Comments on: By What Measurement Can We Abolish the Diversity Department?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:24:40 +0000

One of the best explanations I have ever heard was from one of our Executive Team when he was welcoming the newly minted Inclusion Council and giving them the reason the Executive Team established their group, he ended with, ” … and when we get there, we may find that ‘there’ has moved ….” Truth is, there will always be “insiders” and ‘outsiders” and someone will need to mediate between the two. It’s human nature.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:34:51 +0000

Oh pulleeze, do not use a wall street analyst for your example. We all know where they got us today.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:23:06 +0000

The reality is that we will always be able to find examples of “disproportionate representation” – even in the far off world of equality that Luke alludes to. This is due to statistical random fluctuations that occur in the world. Rarely in this perfect will would any given office, occupational series, or GS level, have *exact* proportionate representation. Having a statistician come in and talk about statistical significance won’t solve this problem, because there will always be flukey data that produces bizarre outcomes for no underlying reason other than rare but existent random fluctuations. This is a deficiency of the current system: we feel like we have to explain each and every deviation from our perfect world. No wall street analyst would try to explain precisely each and every bounce the price of a stock took throughout a trading day, but that is basically what the premise of this question assumes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:58:41 +0000

I’m not sure I understand the comment made by a prior poster, “Seriously, what if different groups have different capabilities. What do we do then?” What does that mean? Are capabilities inherent in a race or group of people? Or are capabilities based on education and background? If everyone is given the same opportunities, allowed to participate in the same level and quality of education, then wouldn’t their capabilities be the same? The misconception that certain groups may not be able to perform the same as other groups is why diversity programs are still needed, to ensure that those ANYONE with the appropriate qualifications is afforded the same opportunities as anyone else, no matter their race, gender, or physical abilities.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:24:34 +0000

Beyond the compliance categories of diversity, there are many other diversity dimensions such as geographic, speech, education, rural v. suburban v. urban, etc. etc. Even in a room full of white men, there is great diversity. There will always be a need for a diversity department also because there are continuously new under represented groups on the horizon (i.e. genetically altered v. natural people; GINA; etc.).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:32 +0000

“If you believe all people are created equally, then we’ll know we’re done with needing a diversity department to help with equitable access and talent development by measuring the results.”

And what if I don’t? Let’s not be politically correct. And I’m not trying to put anyone down or flamebait.

Seriously, what if different groups have different capabilities.

What do we do then?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:14:21 +0000

My agency measurements in our mission critical job series meet or exceed the relevant civilian labor force for gender. We have pipeline issues to work on and a cultural diversity hill to climb. Our focus is the maintenance of these high levels of achievement, the security of a diverse pool of employement candidates, and the inclusion of people with disabilities. I for one would be happy to find a new job if we fulfilled our diversity mission. Our focus on diversity is to have the access to the unique perspectives that come with a diverse workforce to solve our increasingly complex problems.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:13 +0000

To the guest re: goal of div…This is where diversity/AA departments are in of themselves diverse. Sometimes, the goals are more complianced based, and are more aggressive in hiring/retaining minorities, women, etc. These are the ones that may reject an applicant if it is a white male…. Other times, the dept is more community driven, so it may list job ads in mediums or areas more visable to minorities, women, etc. but may still have a majority white workforce Sometimes, there maybe a mix of the two. These are just general examples, but I hope you get the point. Just like any idea or “crusade” people will have differeing views on it. The majority in the civil rights arena argue for equal access, while others demand equal representation. Again, as with any cause, the ruination of it is usually caused by its own members. Look at the recent article on this site about background checks. The EEOC is essentially arguing they hurt minority employment, yet, research shows they improve hiring of minorities because you take away the possibility of some bias. To that, I agree fully with you. In any job, the best candidate should get the position, and diversity departments should not push minority hiring for the sake of it, but rather develop processes and procedures that ensure equal access in the talent/resume pool. This will ensure better or equal representation in hiring as long as the company uses statistically proven means (background checks, job history,….) to make the final hire.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:35:11 +0000

… because one day, “diversity” will mean white men.
It’s not affirmative action, slave reparations, or women’s lib. Diversity means that different backgrounds improve the quality of group ideas, so diversity will always be good to promote and leverage. homogeneous communities are suboptimal, whether all white, all male, all black, or all women.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:55:59 +0000

I always thought the goal of diversity was to provide equal opportunity, without consideration of gender, race, national origina, religion, sexual preference, etc. I suggest the true measure of diversity is when 100 percent of the Fortune 500 companies’s CEOs are the best and brightest, not when they represent a simple percentage of one gender. I would think that their shareholders would agree.