451–460 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The argument is that it's now awful and horrible that average black students are accepted more frequently than average white students? Who cares. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 cares.
Presumably by your logic it would also care if black students weren't being accepted at an average rate? This is a silly conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour. Oh that’s easy to prove. But then what? Does your employment contract prohibit commutes.
No. The government authority in charge of employment decides whether that change is enough of a change of the original job that it constitutes constructive dismissal. If so, you can quit your job and are eligible for unemployment and any other legal benefits of having been fired without cause, and a claim is put against the employers account in the unemployment system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... 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.
I have no problem with programs that benefit students. All students. (Likewise workers - all workers.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be honest, I find it very weird that you quoted that part and had the response you did as if you knew what you were talking about. Well honesty is always key, I find. > Obviously, that's not true. In reality, there's tons of caselaw about when intent can be inferred by a jury for any claim requiring intent. By one juror or two, and if the defense lawyers are dummies and fail to do their job. Corporations like IB…
>By one juror or two, and if the defense lawyers are dummies and fail to do their job. Corporations like IBM have lawyers on retainer and they are not that incompetent. What do you mean by one juror or two? My point is regarding when juries are legally allowed to make an intent determination. It often does not require a specific expression of intent and instead can be inferred from activities that indicate things lik…
The point is the defense can show loads of documents about how working together increases efficiency, how they are streamlining units and they plaintiff has to prove they were targeted as an ex-DEI hire and even though there is just hunch. I don’t know about other countries but that’s how it works in US.
Worker protection here is very weak. There are protected categories but they’d have the burden of proof they were let go specifically because of their protected category.
> I don't think that you appreciate the typical legal procedure is that before any fact-question is presented to the jury, parties move based upon the available evidence, whether or not there is sufficient facts presented to warrant a fact-decider's decision
Exactly, moreover jurors would be instructed to make up their mind based on the presented evidence. One side will have papers and the other will have read-between-lines hunches. Sure jurors can still do whatever but unless they’re all activist jurors they will just go with whatever side is more convincing and the evidence they have been presented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's an admission that a group focused on women is concerned with the impacts of issues on women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you believe that hiring currently excludes those races and sexes? Good lord yes. In software engineering almost everyone is a white male.
Absolutely and unequivocally false. Unless you are casting Asian and Indian as white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPs comment is a perfect example of GPs comment. The burden of proof is on the person trying to make a point. They gave no arguments or evidence in their favor. I lay out a point that shows they have no ground to stand on.
It is unfortunately impossible to prove the negative. I did give examples of what I would like to see in a discussion. There's unfortunately no realistic way for me to "provide evidence" that I only rarely see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and not just fudge the metric through race quotas etc. It goes further than just fudging the metrics: By relying on quotas you have to dig deeper into the minority pool of candidates, and are more likely to get someone less skilled than if you hadn't used quotas. This combined with the overall focus on DEI just ends up reinforcing racism/sexism when the quota-hires are more inept than the non-quota hires.
I don't think that necessarily follows. For example, if 20% of some minority are qualified and without quotas only 5% would be hired, then a quota requiring hiring 10% wouldn't result in unqualified candidates. That being said, I haven't heard virtually any advocates of DEI calling for quotas and they don't seem to be common at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All social injustice stems from the first law of economics: there isn't enough to go around. DEI will come and go, but so long as we lack the wealth to meet everyones needs (and wants), there will always be inequity. The real question is, does anyone have an idea of what a fair world looks like in the mean time? Why do people disagree on what that fair world looks like? Is it a fools errand to try and make the world…
I think it's important not to make things too black and white. Certainly it's difficult to put in place or even define a perfectly fair world. However, that doesn't mean that we can't make things more fair.
- Do you think DEI was the right path forward? Did it achieve its goals? If not was that because of counter currents or something else?
- If and when we have "perfect DEI" will we declare the world a fair place? If not, what comes next?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure this is terribly relevant given where the conversation has gone, but in your example, college admissions, race was essentially used as a tie breaker between equally qualified candidates. I suspect that's how it ended up being used in a lot of places (aside from deliberate outreaches to encourage applications, etc). Beyond that though, I'm not sure not getting into harvard is exactly a "grave injustice".…
I have argued elsewhere that Harvard has no obligation to accept anyone. However, the civil Rights act does prevent discrimination based on race if they do. The supreme Court case on the admissions topic showed extremely clearly that race was not just a tiebreaker. Imo, the far more egregious use is public universities. Similarly, if I run an organization, I can choose to serve 10 or 10,000. I just can't hang out a s…