!@#% Around and Found Out

[Shiori]

I just purchased the Diversity Inc book. I'm hoping to gain some new insights.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Wanted to add that most of the professors talking about how great the faux diversity and bemoaning the inequities of the system were older white males which is probably why I respected and appreciated an African American female professors perspective on these issues a bit not to mention she knew her stuff.

Back in my formative years, the equity stuff was called affirmative action and many complained about it, but it was an essential tool to getting diversity into universities and workplaces. I think I prefer the older term and the feel of it was more about elevating groups to share in the benefits of society than a competitive perspective that seems to be more prominent now.

...aka, white apologists.

 

[Sanman]

I saw a link to this and thought it would be an interesting point of discussion regarding this conversation.

"Overrepresented Minorities": A Brief History - SDN

 

[Shiori]

 

[WisNeuro]

Could you be more specific about your disagreement?

 

[Shiori]

Could you be more specific about your disagreement?

You know when fainting goats get stressed out...

I'd say it's a global response and parsing probably serves no one.

 

[WisNeuro]

You know when fainting goats get stressed out...

I'd say it's a global response and parsing probably serves no one.

Vasovagal response then? I am genuinely curious about the article though, and what parts of it are disagreeable in your opinion? I read it, so just wanting to understand.

 

[Shiori]

Vasovagal response then? I am genuinely curious about the article though, and what parts of it are disagreeable in your opinion? I read it, so just wanting to understand.

Probably. I think the article is good.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I saw a link to this and thought it would be an interesting point of discussion regarding this conversation.

"Overrepresented Minorities": A Brief History - SDN

I was watching a TV medical drama series from the dark ages (1990s) ('E.R.') and the African-American doctor (Dr. Benton) was accused by his intern (Dr.Gant--also African-American) of riding him too hard and being too critical of his work. Benton shot back at him that if he is a black doctor then he will have to work twice as hard and be twice as competent because everyone will just assume that a black doctor got his position just because of the color of his skin and not his competence (due to affirmative action and policies relating to racial preferences). Of course, the character of Dr. Benton is known in the series as being extremely competent, so it made the scene all the more poignant.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I was watching a TV medical drama series from the dark ages (1990s) ('E.R.') and the African-American doctor (Dr. Benton) was accused by his intern (Dr.Gant--also African-American) of riding him too hard and being too critical of his work. Benton shot back at him that if he is a black doctor then he will have to work twice as hard and be twice as competent because everyone will just assume that a black doctor got his position just because of the color of his skin and not his competence (due to affirmative action and policies relating to racial preferences). Of course, the character of Dr. Benton is known in the series as being extremely competent, so it made the scene all the more poignant.

Dr. Benton was a bad-ass. Loved his character on the show. Arrogant, skilled, non-apologetic. I remember that scene very well. Although I completely understood and appreciated the statement, I also thought to myself at the time, “Kind of funny because he is equally hard-assed to Dr. Carter, the rich white guy. Sounds a little like a rationalization to me.” I do love that show. When I first started watching it on DVDs was when I started my doctoral program so I really identified with a lot of it.

 

[Sanman]

I was watching a TV medical drama series from the dark ages (1990s) ('E.R.') and the African-American doctor (Dr. Benton) was accused by his intern (Dr.Gant--also African-American) of riding him too hard and being too critical of his work. Benton shot back at him that if he is a black doctor then he will have to work twice as hard and be twice as competent because everyone will just assume that a black doctor got his position just because of the color of his skin and not his competence (due to affirmative action and policies relating to racial preferences). Of course, the character of Dr. Benton is known in the series as being extremely competent, so it made the scene all the more poignant.

Dr. Benton was a bad-ass. Loved his character on the show. Arrogant, skilled, non-apologetic. I remember that scene very well. Although I completely understood and appreciated the statement, I also thought to myself at the time, “Kind of funny because he is equally hard-assed to Dr. Carter, the rich white guy. Sounds a little like a rationalization to me.” I do love that show. When I first started watching it on DVDs was when I started my doctoral program so I really identified with a lot of it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Photos from the 80s. Always so good. lol

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

I saw a link to this and thought it would be an interesting point of discussion regarding this conversation.

"Overrepresented Minorities": A Brief History - SDN

On initial read-through, it gives "Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) students have had it just as bad as other underrepresented minorities, and deserve equal affirmative action opportunities as them as well."
On second read-through, it still gives the former but does exemplify the need to understand MENA & AAPI groups historical racial barriers and their stories.

In general, I see the direction and points that the article is trying to make. However, this type of thinking can be harmful, as it can unintentionally cause further divides into minority groups through resentment of missed opportunities. Whether you are an "overrepresented" or "underrepresented" minority in the United States, the fact remains that you are a minority. Adding further division doesn't help restructure systematic racial barriers as a whole.

Side points:
When the article said:

White populations have also adopted the term “overrepresented majority” as a race.

Is it saying that white populations are calling themselves the "overrepresented majority?" Never heard of that before.
I prefer the concept of cultural humility over cultural competency.

 

[WisNeuro]

On initial read-through, it gives "Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) students have had it just as bad as other underrepresented minorities, and deserve equal affirmative action opportunities as them as well."
On second read-through, it still gives the former but does exemplify the need to understand MENA & AAPI groups historical racial barriers and their stories.

In general, I see the direction and points that the article is trying to make. However, this type of thinking can be harmful, as it can unintentionally cause further divides into minority groups through resentment of missed opportunities. Whether you are an "overrepresented" or "underrepresented" minority in the United States, the fact remains that you are a minority. Adding further division doesn't help restructure systematic racial barriers as a whole.

Side points:
When the article said:

Is it saying that white populations are calling themselves the "overrepresented majority?" Never heard of that before.
I prefer the concept of cultural humility over cultural competency.

I must have missed the metaphorical pissing contest here. Rather the author stated that concerns from this group have been "largely ignored or diminished." Did I miss something more explicit?

Also, as to the point about talking about one specific groups experiences being unhelpful, that seems contradictory to many of the DEI trainings/talks I have been in. In those talks, speakers warn about diminishing cultural differences of groups and lumping minorities all into a single group. So, it would seem you are telling us that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't when it comes to appreciating and discussing specific experiences vs. assuming minority individuals need to be spoken about as a whole.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Wait...was he in Coming to America?! The b/f?

 

[Sanman]

Wait...was he in Coming to America?! The b/f?

Yup, the heir to the soul glo empire.

 

[Sanman]

On initial read-through, it gives "Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) students have had it just as bad as other underrepresented minorities, and deserve equal affirmative action opportunities as them as well."
On second read-through, it still gives the former but does exemplify the need to understand MENA & AAPI groups historical racial barriers and their stories.

In general, I see the direction and points that the article is trying to make. However, this type of thinking can be harmful, as it can unintentionally cause further divides into minority groups through resentment of missed opportunities. Whether you are an "overrepresented" or "underrepresented" minority in the United States, the fact remains that you are a minority. Adding further division doesn't help restructure systematic racial barriers as a whole.

Side points:
When the article said:

Is it saying that white populations are calling themselves the "overrepresented majority?" Never heard of that before.
I prefer the concept of cultural humility over cultural competency.

I agree that there is no need for further division. However, when you give one group opportunities over another group, this is what will happen. This doesn't even get into personal views on self-identity and identity fraud questions. Is Elizabeth Warren Native American? Is she Native American enough to check the box for the scholarship/job/college entrance application? What happens, as mentioned in the article, when you are forced to check the "Caucasian" box despite North African heritage because there is no box for you? When you get into these questions of policy, one always has to contend with the question of "what is fair?" that can be the rabbit hole that causes arguments.

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

I must have missed the metaphorical pissing contest here. Rather the author stated that concerns from this group have been "largely ignored or diminished." Did I miss something more explicit?

Also, as to the point about talking about one specific groups experiences being unhelpful, that seems contradictory to many of the DEI trainings/talks I have been in. In those talks, speakers warn about diminishing cultural differences of groups and lumping minorities all into a single group. So, it would seem you are telling us that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't when it comes to appreciating and discussing specific experiences vs. assuming minority individuals need to be spoken about as a whole.

The only piss I see is the one going over what I typed.

But focusing here, part of my initial statement was agreeing with the author about needing to hear their stories and understand the historical barriers that they face.
So, to what you're talking about regarding "...specific groups experiences being unhelpful...," I have no idea where you got that.

My concern comes when we unintentionally divide minority groups further in the face of systematic barriers that need to be reformed. There is a need to recognize cultural differences and experiences (as your talks said), but also a need for cohesion among minority groups in the face of systematic oppression (which your talks should have also gone over).

The tone that the author gives (at least to me) is a focus on adversity from AAPI & MENA groups against other minority groups in terms of applications, scholarship, and affirmative action, wherein my problem lies. The focus should lie on AAPI & MENA adversity toward the systems that don't offer the same opportunities.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[WisNeuro]

The only piss I see is the one going over what I typed.

But focusing here, part of my initial statement was agreeing with the author about needing to hear their stories and understand the historical barriers that they face.
So, to what you're talking about regarding "...specific groups experiences being unhelpful...," I have no idea where you got that.

My concern comes when we unintentionally divide minority groups further in the face of systematic barriers that need to be reformed. There is a need to recognize cultural differences and experiences (as your talks said), but also a need for cohesion among minority groups in the face of systematic oppression (which your talks should have also gone over).

The tone that the author gives (at least to me) is a focus on adversity from AAPI & MENA groups against other minority groups in terms of applications, scholarship, and affirmative action, wherein my problem lies. The focus should lie on AAPI & MENA adversity toward the systems that don't offer the same opportunities.

Hope that clears it up.

I appreciate the effort, but I didn't get much clarity from the statement. I did not get a read that the author was attempting division rather than elucidation of what they saw as an under-discussed topic, and does discuss the systemic issue of lack of access to leadership positions. It seems invalidating and hypocritical to essentially say that this perspective does not deserve space in a conversation.

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

I appreciate the effort, but I didn't get much clarity from the statement. I did not get a read that the author was attempting division rather than elucidation of what they saw as an under-discussed topic, and does discuss the systemic issue of lack of access to leadership positions. It seems invalidating and hypocritical to essentially say that this perspective does not deserve space in a conversation.

It would be if that was being said.
But hey, can't agree on everything.

 

[WisNeuro]

It would be if that was being said.
But hey, can't agree on everything.

Can you point to the passage wherein the author pits one group against another in terms of their adversity?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This is why I keep coming back to this board, lol

 

[smalltownpsych]

Sometimes I think the whole psychology and philosophy of group relations jumped the shark when Sue came up with his theory of micro-aggressions based on the pilot on a small plane asking he and his colleague to move on the plane. Not that I don’t think it decscribes something that legitimately occurs, just that a focus on this has led us in a wrong direction that leads to further divisions and that the article points to that. We just got a new prospective DEI statement from our state association that lists like 10 different aspects of minority status. The listserve blew up over that one and when I think that the statement may not make any difference in how my patients and students are actually treated, I am skeptical as to whether or not some of these well-intentioned efforts will have the converse effects. I don’t even agree with using the term equity instead of equality because that shift appears political more than socialogically sound but no way am I going to challenge that with my name in the list serve. Could be bad for business so I’ll just sit it out.

 

[Sanman]

Sometimes I think the whole psychology and philosophy of group relations jumped the shark when Sue came up with his theory of micro-aggressions based on the pilot on a small plane asking he and his colleague to move on the plane. Not that I don’t think it decscribes something that legitimately occurs, just that a focus on this has led us in a wrong direction that leads to further divisions and that the article points to that. We just got a new prospective DEI statement from our state association that lists like 10 different aspects of minority status. The listserve blew up over that one and when I think that the statement may not make any difference in how my patients and students are actually treated, I am skeptical as to whether or not some of these well-intentioned efforts will have the converse effects. I don’t even agree with using the term equity instead of equality because that shift appears political more than socialogically sound but no way am I going to challenge that with my name in the list serve. Could be bad for business so I’ll just sit it out.

I don't have an issue with the language of equality vs equity. Rather, the philosophy behind each word is different. The problem with equity is the way it is achieved in reality vs the theoretical construct. A take on the very popular equity cartoon that has been making the rounds makes the point. Equality is easy, equity requires judgements about what is fair. The issue becomes who gets to make that judgement?

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don't have an issue with the language of equality vs equity. Rather, the philosophy behind each word is different. The problem with equity is the way it is achieved in reality vs the theoretical construct. A take on the very popular equity cartoon that has been making the rounds makes the point. Equality is easy, equity requires judgements about what is fair. The issue becomes who gets to make that judgement?

People in power make the decisions and it will always be some are more equal than others or more deserving of equity than others to use the newer phrase. I understand why the word shift and it makes some logical sense as the second cartoon illustrates, and the followers of Marx would agree. How’s that phrase of his go? “To each according to his ability and each according to his needs”. I think the problem is that some people have more ability to take more than they need.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

I don't have an issue with the language of equality vs equity. Rather, the philosophy behind each word is different. The problem with equity is the way it is achieved in reality vs the theoretical construct. A take on the very popular equity cartoon that has been making the rounds makes the point. Equality is easy, equity requires judgements about what is fair. The issue becomes who gets to make that judgement?

Respectfully, it should be irrelevant who is making the judgment. If equity is a value that the decision-maker wants to promote, they should be able to reflect/evaluate whether their decision-making processes have that intended result. The graphic "equity in practice" is not equity, it is coerced equality. If the decision-maker has such a result, then THEY have in fact failed to promote equity. Unfortunately, many appear to view inadequate/inappropriate implementation of equity or, in the case of the OP, DEI initiatives as a limitation of the value/theory itself rather than failure of the decision-maker.

 

[Sanman]

Respectfully, it should be irrelevant who is making the judgment. If equity is a value that the decision-maker wants to promote, they should be able to reflect/evaluate whether their decision-making processes have that intended result. The graphic "equity in practice" is not equity, it is coerced equality. If the decision-maker has such a result, then THEY have in fact failed to promote equity. Unfortunately, many appear to view inadequate/inappropriate implementation of equity or, in the case of the OP, DEI initiatives as a limitation of the value/theory itself rather than failure of the decision-maker.

The decision maker matters because equity is only equity if applied across the board. If not, it is simply favoritism. Equity in college admissions for Black and Latino applicants? Sure, how about equity in the NBA? I mean surely it could use a few more Asian, Hispanic, and Caucasian players and a lot less Black players to achieve proportional representation. Especially if some of those folks are being penalized in college and graduate admissions. I don't see a strong call for that. These are certainly some of the highest paying jobs in the country.

As for coerced equality, I would need a definition of the term to discuss that point. However, I don't think people are nearly as concerned about the theory as the implementation.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

The decision maker matters because equity is only equity if applied across the board. If not, it is simply favoritism. Equity in college admissions for Black and Latino applicants? Sure, how about equity in the NBA? I mean surely it could use a few more Asian, Hispanic, and Caucasian players and a lot less Black players to achieve proportional representation. Especially if some of those folks are being penalized in college and graduate admissions. I don't see a strong call for that. These are certainly some of the highest paying jobs in the country.

As for coerced equality, I would need a definition of the term to discuss that point. However, I don't think people are nearly as concerned about the theory as the implementation.

Equity is not one size fits all. I'm not sure why we would or should expect equity to look the same in a major sports league vs a college/university, equity's application should be reflective of the larger mission of the organization.

"Coerced equality" was a way for me to explain what was happening in the graphic (it is not an academic term). I was trying to find a milquetoast way to describe how two of three characters having their limbs amputated by a social justice saw was not equity.

 

[Sanman]

Equity is not one size fits all. I'm not sure why we would or should expect equity to look the same in a major sports league vs a college/university, equity's application should be reflective of the larger mission of the organization.

"Coerced equality" was a way for me to explain what was happening in the graphic (it is not an academic term). I was trying to find a milquetoast way to describe how two of three characters having their limbs amputated by a social justice saw was not equity.

Again, if equity is not one size fits all, then it is even more important who the decision maker is. Because, now we are deciding where "equity" is required and where it is not. That in and of itself is not equitable. The highest performing school in NYC (Stuyvesant) that allows admission based on standardized testing is 70% Asian. The NBA is over 70% Black. One is considered a problem the other is not. The decision makers have decided. Lets make it more relevant. Asians and Caucasians are considered overrepresented in colleges. Black males make up approximately 50% of Division I basketball and football athletes and receive the scholarships that go with them. Why is the first a problem and not the other? Why is test-taking aptitude a target of equity based reform and not athletic ability? Certainly, different individuals are overrepresented and underrepresented in these areas based on a host of reasons.

Regarding "coerced equality", I would call it coerced equity. The reason being that equality would mean that they all had their legs cut off. Rather, the cartoon is pointing out that equity will be more about taking away opportunity from some who need it rather than equaling the playing field. Does anyone think that the Asian and White applicants denied admission to from college will be the children of Bill Gates and Sundar Pichai? Or really anyone rich enough to pay full tuition at a private university? Or will it be those on the bubble among those not of means that require help to receive a college education to get a good job? Given that universities are businesses, I am sure it will be the children of middle and working class folks of all races and ethnicities that will be pitted against each other for those leftover spots where these policies will play out.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Respectfully, it should be irrelevant who is making the judgment. If equity is a value that the decision-maker wants to promote, they should be able to reflect/evaluate whether their decision-making processes have that intended result. The graphic "equity in practice" is not equity, it is coerced equality. If the decision-maker has such a result, then THEY have in fact failed to promote equity. Unfortunately, many appear to view inadequate/inappropriate implementation of equity or, in the case of the OP, DEI initiatives as a limitation of the value/theory itself rather than failure of the decision-maker.

I am not sure how it could be irrelevant who is making the judgement unless the guy I know who is designing AI software can develop an algorithm to solve these types of complicated questions. As long as humans are deciding what is fair or not, they will make bad calls. If someone has a better answer for how to remedy the generational and cultural devastation that was inflicted on a couple of large groups of people in this country then I’m completely for that, but I’m not sure that I’ve really heard much of that. Usually seems to be slogans and semantics more so than effective policies. Not to say that semantics arent important, but if that is all there is then we‘re just calling the same problem by a prettier name.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The decision maker matters because equity is only equity if applied across the board. If not, it is simply favoritism. Equity in college admissions for Black and Latino applicants? Sure, how about equity in the NBA? I mean surely it could use a few more Asian, Hispanic, and Caucasian players and a lot less Black players to achieve proportional representation. Especially if some of those folks are being penalized in college and graduate admissions. I don't see a strong call for that. These are certainly some of the highest paying jobs in the country.

As for coerced equality, I would need a definition of the term to discuss that point. However, I don't think people are nearly as concerned about the theory as the implementation.

Exactly.

The arrogance of the philosophical position of 'philosopher kings'--going back to Plato's ideas--who are 'all-knowing' and 'incorruptible' and who believe that they should have the power to 'pick the winners and losers' and engineer society as benevolent dictators (for our own good) goes waaaaay back in history (and is always a disaster).

'I can (and will) make the world a better place. Just give me the power to do so. I will decide what's 'fair.' Anyone who disagrees is a {insert ugly label} and should be punished.'

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Again, if equity is not one size fits all, then it is even more important who the decision maker is. Because, now we are deciding where "equity" is required and where it is not. That in and of itself is not equitable. The highest performing school in NYC (Stuyvesant) that allows admission based on standardized testing is 70% Asian. The NBA is over 70% Black. One is considered a problem the other is not. The decision makers have decided. Lets make it more relevant. Asians and Caucasians are considered overrepresented in colleges. Black males make up approximately 50% of Division I basketball and football athletes and receive the scholarships that go with them. Why is the first a problem and not the other? Why is test-taking aptitude a target of equity based reform and not athletic ability? Certainly, different individuals are overrepresented and underrepresented in these areas based on a host of reasons.

Regarding "coerced equality", I would call it coerced equity. The reason being that equality would mean that they all had their legs cut off. Rather, the cartoon is pointing out that equity will be more about taking away opportunity from some who need it rather than equaling the playing field. Does anyone think that the Asian and White applicants denied admission to from college will be the children of Bill Gates and Sundar Pichai? Or really anyone rich enough to pay full tuition at a private university? Or will it be those on the bubble among those not of means that require help to receive a college education to get a good job? Given that universities are businesses, I am sure it will be the children of middle and working class folks of all races and ethnicities that will be pitted against each other for those leftover spots where these policies will play out.

There are a lot of rhetorical questions here. In sport, one team/player wins one championship; in school one thousand students can earn one thousand diplomas. The difference between the two (and how equity might be promoted in each) is quite clear for me. Frankly, I'm not interested in prescribing what equity is or should mean for you. I've posted because I found the way you described equity to be cartoonish (literally) and want to be clear that what you are describing is NOT equity .If you are interested in equity and promoting equity, you will determine what it means for you or your organization and apply it accordingly. I'm not interested in forcing you to my way of thinking or demanding that you take equity seriously. I will maintain that problems are not with the concept itself but more in its application.

Also to the other posters focused on who the decision-maker is, I believe that concern is more about power than equity.

 

[WisNeuro]

There are a lot of rhetorical questions here. In sport, one team/player wins one championship; in school one thousand students can earn one thousand diplomas. The difference between the two (and how equity might be promoted in each) is quite clear for me. Frankly, I'm not interested in prescribing what equity is or should mean for you. I've posted because I found the way you described equity to be cartoonish (literally) and want to be clear that what you are describing is NOT equity .If you are interested in equity and promoting equity, you will determine what it means for you or your organization and apply it accordingly. I'm not interested in forcing you to my way of thinking or demanding that you take equity seriously. I will maintain that problems are not with the concept itself but more in its application.

Also to the other posters focused on who the decision-maker is, I believe that concern is more about power than equity.

This is one of the points that @Sanman is making as well.

 

[borne_before]

So equity is a religion?

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

This is one of the points that @Sanman is making as well.

Yes. But for them it seems to lead to a conclusion (abandoning promotion of equity as a value) that I'm not willing to make.

 

[Sanman]

There are a lot of rhetorical questions here. In sport, one team/player wins one championship; in school one thousand students can earn one thousand diplomas. The difference between the two (and how equity might be promoted in each) is quite clear for me. Frankly, I'm not interested in prescribing what equity is or should mean for you. I've posted because I found the way you described equity to be cartoonish (literally) and want to be clear that what you are describing is NOT equity .If you are interested in equity and promoting equity, you will determine what it means for you or your organization and apply it accordingly. I'm not interested in forcing you to my way of thinking or demanding that you take equity seriously. I will maintain that problems are not with the concept itself but more in its application.

Also to the other posters focused on who the decision-maker is, I believe that concern is more about power than equity.

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Diplomas are not equivalent to championships. However, internship spots at higly paid companies like Google or funded graduate positions are competitive. Much like championships, those are positions will not be available to all and is where DE&I is applied.

As @WisNeuro mentioned, I don't think any of us have a problem with the concept in theory but with the application in reality. Hence why the cartoon is labeled 'equity in theory' and 'equity in reality'. In theory, it will provide equitable opportunities for all. In reality, it will cause division among those of lesser economic means fighting over the scraps after those with means are done (which is exactly what you see in MAGA and the Republican party). It will even cause anxiety slightly higher up the totem role (hence the recent 'side door' admissions scandal). However, those in power have no interest in actually leveling the playing field if it affects them.

 

[Sanman]

Yes. But for them it seems to lead to a conclusion (abandoning promotion of equity as a value) that I'm not willing to make.

A point that may not lead to a conclusion you like does not make the point any less valid.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Diplomas are not equivalent to championships. However, internship spots at higly paid companies like Google or funded graduate positions are competitive. Much like championships, those are positions will not be available to all and is where DE&I is applied.

As @WisNeuro mentioned, I don't think any of us have a problem with the concept in theory but with the application in reality. Hence why the cartoon is labeled 'equity in theory' and 'equity in reality'. In theory, it will provide equitable opportunities for all. In reality, it will cause division among those of lesser economic means fighting over the scraps after those with means are done (which is exactly what you see in MAGA and the Republican party). It will even cause anxiety slightly higher up the totem role (hence the recent 'side door' admissions scandal). However, those in power have no interest in actually leveling the playing field if it affects them.

Then we are in agreement. Forgive me, I am more of a lurker than a poster on these boards. Frankly, I was motivated to post by the graphic as I found it to be a gross bastardization of what equity actually is. I do agree that most in power (some of who purport to promote equity) actually have no interest.

 

[WisNeuro]

Then we are in agreement. Forgive me, I am more of a lurker than a poster on these boards. Frankly, I was motivated to post by the graphic as I found it to be a gross bastardization of what equity actually is. I do agree that most in power (some of who purport to promote equity) actually have no interest.

I mean, that was exactly the point of the cartoon.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Diplomas are not equivalent to championships. However, internship spots at higly paid companies like Google or funded graduate positions are competitive. Much like championships, those are positions will not be available to all and is where DE&I is applied.

As @WisNeuro mentioned, I don't think any of us have a problem with the concept in theory but with the application in reality. Hence why the cartoon is labeled 'equity in theory' and 'equity in reality'. In theory, it will provide equitable opportunities for all. In reality, it will cause division among those of lesser economic means fighting over the scraps after those with means are done (which is exactly what you see in MAGA and the Republican party). It will even cause anxiety slightly higher up the totem role (hence the recent 'side door' admissions scandal). However, those in power have no interest in actually leveling the playing field if it affects them.

You made the comparison in the first place. It is not a dichotomy or comparison I myself would make.

 

[Sanman]

You made the comparison in the first place. It is not a dichotomy or comparison I myself would make.

As mentioned, the real dichotomy should be championships to good jobs/career opportunities not diplomas. Diplomas are equivalent to spots on a team. However, the issue is which team you get a spot on (the L.A. Lakers pays a lot better than a spot at my rec league and a diploma from Harvard goes farther than a diploma from community college).

 

[smalltownpsych]

So now that my state psychology association is changing equality to equity, do I have to start cutting peoples legs off? Seriously though, not sure how that manifests in my practice of psychology. Truth is that when it comes to my business I am sort of the benevolent despot that decides who gets what. First and foremost comes me and my family so I’m going to try to pay all of my employees less and myself more. Since I am benevolent and I also feel that happy workers will benefit me even more in the long run, I’ll keep throwing them enough crumbs to keep happy. I really don’t care about their identity status. All I care about is if they make my life easier. Just throwing this out because I think that we often ignore the smaller group dynamics when we look at societal or systems issues and that doesn’t help us progress much. It’s kind of like when the VA puts out dictates at the top that all the worker bees have to implement regardless of whether they will work or not.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Yes. But for them it seems to lead to a conclusion (abandoning promotion of equity as a value) that I'm not willing to make.

Are you asserting that, for example, fair treatment and equal application of rules/laws will always result in EQUAL OUTCOMES in terms of, say, composition of a particular population broken down by race, or sex, or SES, or education, or eye color, or intelligence, or dexterity, or age, or [ad infinitum]? I'm trying to understand the concept of 'equity.'

 

[WisNeuro]

So now that my state psychology association is changing equality to equity, do I have to start cutting peoples legs off? Seriously though, not sure how that manifests in my practice of psychology. Truth is that when it comes to my business I am sort of the benevolent despot that decides who gets what. First and foremost comes me and my family so I’m going to try to pay all of my employees less and myself more. Since I am benevolent and I also feel that happy workers will benefit me even more in the long run, I’ll keep throwing them enough crumbs to keep happy. I really don’t care about their identity status. All I care about is if they make my life easier. Just throwing this out because I think that we often ignore the smaller group dynamics when we look at societal or systems issues and that doesn’t help us progress much. It’s kind of like when the VA puts out dictates at the top that all the worker bees have to implement regardless of whether they will work or not.

They're going through the growing pains that most, if not all, of the SPTAs are going through. Definitely been a topic at higher level meetings these past few years. Also a lot of disjointed and clunky discussions between members who think that the state associations are guild organizations that need to focus on practice issues vs. social advocacy. Going to be some interesting internal battles before we see how things shake out.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Diplomas are not equivalent to championships. However, internship spots at higly paid companies like Google or funded graduate positions are competitive. Much like championships, those are positions will not be available to all and is where DE&I is applied.

As @WisNeuro mentioned, I don't think any of us have a problem with the concept in theory but with the application in reality. Hence why the cartoon is labeled 'equity in theory' and 'equity in reality'. In theory, it will provide equitable opportunities for all. In reality, it will cause division among those of lesser economic means fighting over the scraps after those with means are done (which is exactly what you see in MAGA and the Republican party). It will even cause anxiety slightly higher up the totem role (hence the recent 'side door' admissions scandal). However, those in power have no interest in actually leveling the playing field if it affects them.

What about "equity" in terms of male vs. female plumbers, or bricklayers, papermill workers, or sanitation workers or electric company linemen? Does it cut both ways?

Basically, you can either have (a) liberty (to choose, say, your occupation) or (b) enforced 'equity' in the form of 'equal' outcomes. I am going to bet that doctoral level psychology will remain a female dominated profession from here on out...probably because most young men these days are going to be less motivated to go into that field and there is a relative abundance of qualified and talented female applicants. Should we incentivize [via scholarships?] or force more men to go into psychology? Should we kick women out of grad school to make space for men until we reach 'equity' in the form of a 50/50 ratio?

 

[Sanman]

So now that my state psychology association is changing equality to equity, do I have to start cutting peoples legs off? Seriously though, not sure how that manifests in my practice of psychology. Truth is that when it comes to my business I am sort of the benevolent despot that decides who gets what. First and foremost comes me and my family so I’m going to try to pay all of my employees less and myself more. Since I am benevolent and I also feel that happy workers will benefit me even more in the long run, I’ll keep throwing them enough crumbs to keep happy. I really don’t care about their identity status. All I care about is if they make my life easier. Just throwing this out because I think that we often ignore the smaller group dynamics when we look at societal or systems issues and that doesn’t help us progress much. It’s kind of like when the VA puts out dictates at the top that all the worker bees have to implement regardless of whether they will work or not.

Of course. I also imagine that if your child becomes a psychologist, he/she will inherit the practice. Does not matter who your most qualified employee is. And if you have the funds, you can send your child to a for-profit PsyD in order to qualify him/her to inherit the business if he or she does not gain entrance into funded positions. The irony is that your daughter might be given preference for graduate spots or funding based on her gender and your son might not. I don't see a lot inequity between how you might treat you or I might treat our children personally. These laws are basing the opportunities our children will have on the opportunities our parents did not have and ignoring generations that will come into power between now and then.

 

[Sanman]

What about "equity" in terms of male vs. female plumbers, or bricklayers, papermill workers, or sanitation workers or electric company linemen? Does it cut both ways?

Basically, you can either have (a) liberty (to choose, say, your occupation) or (b) enforced 'equity' in the form of 'equal' outcomes. I am going to bet that doctoral level psychology will remain a female dominated profession from here on out...probably because most young men these days are going to be less motivated to go into that field and there is a relative abundance of qualified and talented female applicants. Should we incentivize [via scholarships?] or force more men to go into psychology? Should we kick women out of grad school to make space for men until we reach 'equity' in the form of a 50/50 ratio?

At least for psychology, I am seeing DE&I initiatives favor women. Which is fine in terms of leadership positions, but a bit silly in terms of graduate school admission. However, that is how the rules seem to be written.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

At least for psychology, I am seeing DE&I initiatives favor women. Which is fine in terms of leadership positions, but a bit silly in terms of graduate school admission. However, that is how the rules seem to be written.

Which is one of the most glaring and fatal flaws in the position.

The most essential requirement of any position is that of non self-contradiction (internal consistency).

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Are you asserting that, for example, fair treatment and equal application of rules/laws will always result in EQUAL OUTCOMES in terms of, say, composition of a particular population broken down by race, or sex, or SES, or education, or eye color, or intelligence, or dexterity, or age, or [ad infinitum]? I'm trying to understand the concept of 'equity.'

No. The focus is on the process rather than the result and that process will differ depending on your locale, the nature of the organization, whether or not the organization reflects the community it serves, etc. Now we can use the result to help us determine if we have engaged in an equitable process. However, I don't care WHO the decision maker becomes but rather whether there was an equitable process to determine who the decision maker is. I care not if the decision maker is a white heterosexual male if the process was equitable. However, if the last 10 decision-makers are white heterosexual males then I would question whether or not there is an equitable process to determine those decision-makers.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

So now that my state psychology association is changing equality to equity, do I have to start cutting peoples legs off? Seriously though, not sure how that manifests in my practice of psychology. Truth is that when it comes to my business I am sort of the benevolent despot that decides who gets what. First and foremost comes me and my family so I’m going to try to pay all of my employees less and myself more. Since I am benevolent and I also feel that happy workers will benefit me even more in the long run, I’ll keep throwing them enough crumbs to keep happy. I really don’t care about their identity status. All I care about is if they make my life easier. Just throwing this out because I think that we often ignore the smaller group dynamics when we look at societal or systems issues and that doesn’t help us progress much. It’s kind of like when the VA puts out dictates at the top that all the worker bees have to implement regardless of whether they will work or not.

Not to mention the fact that psychotherapy is all about focusing on what the client can (and should) do for themselves to improve their situation (self-change). I've always found the directive to make psychotherapy focus more on a narrative of personal victimhood to be a bizarre reversal that would only be predicted to be harmful to the wellbeing of the client.

No. The focus is on the process rather than the result and that process will differ depending on your locale, the nature of the organization, whether or not the organization reflects the community it serves, etc. Now we can use the result to help us determine if we have engaged in an equitable process. However, I don't care WHO the decision maker becomes but rather whether there was an equitable process to determine who the decision maker is. I care not if the decision maker is a white heterosexual male if the process was equitable. However, if the last 10 decision-makers are white heterosexual males then I would question whether or not there is an equitable process to determine those decision-makers.

It sounds like you are promoting equality of OPPORTINITY (and a fair/just process) rather than equality of OUTCOME. I agree and would endorse this position 100%.