Poor have less chances?
Enforce hiring of the poor.
Non-white habe less chances?
Enforce hiring of non-whites.
Non-male have less chances?
Enforce hiring of non-males.
Disabled have less chances?
Enforce hiring of disabled.
If you have less chances because of a attribute you aren’t responsible for, enforce hiring of people with such an attribute to normalize the attribute in the workspace is DEI.
The premise of that proposal is that the test scores are inaccurate as a result of the economic disparity, because people with less income have less resources to prepare for the test. That would apply in the case of an economic disparity because having more resources allows you to artificially receive a higher score. It's not about accepting someone with less merit out of charity but rather about adjusting for a measurement error.
But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both.
Which is the reason doing the latter is controversial.
> But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both.
That's only true if you assume prejudices like racism and sexism don't exist anymore, but they do. Even today, these are the lived experiences of many people in society. As examples, there are black people who don't get jobs because they are just assumed to be worse candidates, even when they are more qualified and put in more work. There are women who don't get jobs because they are just assumed to be worse candidates, and so on.
These are real implicit biases, and they don't go away by just ignoring them.
Yes but what prejudices we accept and which we do not is arbitrary. You have no choice over your height. Taller people can have more promotions and more dating opportunities, but we don't have affirmative action for short people, and we don't treat women who say they don't date short guys like we treat women who say they won't date black guys. There's always going to be discrimination, what form of discrimination is acceptable or unacceptable is still arbitrary.
First, let's not talk about dating and work in the same argument - they are fundamentally different in many important ways, and it's not conductive to the conversation.
Second, at least call a spade a spade - according to you, when people say meritocracy they actually mean "meritocracy with handicaps for non-whites and non-males". Let's not call that "meritocracy", okay?
That’s still DEI.
Poor have less chances? Enforce hiring of the poor.
Non-white habe less chances? Enforce hiring of non-whites.
Non-male have less chances? Enforce hiring of non-males.
Disabled have less chances? Enforce hiring of disabled.
If you have less chances because of a attribute you aren’t responsible for, enforce hiring of people with such an attribute to normalize the attribute in the workspace is DEI.
The premise of that proposal is that the test scores are inaccurate as a result of the economic disparity, because people with less income have less resources to prepare for the test. That would apply in the case of an economic disparity because having more resources allows you to artificially receive a higher score. It's not about accepting someone with less merit out of charity but rather about adjusting for a measurement error.
But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both.
Which is the reason doing the latter is controversial.
> But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both.
That's only true if you assume prejudices like racism and sexism don't exist anymore, but they do. Even today, these are the lived experiences of many people in society. As examples, there are black people who don't get jobs because they are just assumed to be worse candidates, even when they are more qualified and put in more work. There are women who don't get jobs because they are just assumed to be worse candidates, and so on.
These are real implicit biases, and they don't go away by just ignoring them.
Yes but what prejudices we accept and which we do not is arbitrary. You have no choice over your height. Taller people can have more promotions and more dating opportunities, but we don't have affirmative action for short people, and we don't treat women who say they don't date short guys like we treat women who say they won't date black guys. There's always going to be discrimination, what form of discrimination is acceptable or unacceptable is still arbitrary.
First, let's not talk about dating and work in the same argument - they are fundamentally different in many important ways, and it's not conductive to the conversation.
Second, at least call a spade a spade - according to you, when people say meritocracy they actually mean "meritocracy with handicaps for non-whites and non-males". Let's not call that "meritocracy", okay?
Because it's incredibly complicated and proxying it via race is easier and humans like easy?
Using race as a proxy for other things is what racism is all about. We're trying to get rid of that rather than perpetuate it.