91–100 of 536 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
They do it to all low-effort political posts, not just the right-leaning ones. It is an explicit goal of the site management to not let this place turn into a forum where people come to argue divisive political topics.
It could be that the people do care about the values listed, but don't know an effective way to guarantee them, and that existing diversity statements are a stopgap measure until something better is figured out. But no, let's jump directly to "Conclusion: By and large, they don’t care about diversity. They’re just lying, in a really transparent way, because they think it gives them a patina of legal legitimacy." Or..…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Years and breadth/depth of experience is far from everything, but it's also far from nothing. I'd sort of expect the CxOs at most major companies to be ~25-40 years into their career. I'd therefore expect them to look a lot like the white collar workforce new entrants looked in 1982-1997.
That doesn't make sense in the global marketplace. A ton of american companies have Indian ceos these days.
Some major tech company Indian CEOs:
Sundhar Pichai (Alphabet) ~1993
Satya Nadella (Microsoft) ~1990
Parag Agrawal (Twitter) ~2011 (with PhD, but still an outlier even discounting that)
Shantanu Narayen (Adobe) ~1986
Arvind Krishna (IBM) ~1990
Sanjay Mehrotra (Micron) ~1979
Nikesh Arora (Palo Alto) ~1992There are real benefits to having a diverse group of people in just about every setting, but assessing the level of diversity by noting the range of skin tones present is ineffective (and should be deeply offensive to everyone involved).
True diversity of thought, perspective, and experience - i.e. the things that make diversity desirable - come first from things like socioeconomic differences (that one alone may outweigh all others combined), your family experience growing up (including the nuclear family culture but broader culture in which you lived), etc.
Any sort of correlation to skin color is not necessarily causal, especially when considering individual people, and yet using skin color as your diversity metric not-so-subtly suggests it /is/ causal, which, ironically, is on some level racist.
How wide spread is this requirement? I've never heard about it before. >schools are requiring “Diversity Statements” as a condition for new hires Is this like when you do a self performance review and you just throw in a bunch of common phrases / text?
Also below is a particularly egregious example from Canada, where it explicitly states white straight men need not apply.
I think these institutions believe that more diversity ----> more inclusivity and less racism. How would a racist indian national deeply entrenched in caste culture help my company be less racist? How would an asian supremacist laotian increase the workplace's acceptance? If you want a place of tolerance then it should be populated by tolerant people. Throwing together males and females with a random sample of skin c…
“a statement of your experience with or knowledge of inclusion, diversity, equity, and belonging efforts and your plans for incorporating them into your teaching, research, mentoring, and service.”
it doesn't seem outrageous- it does force the writer to think about their past experiences and observations in regards to inclusion, diversity, and equity... which makes the author of this opinion piece feel this way, and this seems the reaction has more to do with their perception and personal view of (and disagreement with) the prioritization of these concepts than it has to do with the requirement itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do it to all low-effort political posts, not just the right-leaning ones. It is an explicit goal of the site management to not let this place turn into a forum where people come to argue divisive political topics.
This shouldn't be political though, that's the point. It's a legitimate problem in companies nowadays which should be addressed
Isn't the real issue behind all the names (diversity, inclusion, etc) about the equalizing of opportunity or at the very least, bringing certain oppressed groups (and, if you don't think certain groups are or have been oppressed or discriminated against, educate yourself) up the opportunity curve? Do we want to live in a world where you have less opportunity because of characteristics you were born with?
> Do we want to live in a world where you have less opportunity because of characteristics you were born with Yes. I do not want to live in a world where genetic editing is used to give everyone equal opportunity. I am ok with not having the genetics to play in the NBA while others do. Diversity should not be the end goal. A healthy society that provides basic needs for all should be. If that means we have mostly peo…
Some people don't get opportunities because of their skin color, their name or their religion.
It's about becoming a NBA player if you can't play basketball