Tag Archives: DEI

Let’s Talk About “Merit”

I don’t think anything has pissed me off more than Donald Trump’s insistence that DEI programs are just an effort to privilege “those people” (insert the object of your bias) over meritorious White guys. As a meme I’ve seen points out, that has it exactly backwards: DEI is an effort to level a very tilted playing field–an effort to combat the longstanding automatic preference given to White guys over more qualified women and minorities.

Study after study confirms that when identical resumes are sent to prospective employers by fictitious applicants–differing only in use of “white sounding” or “black sounding” names–the white sounding applicants get over twice as many interviews.

His pious defense of merit is especially ironic (to put it mildly)  when it is accompanied by Trump’s own incredibly unqualified nominees–a collection of cranks, clowns, conspiracy theorists and sycophants the likes of which no previous President has ever tried to elevate to positions of responsibility. As a friend has noted, in what was a massive understatement, “I’ve seen better cabinets at IKEA.”

For generations, American White guys–more accurately, straight White Christian males–have enjoyed a raft of entirely unmerited advantages.

I will grant that many of the DEI programs have proven to be less than effective, and some have suffered from a surfeit of what we used to call “political correctness.” But they aren’t being attacked for dubious efficacy. If there was any lingering doubt about the profound racism of Trump and MAGA, Trump’s immediate attacks on DEI efforts, and his race to scrub government websites of anything remotely “woke,” should erase it. (No one could ever accuse MAGA folks of being woke–a term that simply means that one has awakened to the existence of structural impediments to civic and economic fairness. They aren’t interested in being fair, or to rewarding individual merit found in women or members of minorities.)

The idea of an actual meritocracy is appealing. But a lot of what we attribute to “merit” is really a leg up, rooted in racial, religious or financial privilege.

The problems with America’s approach to meritocracy implicate–yet again–my two favorite admonitions: “it depends” and “it’s more complicated than that.” We are gradually and reluctantly coming to see, for example, that our definition of what constitutes merit in a given area is often too constricted, and our devices for measuring and determining what constitutes relevant merit may be inadequate.

When I was still teaching, I used to cite the example of an old rule (I’ve long since forgotten which southern state it was from) that restricted entry into local carpenters’ unions to high school graduates who weighed at least 180 pounds. Those requirements kept most Black and female applicants out–in that place at that time, few Blacks graduated from high school, and few women weighed over 180 pounds. The purported justification for the rule was that carpenters needed to be able to read construction plans and needed to be able to pick up at least X number of pounds of materials on the worksite.

But–rather obviously–the best way to determine whether applicants should be admitted to the carpentry trade would be to test them on their ability to read and understand plans and drawings, and to have them demonstrate that they could pick up the necessary weight.

The bottom line is that even seemingly neutral criteria can be–and frequently have been–manipulated so that they are not really neutral.

Those of us who’ve served on university admissions committees know that an applicant’s GPA and test results are necessary but incomplete indicators of whether that applicant will do the academic work required.  We also look for evidence of motivation and discipline.

The definition of merit in a given situation can be complicated. What skills are relevant? What evidence is probative?

One thing has already become obvious: Donald Trump’s criterion for “merit”– being a straight White Christian Nationalist loyal to Donald J. Trump–is inconsistent with the demands of the positions to be filled.

Comments

And In Trumpy Indiana

I’ve been seeing calls for a national protest on February 5th–to take place at all 50 statehouses. I believe from noon to 2:00. If anyone can confirm, or identify the original sponsors, please post that information. If you need something tangible and Hoosier to protest, today’s post should deliver…

If you wondered whether Indiana’s new Governor, Mike Braun, would follow the agenda of his running mates–Beckwith, Banks and RoQuita, all of whom are “out and proud” White Christian Nationalists–there’s no longer any doubt. Braun is slavishly following Trump’s assault on anyone who isn’t a straight White Christian Male.

Mike Leppert has accurately described Braun’s assault, which consists of “othering” any group that doesn’t fall into that slice of Hoosier citizenship. Braun immediately followed Trump’s lead by purging state government of any DEI efforts. Then his budget proposal took an ax to disfavored “others.”

He began with the Indians.

In 2025, new Governor Mike Braun, in his first budget proposal in office, proposes to end funding for the Native American Indian Affairs Commission. The cut comes as part of his 15% cut to the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. That may sound like a lot of money, but it isn’t. The state is spending less than $3 million a year on the ICRC in the current budget.

It got worse from there.

As Leppert quite accurately noted, budget proposals from a newly elected governor are a marker, defining his priorities– and in this case, defining his character as well.

In addition to withdrawing from his predecessor’s agreement with the Pokagon Indians, Braun’s budget eliminates funding for the Indiana Commission for Women, an organization created to assess the needs of Indiana women and their families and promote their full participation in Indiana society. Also gone is $10 million earmarked for Martin University, and the College Success Program. Martin University is Indiana’s only predominantly Black institution; the Success program assists minority and first-generation college students.

These cuts by Braun won’t change the lives of any white, male, Christian. Except for those comforted by real or perceived harm to the other. It’s a foundational change in governing philosophy that is still taking shape…

Braun isn’t managing money with these cuts, he’s managing messaging. These moves are proclamations of what he supports, or in these cases, what he opposes. And the fallout is not simple addition and subtraction in this one document.

As Leppert says, the message is obvious: Native American, Black and female populations are now officially “the others” in Indiana. Those populations now join the GOP’s ongoing attacks on trans people–and by implication, all LGBTQ Hoosiers.

We certainly won’t see any pushback on “othering” from a legislature that owes its GOP dominance from persistent gerrymandering. Senate Bill 235, for example, co-authored by the odious Mike Young, gleefully prohibits “state agencies, recipients of state contracts or grants, state educational institutions, and health profession licensing boards” from taking account of diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Indiana’s legislature has also continued and deepened its all-out assault on education. Senate Bill 202–a sweeping bill attacking academic freedom in Indiana’s public colleges and universities– has been joined by HB 1002, a “high priority” of the Republican leadership. Its 130+ pages includes three especially noteworthy efforts to dumb down public education in the Hoosier state:

  • It removes all prerequisites for a person to be appointed to be Indiana Secretary of Education, paving the way for the Governor to appoint a non-educator or non-resident. 
  • It removes a requirement in current law that requires a governing body to provide a non-charter school that students of the same age or grade can attend.” This should be seen as a companion bill House Bill 1136, which would dissolve IPS and other urban districts and turn all of their schools into charters.  
  • HB 1002 also removes an existing responsibility of charter authorizers to ensure that the school is in compliance with applicable law. One of the ways charter schools currently differ from the private schools that accept vouchers is that they are subject to more stringent legal oversight; this provision would dramatically undermine that oversight–which is entirely absent from the voucher program.

It is impossible to miss the GOP’s agenda, both nationally and at the state level. That agenda follows the anti-democratic, anti-civic-equality prescriptions of Project 2025: ensure that straight White Christian males recover social dominance; continue and strengthen the anti-majoritarian systems (gerrymandering, electoral college, etc.) that facilitate governance by the Republican minority, make it difficult or impossible for higher education institutions to maintain intellectual integrity, and destroy the public schools that bring different students together, replacing them with religious schools that harden tribal affiliations. 

And while all that is going on, eradicate sources of information inconsistent with White Christian nationalist dogma–not just educational institutions, but media outlets unwilling to bend the knee, and government websites that might accidentally contain factual information about the composition of the American polity.

Blue states might resist Program 2025, but not the racist, misogynistic, homophobic troglodytes in Indiana government.  

Comments

What Is Merit?

You’ve got to give Trump “credit” for one thing: he publicly expresses all the most vile racist tropes embraced by the MAGA movement. His attack on Kamala Harris as a “DEI” candidate is on a par with his constant assertions that people of color are either criminals or bums (or “not the finest” people…). Too bad America doesn’t get more immigration from Norway…

One of the most persistent accusations that bigots like Trump level at efforts aimed at erasing the structural effects of decades of discrimination is that such efforts necessarily disregard merit–that attempts to diversify a workforce or a student body inevitably result in a less-effective workforce or a “dumbed down” classroom.

The problem with that accusation is that it rests on a deeply-held conviction that merit is something that “those people” obviously lack, rather than on an accurate understanding of what constitutes merit and how we measure it.

Persuasion recently featured an interview between Yascha Mounk and Simon Fanshawe on just that topic. Fanshawe does a good deal of diversity work rooted in the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and other Enlightenment figures, and Mounk asked him how his approach differs from other diversity efforts. Fanshowe responded that “diversity inclusion” is about trying to understand what people’s different experiences bring to joint enterprises.

What organizations or businesses really have is a bunch of strangers brought together to achieve a common objective, whether it’s making pizzas or teaching a course at university or putting a man or woman on the moon. And my proposition to them is that it’s through their differences, what they each differently bring to that task and its different components—that’s why diversity matters. And one further thing that I would say is that there’s a key difference when we think about this notion of diversity. We think about the deficits. In other words, you can look at data and you could look at where the imbalances are between different groups of people. But there’s another element of this which is the diversity dividend, and that’s what happens when you start to combine the differences. Diversity is absolutely a talent strategy if you’d like to achieve common objectives.

When Mounk questioned him about the widespread notion that diversity efforts necessarily downplay merit-based hiring, Fanshawe’s response was, in my opinion, exactly right.

What I would say is that you need to think about what you mean by merit. In other words, what do you value and what people are able to bring it into organizations? Typically what you have is that merit is largely based on a technical notion, on a professional skill notion. They will bring that technical skill. But the truth of it is there’s a kind of skill threshold when you’re trying to fill a job or create a team. But then the question is, what else is that person bringing? And I’m not suggesting, ever, that people should be recruited because of who they are. I’m saying that, actually, it’s not who they are that matters. It’s what they bring through who they are…

 So what I would say is that if we start to think of merit as being that combination of skill and then also the knowledge of that and the experience you bring through who you are and your personality, then what you start to do is to combine a number of things with other people. So it’s important to recognise that the members of certain groups and certain members of those groups experience disadvantage. But it’s not a uniform experience. It’s not an all-day experience. I often say that the thing about prejudice for lesbians and gays is we might experience discrimination every day, but we don’t any longer experience it all day.

Let’s reevaluate merit, because what you often have in jobs is that people have an assumption about the merit that’s required for the job. They then recruit to that assumption and that assumption is never challenged. And in effect what it can do is cut out people who actually have got enormous amounts of talent they could bring to that job but they’re just not perceived as being suitable for it.

That last paragraph really speaks to the issue of prejudice. Not prejudice for or against certain groups of people, but the “pre-judging” that so often occurs in formulating job descriptions. What are the skills this job really requires? If that skill list is too narrow, the business or organization will overlook applicants who would be enormous assets.

Of course, the MAGA cult doesn’t consider such possibilities.

Like Trump, they define “merit” as White skin, a penis, and a “Christian” label.

Comments

Don’t Help Those People!!

When do efforts to ameliorate past disadvantage turn into unconstitutional discrimination?

It’s a fair enough question; if demographic change gives people of color the power to make the nation’s laws, and they use that power to privilege themselves and disadvantage Whites, that would clearly be wrong. While accusations of “reverse discrimination” tend to be prompted more by racism than actual unfairness, there have been some cases where courts have found such reverse discrimination. 

But let’s get real! Efforts to help people overcome longstanding structural disadvantage aren’t plots against Whites. The current attacks on “woke” corporate efforts to ensure fairness are more often than not barely-veiled efforts to maintain previous, racist barriers.

I was particularly struck by a recent report in the Washington Post.

The article began by recounting an entrepreneurial  bright idea. Patterning her project after those ubiquitous food trucks, a young Black woman in Atlanta bought an old school bus, painted it white, tore out the floor and seats, and added manicure stations. The effort took off, and she was booking weddings and parties.

Looking to scale up, she approached a grant program for Black, female entrepreneurs run by Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based venture capital firm.

The firm had planned to name the latest round of grant winners before Labor Day. But Fearless Fund has agreed to delay the awards as it finds itself ensnared in the nation’s rapidly expanding legal brawl over affirmative action.

Edward Blum, whose lawsuit prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the use of racial preferences in college admissions, targeted the Fearless Fund in early August, claiming it engaged in “explicit racial exclusion” by operating a grant program “open only to Black females.” The lawsuit — which asked the court to prevent the fund from selecting its next round of grant winners — is one of the most prominent in a flurry of recent lawsuits and legal claims by conservative activists aimed at applying the Supreme Court’s insistence on race-blind college admissions practices to the corporate sphere of hiring, contracting and investment.

Blum has also sued two law firms over their operation of fellowship programs aimed at students of color, LGBTQ+ students, and students with disabilities, alleging that the exclusion of applicants who don’t fall into those categories is discriminatory, and demanding that the programs be shut down.

It will not surprise you to learn that a Google search to find cases in which Blum challenged programs that preferred White folks was unsuccessful….

Fearless Fund is one of several entities trying to help minority entrepreneurs who have encountered race-based barriers to capital:

Fearless Fund is one of dozens of firms geared toward combating the well-documented racial imbalance in U.S. venture capital: Last year, 1.1 percent of the $214 billion in venture capital funding allocated went to companies with Black founders, according to data from Crunchbase. In 2019, research from Stanford University concluded that founders of color face more bias from professional investors the better they perform.

The women who established Fearless Fund had been personally affected by the wildly disproportionate funding available to Black and White enterprises, and wanted to help other Black women facing the barriers that they’d struggled to overcome. They’ve lined up a heavyweight defense team, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Ben Crump.

The lawsuit against the Fearless Fund, Crump told The Post, “is an attack by the enemies of equality, to say ‘You will never be equal.’”…

The lawsuit claims that the venture capital firm’s practice of awarding $20,000 grants, business support services and mentorship to Black women-owned businesses violates a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that guarantees “race neutrality” in contracts. That legislation, which was passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of people freed from enslavement, is also being used in similar lawsuits — along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — to claim that companies’ attempts to eradicate racial inequality qualify as discrimination.

Unsurprisingly, Blum and his fellow champions of racial neutrality were nowhere to be found–in the courts or in the court of public opinion–when corporate practices blatantly favored Whites, making their current pious pronouncements about favoritism and discrimination ring especially hollow.

Federal laws that were intended to ensure equal opportunity and rights for people of color “are now being used as a weapon to deny them rights,” said Kenneth Davis, professor of law and ethics at Fordham University. “It’s the height of irony.”

That irony is proliferating. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down college affirmative action programs, a federal judge has ruled that an SBA program for historically-disadvantaged groups is unconstitutional.

Maybe next they can attack scholarships for poor students on the grounds that they discriminate against the rich….

Comments