Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

[Circlotron]

End of story.

[nctnico]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

For me, retiring the usage of “master and slave” falls into the category of “yeah, that’s probably a good thing to do [to avoid dredging up discomforts from over 150 years ago].”

It's bullshit.

It's also painfully, painfully US-centric, as is the entirety of the woke caste system and it's dogma.

It is not only US centric. In the Netherlands there is also an active 'we stem from slaves' movement including monuments and all. Even though the victims are dead for over a century already and slavery was never legal in the Netherlands. And oddly enough never a word about people who where slaves more recently. My own grandfather was one for a couple of years in one of hitler's munition factories. Oh, no, the political correct term for him is 'forced labourer'...

Recently I watched a Dutch documentary about the 'woke movement'. It looks like these people are angry just to be angry. Everything is wrong.

Bottom line: I think some people are just looking to point fingers in order to mask their own shortcomings / lack of spirit to make something from their lives. The woke movement is a whole ecosystem around it driven by people that make money from telling people they are being discriminated one way or another.

For sure there is discrimination but if you start of by telling people they will never amount to anything because of their gender, skin color, etc, people will start by discriminating themselves and lose any incentive to go after a good career.

Recently I watched a TV show. At some point this rethorical question came along 'Have you ever seen a black software engineer?'. That made me wonder: have I? The answer is no. I just can't think of a reason why not though. I have been around many companies and also saw quite a few CVs and applicants so that is not the reason.

[Zero999]

I realize now that my opinion about some other people on this thread has changed. In some cases dramatically and to worst.

There is the obvious possibility that the opinion that some other members of the forum have about me to also have changed in the same sense.

This is why I think that it is a big error to allow this kind of threads.

If anything, they're divisive and they poison the atmosphere.

Why can't the people starting those discussions take them to the usual political ratholes instead of spoiling the fun on here?

What political ratholes? You mean Twitter? The problem is it's subject to heavy censorship which only works in one direction. I believe the reason why Dave has allowed this thread to remain open is because this place isn't censored and people are free to vent.

I find it odd how no one here has presented a decent argument in favour of diversity equity and inclusion training. Those who appear to support it have just said they want the thread closed.

I'm actually in favour of DEI training, but not in the way pushed. It should just be about making staff aware of the law, common courtesy and to try to keep politics and religion out of the workplace, whether it be pride flags or right wing memes.

I'll attempt to put forward the rational for interactionist training at work. The idea behind intersectionality is society is society is skewed to favour one group, over others who are oppressed. Every person has characteristics which form part of their identity and will determine where they lie on the intersectionality diagram. A deaf, black trans woman will be oppressed not only because because she's black, but a trans woman with a diability. A gay white man will also be oppressed for being gay, but not so much as he's white. Transwomen are more oppressed than ciswomen*.

Straight, white men are at the top of society, because they hold most positions of power. They have a lot invested to maintain the status quo, which is why many people here who fall into this category will be told the should remain silent, as by questioning the interesctionist ideology they're trying to maintain their position of power, privilege and dominance in society.

TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) need to step aside and support trans rights. Trans people have a disproportionately high suicide rate so it's only right they should be allowed to be treated as the gender they identify with, to be their true selves. This means they need to be allowed to enter spaces and compete in sports which match their identity.

We all need to be aware of our unconscious biases which discriminate against he most marginalised and the more oppressed someone is, the more we need to cut them some slack and help them along in society. We must engineer society to address the under-representation of people who are oppressed in power.

*I hate the term cis which was coined by a peadophile. I find it offensive and I only used it here because I'm playing devil's advocate.


EDIT:
Just to be clear. I was playing devil's advocate. I've noticed no one had put forward an argument for DEI training, so thought I'd put one forward.

[Zero999]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

For me, retiring the usage of “master and slave” falls into the category of “yeah, that’s probably a good thing to do [to avoid dredging up discomforts from over 150 years ago].”

It's bullshit.

It's also painfully, painfully US-centric, as is the entirety of the woke caste system and it's dogma.

It is not only US centric. In the Netherlands there is also an active 'we stem from slaves' movement including monuments and all. Even though the victims are dead for over a century already and slavery was never legal in the Netherlands. And oddly enough never a word about people who where slaves more recently. My own grandfather was one for a couple of years in one of hitler's munition factories. Oh, no, the political correct term for him is 'forced labourer'...

Recently I watched a Dutch documentary about the 'woke movement'. It looks like these people are angry just to be angry. Everything is wrong.

Bottom line: I think some people are just looking to point fingers in order to mask their own shortcomings / lack of spirit to make something from their lives. The woke movement is a whole ecosystem around it driven by people that make money from telling people they are being discriminated one way or another.

For sure there is discrimination but if you start of by telling people they will never amount to anything because of their gender, skin color, etc, people will start by discriminating themselves and lose any incentive to go after a good career.

Recently I watched a TV show. At some point this rethorical question came along 'Have you ever seen a black software engineer?'. That made me wonder: have I? The answer is no. I just can't think of a reason why not though. I have been around many companies and also saw quite a few CVs and applicants so that is not the reason.

Most European countries have practiced slavery. Most recently it was the Soviet regime, before that the Nazis and before that the much or the rest of Western Europe in their empires in Africa and the Americas.

It's true lots of the woke stuff is US-centric. The UK is painted in a similar manner as the US, even though we never had Jim Crow laws and many black people came here to escape oppression in the US. Britain also did a lot to try to end slavery in the empire. One of the problems was the natives wanted to keep slavery going because it was profitable for them and they resented outside interference of their customs.

[daqq]

Most European countries/regions/peoples have at some point practiced slavery.

Fixed it for you. The discussion is really mostly West-centric, concentrating on a few select countries, while glossing over the world wide slavery and its long history and tradition, which is alive and well to this day in various forms. Basically, if you look at human history, it can be summed up as people doing shitty things to other people for shitty reasons with the occasional bright exception - and this can be applied onto damn nearly any region and race. But yeah, let's go with the narrative which is "white people bad".

[tszaboo]

Most European countries/regions/peoples have at some point practiced slavery.

Fixed it for you. The discussion is really mostly West-centric, concentrating on a few select countries, while glossing over the world wide slavery and its long history and tradition, which is alive and well to this day in various forms. Basically, if you look at human history, it can be summed up as people doing shitty things to other people for shitty reasons with the occasional bright exception - and this can be applied onto damn nearly any region and race. But yeah, let's go with the narrative which is "white people bad".

Yes daqq, I quite agree with you, I'm also quite upset about this broad strokes painting, and the "we are all guilty" mentality.
In large part of East and Central Europe Slavery for all practical purposes ended in the 13th century, even if it wasn't specifically outlawed for much later. Even before that it was PoWs from neighboring countries, and had nothing to do with ethnicity. In fact lot of those countries were the subject of slavery by the Ottoman empire, then the Germans, then the Soviets.
If you want to feel the collective guilty about your skin color or whatever your country did quite recently, fine, but don't generalize it to everyone, and leave us out of it.
(if it matters, I'm not Dutch)

[tom66]

Zero999, I would agree with you besides one point and that is transwomen (i.e. biologically men, reassigned after birth) competing in women's sport is unfair.

There are examples of teenage male teams trouncing professional female teams - the competitive edge that high testosterone and higher bone density and different skeletal and muscular build gives you over a woman is like trying to compete with Tiger Woods as an amateur teeist.

It is a tricky problem to solve, though.  I don't think there's an answer that doesn't offend some group, but then most compromises are like that.

I'm very much in favour of people being given some basic education on being respectful of others.  I don't care if you're Jewish, Catholic, gay, trans, straight, black, Asian or white - it's all ultimately irrelevant to me.  What I do care about is that you have mutual respect for everyone else, provided that is paid back.  I have no time for a-holes or disrespectful individuals, and it has no bearing at all on their background.

[nctnico]

Fully agree. I loath the whole 'we need a bin for every kind of person' mentality. In reality we are all people. I divide people into two groups: nice people and a-holes. Fortunately the latter group is rather small.

[madires]

Just for reference:
- Slavery in Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa)
- Slavery in contemporary Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa)

[emece67]

The only people who seem to want this thread shut down are those that basically support DEI, because they are being challenged here. So they compare it to talking about wars, covid, religion, etc as an excuse to have it shut down.

Apparently it is not possible.

Being me the only one (I think) that mentioned war and COVID, I understand that the above cite is to me.

Will say it again: NONE ON THIS FUCKING FORUM KNOWS WHAT MY IDEAS ABOUT DEI ARE.

Continue all you want with your joyful game, but DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I HAVE NOT SAID AND DO NOT PUT IDEAS ON MY HEAD.

[tszaboo]

Straight, white men are at the top of society, because they hold most positions of power.

You mean, like Obama, the queen of England, the members of the Chinese communist party, Maria Theresia, Angela Merkel, the iron lady, should I go on? We could write an endless list here.
Did you know that woman do 80% of purchasing decisions? Does this sound like men are in charge?
Maybe men are in the top positions, because they dont mind working 18 hours a day including weekends, sacrificing the chance of having a normal family life, and having the right combination of personnel traits. Which personnel traits are not distributed equally. If you don't like that, go back a million years and ask woman to join the mammoth hunt, so that evolution can take a different route.

[pcprogrammer]

Here is one for the road. Slavery still exist, and guess who the new master is

MONEY

[Zero999]

Zero999, I would agree with you besides one point and that is transwomen (i.e. biologically men, reassigned after birth) competing in women's sport is unfair.

There are examples of teenage male teams trouncing professional female teams - the competitive edge that high testosterone and higher bone density and different skeletal and muscular build gives you over a woman is like trying to compete with Tiger Woods as an amateur teeist.

It is a tricky problem to solve, though.  I don't think there's an answer that doesn't offend some group, but then most compromises are like that.

I'm very much in favour of people being given some basic education on being respectful of others.  I don't care if you're Jewish, Catholic, gay, trans, straight, black, Asian or white - it's all ultimately irrelevant to me.  What I do care about is that you have mutual respect for everyone else, provided that is paid back.  I have no time for a-holes or disrespectful individuals, and it has no bearing at all on their background.

I agree. The same also should apply to female prisons spaces such as women's changing rooms, especially when the transperson hasn't had bottom surgery and rape/domestic violence centres.

I was playing devil's advocate in that post.

Straight, white men are at the top of society, because they hold most positions of power.

You mean, like Obama, the queen of England, the members of the Chinese communist party, Maria Theresia, Angela Merkel, the iron lady, should I go on? We could write an endless list here.
Did you know that woman do 80% of purchasing decisions? Does this sound like men are in charge?
Maybe men are in the top positions, because they dont mind working 18 hours a day including weekends, sacrificing the chance of having a normal family life, and having the right combination of personnel traits. Which personnel traits are not distributed equally. If you don't like that, go back a million years and ask woman to join the mammoth hunt, so that evolution can take a different route.

I agree.

Again, I was playing devil's advocate by explaing why many people support DEI training.

Perhaps I didn't make the fact I was playing devil's advocate clear enough. Post edited.

[Neper]

If anything, they're divisive and they poison the atmosphere.

If anything, they are diverse of opinion and reflect the atmosphere in the industry.

Why can't the people starting those discussions take them to the usual political ratholes instead of spoiling the fun on here?
Why can't these people starting those discussions not feel welcome discussing engineer's and engineering issues on here?

Fix it for you.

Just forget it.

[tpowell1830]

So the almost daily emails I get in work now are starting to become "uncomfortable".

I fully support the objectives.  I just question the narrative on grounds of irony/contradiction and hypocrisy.

First, since when did it become "Equity", rather than "Equality".

Second, since when was it inclusive to have an advert for a women's only event in same email, to discuss incentivising women in tech.

I really have to start questioning their definitions of these words they use as all I am seeing is latent discrimination becoming blatant discrimination.

A recent email highlighted women's success by increasing the hiring rate for women to 47%!  Did the applicant ratio of men to women change?  Nope.  Is 47% about 1000% over representative?  Yep.

Then they have the irrelevant discriminators.  Sex, sexuality, race, nationality, gender, preferred gender, preferred pro-noun and asking everyone to put their preferred pro-noun on their email signatures! 

It seems they are looking at diversity and equality in a completely different way these days.  It seems to be more about discriminating, labelling, asking people to identify and box themselves, counting them and publishing metrics on "diversity" to managers and hirers, so that they might avoid the "Straight white males" that are holding the company back!

However.  I already tried to raise this as an honest discussion somewhere else and it just got locked instantly.  This is not surprising me.  It's facism.  If you don't tow the party line, if you don't sing with their narrative you are obviously a right wing bigot who should be silenced quickly.

I'm honestly in fear that if I raised it in work with HR I would get disciplined.

I don't feel comfortable as a straight white male anymore in work.  I feel like I'm unwelcome.  I feel like promotions and pay rises are going to pass me by and go to women or "diverse" people instead.  Look I know some men have and continue to be assholes to women, but I don't think it's fair punishing the entire sex, especially not in work.  Keep that shit on Facebook and Twitter.

Where are the discussions on skills diversity?  Ability diversity?  Teamwork diversity?  Diversity in leadership styles, methodologies, approaches....    it seems the whole point has been forgotten in this wave of virtue signalling non-sense over less than 10% of the population in one hand and blatant discrimination of male employees to boot.

I read your other lengthy post where you talked about your struggle with depression and this has clarified to me some of your POVs that you have written on this forum. I am glad that you posted that, which helps people understand the struggles that people have with depression. The fact that Dave is suspending the rules for this thread has allowed many discussions to ebb and flow that otherwise would not come to light.

I also wanted to let you know that you are not the only one that sees and suffer from all of the DEI policies that are more and more becoming the norm. This is obvious  now, seeing that most of the posts are in agreement with your observations. Seeing all of the open opinions is cathartic, to say the least (thank you Dave).

But, for the rest of the posters on this thread, including the ones protesting this thread, shows what open discussion looks like in a democratic society. I, for one, am very pleased to see open discussion with minimal emotional outbursts of name calling (except for a few).

Since some here think that this forum is a democracy that can vote (which it is not, and rightly so), I vote that we continue the discussion in much the same manner that has, so far, been conducted.

I only wanted to say that, as threads get longer, at times, the subject gets broader and many times starts sliding off-topic. Can we move back to the subject of the OP please? But by no means stop discussing.

Finally, if it is not obvious yet, thank you Paulca for starting this thread.

[james_s]

Recently I watched a TV show. At some point this rethorical question came along 'Have you ever seen a black software engineer?'. That made me wonder: have I? The answer is no. I just can't think of a reason why not though. I have been around many companies and also saw quite a few CVs and applicants so that is not the reason.

I have, I work with several of them, I'm sure it depends greatly on the local demographics.

[james_s]

Will say it again: NONE ON THIS FUCKING FORUM KNOWS WHAT MY IDEAS ABOUT DEI ARE.

Then why don't you share your ideas then instead of just complaining and getting upset? That's the problem, you want the discussion shut down and yet you don't even contribute. You can't blame people for interpolating based on your responses, but if that is wrong then share whatever it is that you actually think on the topic. Dave has already made it clear that the discussion is not going to be shut down, so your options appear to be either participate or leave the thread.

[KaneTW]

The only people who seem to want this thread shut down are those that basically support DEI, because they are being challenged here. So they compare it to talking about wars, covid, religion, etc as an excuse to have it shut down.

Apparently it is not possible.

Being me the only one (I think) that mentioned war and COVID, I understand that the above cite is to me.

Will say it again: NONE ON THIS FUCKING FORUM KNOWS WHAT MY IDEAS ABOUT DEI ARE.

Continue all you want with your joyful game, but DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I HAVE NOT SAID AND DO NOT PUT IDEAS ON MY HEAD.

You're being overly sensitive. Dave talked in generics, you immediately interpreted that as yourself.

If you're so worried about what others think of you, maybe explain your opinions?

[ebastler]

"We are all of the same opinion here: The call for diversity is a complete fad."

Am I the only one to see the irony there? Not only is this a poor example of a "discussion", but it is also a beautifully self-referential paradox. You nicely illustrate how a homogeneous group can be quite exclusive, even hostile -- possibly without even realizing it.

Please note that this is the first time I have hinted in any way at my own position on "diversity" in this thread. Which is not that different from that of most other participants, in fact: I certainly find that the "woke" movement has gone off the rails and is putting a strain on society as a whole, including some professional environments.

But I also think that all of us, myself certainly included, have biases which we should be self-aware of and which we should challenge ourselves about. The claims made by Dave and others in this thread -- that engineering is all about strictly objective assessments based only on merit -- don't show that self-awareness.

In an earlier post I have voiced (once) my personal opinion that this forum is not a suitable place for this discussion. In response it has been implied by several members that I am a woke whatsoever, anti-democratic, and unable to tolerate differing opinions. I have also been personally attacked several times by Nominal Animal, in response to posts which never personally attacked him.

But sure, you guys are doing great:

this thread, shows what open discussion looks like in a democratic society. I, for one, am very pleased to see open discussion with minimal emotional outbursts of name calling (except for a few).

 

[MarginallyStable]

For me, retiring the usage of “master and slave” falls into the category of “yeah, that’s probably a good thing to do [to avoid dredging up discomforts from over 150 years ago].”

One of may projects was pushed to use "mother/baby" for this use case.... Now even that is being challenged as offensive.

[Zero999]

"We are all of the same opinion here: The call for diversity is a complete fad."

Am I the only one to see the irony there? Not only is this a poor example of a "discussion", but it is also a beautifully self-referential paradox. You nicely illustrate how a homogeneous group can be quite exclusive, even hostile -- possibly without even realizing it.

Please note that this is the first time I have hinted in any way at my own position on "diversity" in this thread. Which is not that different from that of most other participants, in fact: I certainly find that the "woke" movement has gone off the rails and is putting a strain on society as a whole, including some professional environments.

But I also think that all of us, myself certainly included, have biases which we should be self-aware of and which we should challenge ourselves about. The claims made by Dave and others in this thread -- that engineering is all about strictly objective assessments based only on merit -- don't show that self-awareness.

In an earlier post I have voiced (once) my personal opinion that this forum is not a suitable place for this discussion. In response it has been implied by several members that I am a woke whatsoever, anti-democratic, and unable to tolerate differing opinions. I have also been personally attacked several times by Nominal Animal, in response to posts which never personally attacked him.

But sure, you guys are doing great:

this thread, shows what open discussion looks like in a democratic society. I, for one, am very pleased to see open discussion with minimal emotional outbursts of name calling (except for a few).

 

The problem is many of the woke crowd want to shutdown discussion, so it shouldn't be surprising you've been labelled as such for not wanting to have this debate.

I think most people are aware that everyone has biases. The problem is there's no evidence to suggest they can be eliminated by unconscious bias training.

Stereotypes exist because they're more often than not true. The idea that a certain group of people are more likely to hold a certain bias isn't always true. For example women hold similar biases towards women, as men do. I've recently been promoted, yet my mum made the assumption my new boss was male, yet it's a woman. I wouldn't be surprised if a black security guard is more likely to suspect a black man of shoplifting, than a white person, the same as a white security guard.

[paulca]

Really, I haven't the faintest clue what colour, shape, size, variety, sexual orientation or other discriminating factors about ANY of you.  Except Maybe Dave as I've seen him obviously.  I at least know he's a white ausy bloke.

That's the beauty of this.

I remember chatting with people online, night after night after night, for years, on VATSim (Flight sim enthusiast gaming community).   One night someone posted someone else's picture and most people in the room went, "OH... err.. wow!", "nobody knew he was black".  There was even an instance of "Wait, you're a 20 something girl?  I thought you were like 14 with a camp voice!?".  The mental pictures that people had built up of each other began to disintegrate and fresh minds suddenly open with a clean slate.

The conversations and the coming together-ness I felt that night in that chat room was epic.  The realisation that all these faceless people you had built such friendships with are all real diverse people.  Black, white, asian, young, old, but if the topic is focused it just doesn't matter. 

[IanB]

Stereotypes exist because they're more often than not true. The idea that a certain group of people are more likely to hold a certain bias isn't always true. For example women hold similar biases towards women, as men do. I've recently been promoted, yet my mum made the assumption my new boss was male, yet it's a woman. I wouldn't be surprised if a black security guard is more likely to suspect a black man of shoplifting, than a white person, the same as a white security guard.

While biases may exist, there are also the practical realities of the workplace. For instance, when hiring, it can often be hard to find a single candidate that fits the bill, maybe two or three if we are lucky. At the end of the day, if the only suitable candidate we can find is a green alien from Mars, then we are going to hire a green alien from Mars. The idea that certain groups are under-represented in the workplace because they are actively ignored, rejected, or passed over, is not really consistent with running a successful business.

[james_s]

For me, retiring the usage of “master and slave” falls into the category of “yeah, that’s probably a good thing to do [to avoid dredging up discomforts from over 150 years ago].”

One of may projects was pushed to use "mother/baby" for this use case.... Now even that is being challenged as offensive.

Welcome to the euphemism treadmill.

The fundamental problem here is that master/slave accurately describes the way these components work together, so *any* words that accurately describe this will be synonyms of master and slave.

One of the things that drives me absolutely nuts is when people completely fail to understand the concept of context. A word on its own is meaningless, it's just a collection of sounds, which conveys a message because we attach meaning to those sounds. That meaning depends greatly on context. In many cases when a person finds a word offensive it is because *they* are attaching meaning to that word that was not put there by the person using it. I was in one of those DEI meetings a few months ago where the presenter said something along the lines of "when you say x what you mean is y" I think the phrase was "when you ask somebody 'where are you from' you're saying 'you are different and don't belong here'" I had to bite my tongue to not respond with "don't you dare try to tell me what I actually mean!" Indeed if I ask 'where are you from' it means something like 'I can tell by your accent, etc that you came from a different locale/culture and I'm curious to know more about you and your culture'. It is not remotely saying "you don't belong here", not even close, and I really resent some random person acting like they know what's actually inside my head, personally I think they are just projecting their own biases on me. 

[james_s]

I think most people are aware that everyone has biases. The problem is there's no evidence to suggest they can be eliminated by unconscious bias training.

Stereotypes exist because they're more often than not true. The idea that a certain group of people are more likely to hold a certain bias isn't always true. For example women hold similar biases towards women, as men do. I've recently been promoted, yet my mum made the assumption my new boss was male, yet it's a woman. I wouldn't be surprised if a black security guard is more likely to suspect a black man of shoplifting, than a white person, the same as a white security guard.

Multiple studies have shown that bias training is not only ineffective at reducing bias, it actually exacerbates it.

Stereotypes are almost always based on a kernel of truth. Do they apply to everybody? Of course not, but you and I both know that there is some truth behind the stereotypes of our respective cultures. You'll find a lot more uneducated cowboy hat wearing tobacco chewing gun carrying rednecks in the USA than you will in say the UK or India. We don't all fit that stereotype obviously but that doesn't mean it isn't true, and I don't take myself so seriously that I can't laugh at parts of my own culture.