significant class difference that lead to more racism, which is class differences but projected as a race difference. I'd note here, we don't have the same kind of deliberate class as a place like the UK does, but we do have class and it's class beyond just an economic class.
I'll obviously admit that that's certainly not an explanation for all current racism, but I think a significant amount of our concern may be here. In this case, I worry that using race as a proxy for existing class differences in racially different communities will be incorrectly addressed in DEI programs based on race. You can already see the awkwardness of this in Asian and Indian communities, as they are racial minorities, yet they are often seen as overrepresented in outcomes. A traditional "racism is just racism" view really doesn't explain this mismatch, but a race-as-a-proxy-for-class easily does.
> Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others
In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students.
We're all familiar with Girls Who Code, Women in STEM, and similar organizations. Where are equivalent organizations for young men?
Would it even be possible to start such an organization without being ostracized as a bigot?
Here's a story I was listening to today about a program at an all-boys school trying to address the growing prevalence of loneliness, depression, and bad behavior in school.
Where are the equivalent for young men? Literally all of the other hackathons ever. Girls who Code arose because of toxic men chasing girls and women out of those spaces. Women worked tirelessly for decades to make these spaces happen. Men just want to whine about it because to actually address the issue is too “woke”. I’m sorry you created your prison, but don’t look to us to bail you out while you’re punching us down for not helping.
It reminds me of the white supremacists raging about Black Miss America pageants for existing. But they were ignorant of the fact that the official Miss America pageant had a rule that said “no negroes” up until 1972-73.
That's an admission that DEI in schools supports women, from some of its biggest advocates. Where are the programs to support boys in school?
Edit: Of course, the mere existence of the Society for Women Engineers, AAUW, and other groups focused on women in education, without comparable groups for men, is another example of the phenomenon.
They're a remnant of a time when they were necessary, now favoring the group that has not only caught up, but taken the lead.
Oh look, a society dedicated to men in nursing. This is completely reasonable. The idea to go from "women are most of college graduates" to "society of women engineers should not exist" is insane.
It's a serious topic in education, yes it's a thing people care about.
I studied with and was friends with women in my computer engineering major, SWE helped connect them with industry engineers who could speak about what it was like being a women in engineering.
To people downvoting the above comment - could you explain your reasons? You may feel all arguments have already been said on this issue but the situation is different today. And especially young people, whether white or colored, feel they have more bleak future in front of them than the previous generations and basically refuse to reproduce globally. In this light, it's worth having this discussion again because it is not the same.
I didn't but I would have. It appears to be dragging the discussion towards political flamewar. It doesn't present any substantial observations or reasoning, just ideological talking points that we've all heard countless times by now.
If there had at least been some attempt to tie things back to the headline article in a nontrivial way then maybe I'd be more sympathetic.
I didn't downvote, but I gave a long, good faith response as to why I think it's sub-optimal reasoning at best. I think this divide is a huge problem for the left, and it's actually creating new problems while the left pats itself on the back thinking we're solving them.
There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal.
The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation.
We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating).
Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.
> Equity is important
As I understand it, “equity” in this content generally refers to equality of outcomes between groups. I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible.
Would you explain why you believe that equity is important?
It means equal outcomes for arbitrary groups. We should expect fairly similar outcomes for groups based on arbitrary differences. If we don’t, it should concern us.
Non-arbitrary issues should obviously affect outcomes, but the prevalence of melanin should affect skin cancer rates, not incomes.
> I don’t see why that is desirable, important, or even possible.
Are you okay with being in one of the groups where the outcomes are worse?
I am not sure what you mean. Would you give me an example?
I’m not sure what groups you were referring to in your original post, so it would probably be better if you provided the example.
> This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life
Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done.
There is a leftist school of thought that agrees with you (focus on class instead of race). But I personally don’t believe that a focus purely on outcomes would be applied equitably while racism still exists.
> we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that were missing a massive shift in the inputs
It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.
>Because racism is ongoing and negatively impacts people of color, it makes sense to focus where harm is being done.
My point is that there are plenty of -isms going around and focusing on race alone completely ignores the fact that our lives are impacted in different ways. When we take a flat reductionist view, as if Sasha and Malia Obama face the same challenges as some randomly chosen person of the same race, we have the potential create a significant class divides within communities, as the folks of a certain race with a privileged background fill the rolls that ought to be set aside for folks who are still dealing with the significant economic after-effects of a discriminatory past.
>It is a fallacy to think we can’t focus on multiple things at once. Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others.
The point and the problem is that there is no coordination, so if everyone is trying to make a positive impact, it is very likely that we will overshoot. This is always the case when you have an uncoordinated approach to dealing with a lagging indicator.
> My point is that there are plenty of -isms going around and focusing on race alone completely ignores the fact that our lives are impacted in different ways.
No it doesn’t. We have other means of support for people whose lives are impacted by e.g. poverty.
> When we have a flat reductionist as our view, as if Sasha and Malia Obama face the same challenges as some randomly chosen person of the same race, we have the potential create a significant class divides within communities.
There are already significant class divides in the community. Our system specifically encourages that sort of thing. The idea that a few high performers get the same benefits (ones that aren’t already means tested) as the poorest is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
> The point and the problem is that there is no coordination
A interesting point. I suspect it’s not true, but either way this is the first I’ve heard anyone arguing for better coordination. I don’t see that present in any of the current efforts.
>There are already significant class divides in the community. Our system specifically encourages that sort of thing. The idea that a few high performers get the same benefits (ones that aren’t already means tested) as the poorest is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
I think this is where we might disagree most. I see racism as a form of stupidity, that is, a general induction error given perception bias, where you generalize the examples of a small sample size to a group and draw a wrong conclusion... based on race. Here, due to the history of discrimination, we have significant class difference that lead to more racism, which is class differences but projected as a race difference. I'd note here, we don't have the same kind of deliberate class as a place like the UK does, but we do have class and it's class beyond just an economic class.
I'll obviously admit that that's certainly not an explanation for all current racism, but I think a significant amount of our concern may be here. In this case, I worry that using race as a proxy for existing class differences in racially different communities will be incorrectly addressed in DEI programs based on race. You can already see the awkwardness of this in Asian and Indian communities, as they are racial minorities, yet they are often seen as overrepresented in outcomes. A traditional "racism is just racism" view really doesn't explain this mismatch, but a race-as-a-proxy-for-class easily does.
> Nothing keeps us for helping boys in some sectors and women in others
In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys. In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students.
We're all familiar with Girls Who Code, Women in STEM, and similar organizations. Where are equivalent organizations for young men?
Would it even be possible to start such an organization without being ostracized as a bigot?
Here's a story I was listening to today about a program at an all-boys school trying to address the growing prevalence of loneliness, depression, and bad behavior in school.
https://www.haverford.org/the-big-room-blog/blog-post/~board...
Where are the equivalent for young men? Literally all of the other hackathons ever. Girls who Code arose because of toxic men chasing girls and women out of those spaces. Women worked tirelessly for decades to make these spaces happen. Men just want to whine about it because to actually address the issue is too “woke”. I’m sorry you created your prison, but don’t look to us to bail you out while you’re punching us down for not helping.
It reminds me of the white supremacists raging about Black Miss America pageants for existing. But they were ignorant of the fact that the official Miss America pageant had a rule that said “no negroes” up until 1972-73.
> ... toxic men chasing girls and women out ... Men just want to whine ... while you’re punching us down .... reminds me of the white supremacists
Thank you for providing an example of the hostility faced by anyone who even raises the issue, let alone tries to improve things.
You’re not improving things. You’re trying to take away things that make the world better.
If you stuck to programs that help boys - yes they exist - maybe you’d have a moral leg to stand on.
Discriminating against some people for the benefit of others does not make the world better. And that's all DEI is.
I have no problem with programs that benefit students. All students. (Likewise workers - all workers.)
[flagged]
> In theory, perhaps, but in practice nothing is being done to help boys.
Untrue. There’s a ton of work being done on how to better support boys in school.
> In fact, DEI programs in universities continue to favor young women even as they approach 60% of students.
What are these DEI programs favoring university admission for young women?
Here's the opinion of the Society for Women Engineers:
> Cutting these [DEI] programs means fewer resources for students that need support. It’s devastating for women
https://swe.org/magazine/dei-faces-rising-waters/
That's an admission that DEI in schools supports women, from some of its biggest advocates. Where are the programs to support boys in school?
Edit: Of course, the mere existence of the Society for Women Engineers, AAUW, and other groups focused on women in education, without comparable groups for men, is another example of the phenomenon.
They're a remnant of a time when they were necessary, now favoring the group that has not only caught up, but taken the lead.
Women are not close to even 50% of engineering students or industry or academic engineers yet you go after society of women engineers?
Let's flip it - nursing, where men are a minority:
https://www.aamn.org/
Oh look, a society dedicated to men in nursing. This is completely reasonable. The idea to go from "women are most of college graduates" to "society of women engineers should not exist" is insane.
> without comparable groups for men
Did you even try?
https://www.naesp.org/resource/male-models/
It's a serious topic in education, yes it's a thing people care about.
I studied with and was friends with women in my computer engineering major, SWE helped connect them with industry engineers who could speak about what it was like being a women in engineering.
That's an admission that a group focused on women is concerned with the impacts of issues on women.
Is there a society for Men Engineers that is concerned with the impacts of issues on men?
To people downvoting the above comment - could you explain your reasons? You may feel all arguments have already been said on this issue but the situation is different today. And especially young people, whether white or colored, feel they have more bleak future in front of them than the previous generations and basically refuse to reproduce globally. In this light, it's worth having this discussion again because it is not the same.
I didn't but I would have. It appears to be dragging the discussion towards political flamewar. It doesn't present any substantial observations or reasoning, just ideological talking points that we've all heard countless times by now.
If there had at least been some attempt to tie things back to the headline article in a nontrivial way then maybe I'd be more sympathetic.
I didn't downvote, but I gave a long, good faith response as to why I think it's sub-optimal reasoning at best. I think this divide is a huge problem for the left, and it's actually creating new problems while the left pats itself on the back thinking we're solving them.