!@#% Around and Found Out

[PsyDWannabe]

You’re not fighting oppression here. Get off the high horse of me vs oppressors. It’s just not that black and white. The dei folk have trained you yo use massive labels and black and white thinking in manner that is wrong from reality. Do you see why this resembles more of a religious dogmatic zeal than something designed to make things better?

Aren’t I? I hate to be the one to break it to you, and I’m shocked that it seems no one has ever said this to you before, but your definition of what I’m doing or not doing is entirely irrelevant to its purpose. To put it simply, I could not care less about what your personal definition of fighting oppression is. The ultimately sad thing about your response is you think that fighting oppression is limited to online postings on an anonymous forum. Because surely there’s no other way to be an advocate outside of an anonymous website. Why didn’t anyone tell me before now. Aw, shucks.

Ironically, it sounds like you are getting pretty frustrated at the loss of control because I called you out for being loud yet so wrong at the same time. See, now we’re all frustrated If I can’t zealously fight oppression, then I’d rather not fight it at all. Society lied to you - I don’t owe you a calm demeanor that suits your sensibilities. The zeal isn’t going anywhere, sorry not sorry.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Here is a good article that provides an overview of typical white privilege: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack' and 'Some Notes for Facilitators' | National SEED Project

I would throw in something about male privilege, but I don’t want to be accused of being an ironic white woman lecturing white men again 😉 I’ll leave that to someone else if they wish.

You rang? 😂😂

 

[borne_before]

Aren’t I? I hate to be the one to break it to you, and I’m shocked that it seems no one has ever said this to you before, but your definition of what I’m doing or not doing is entirely irrelevant to its purpose. To put it simply, I could not care less about what your personal definition of fighting oppression is. The ultimately sad thing about your response is you think that fighting oppression is limited to online postings on an anonymous forum. Because surely there’s no other way to be an advocate outside of an anonymous website. Why didn’t anyone tell me before now. Aw, shucks.

Ironically, it sounds like you are getting pretty frustrated at the loss of control because I called you out for being loud yet so wrong at the same time. See, now we’re all frustrated If I can’t zealously fight oppression, then I’d rather not fight it at all. Society lied to you - I don’t owe you a calm demeanor that suits your sensibilities. The zeal isn’t going anywhere, sorry not sorry.

How is there oppression here?

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

I've maintained that this a nuanced issue for which a one-sized fits all solution does not exist. There are implementation failures that are anathema to the DEI purposes that were purportedly lifted up (going back to the OP). That leads some to conclude that "DEI is the problem". That conclusion is the oversimplified, black and white thinking here.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I am being deadly serious when I say--once all (or most) of the white males are purged from psychology it will be a toss up battle between white women vs. black men regarding which demographic is 'the more' oppressed. This is because the ideological engine fueling all of this HAS to have this 'oppressor vs. oppressed narrative at its center (and tends to see ANY conflict, any disparity between groups, and ANY messiness of life as somehow being explainable via this dynamic--it's a convenient one-variable explanation for problems). When someone suggests looking at or controlling for other variables, the response is, lol, I don't wanna do stats, that is irrelevant. We learned in *undergrad* about confounds and third variables. The fact that professional psychologists argue with a straight face that the idea of looking at more than one variable at a time is 'off topic' when trying to evaluate a claim in the DEI area shows you just how 'privileged' its proponents have been--as others have noted; it's been treated as an area that is so immune from methodological, logical, or empirical critique that its response to even an undergraduate level of critical thought (control for third variables) is met with laughter, derision, sarcasm, etc. if not a stream of ad hominems.

I honestly don’t think anyone wants to purge all white males from psychology. I think it’s just trending in a more female direction so women have more of a voice now, which may be surprising and uncomfortable for men—understandably so. Growing pains, in my opinion.

 

[borne_before]

I've maintained that this a nuanced issue for which a one-sized fits all solution does not exist. There are implementation failures that are anathema to the DEI purposes that were purportedly lifted up (going back to the OP). That leads some to conclude that "DEI is the problem". That conclusion is the oversimplified, black and white thinking here.

This is probably the most accurate take.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I honestly don’t think anyone wants to purge all white males from psychology. I think it’s just trending in a more female direction so women have more of a voice now, which may be surprising and uncomfortable for men—understandably so. Growing pains, in my opinion.

Literally not a single soul has said that on here, it sounds laughably ridiculous on its surface yet it keeps being used as a red herring to blatantly distract from valid points being made. It’s a tactic that has unfortunately been used by many before and survived through time. What was it that someone said about a false dichotomy again…? Lol

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I've maintained that this a nuanced issue for which a one-sized fits all solution does not exist. There are implementation failures that are anathema to the DEI purposes that were purportedly lifted up (going back to the OP). That leads some to conclude that "DEI is the problem". That conclusion is the oversimplified, black and white thinking here.

AGREED!!!

 

[Sanman]

I also think that is is absolutely crucial to define what people mean by the term "privilege" in these discussions. One of the covert assumptions appears to be that any white male in a position of authority is benefiting from 'unearned' privilege and I don't think that it is reasonable to make that assumption. Certainly not at the level of the individual.

Not all 'privilege' is 'unearned.' Not all authority is illegitimate. 'Privilege' has become a dirty word nowadays. Authority is to be inherently distrusted. Everything devolves into power struggles between groups (the oppressors vs. the oppressed) and all nuance, context, and respect for individuals is lost and it becomes all tribalistic in-group vs. out-group dynamics and when those dynamics dominate the discussion NO progress can be made.

I am being deadly serious when I say--once all (or most) of the white males are purged from psychology it will be a toss up battle between white women vs. black men regarding which demographic is 'the more' oppressed. This is because the ideological engine fueling all of this HAS to have this 'oppressor vs. oppressed narrative at its center (and tends to see ANY conflict, any disparity between groups, and ANY messiness of life as somehow being explainable via this dynamic--it's a convenient one-variable explanation for problems). When someone suggests looking at or controlling for other variables, the response is, lol, I don't wanna do stats, that is irrelevant. We learned in *undergrad* about confounds and third variables. The fact that professional psychologists argue with a straight face that the idea of looking at more than one variable at a time is 'off topic' when trying to evaluate a claim in the DEI area shows you just how 'privileged' its proponents have been--as others have noted; it's been treated as an area that is so immune from methodological, logical, or empirical critique that its response to even an undergraduate level of critical thought (control for third variables) is met with laughter, derision, sarcasm, etc. if not a stream of ad hominems.

Because we are having the wrong conversation. While we argue over these issues, the important issues that unify all of us all go unfought. Mayor of New York City vowed to change the NYC public school system without ever discussing that most of the actual privileged folks go to private schools. Harvard fights lawsuits about their DE&I policy discriminating against Asian kids without ever having to justify that 1/3 of its incoming class is legacy admissions and another 20% are athletes. You ever met anyone that actually played water polo? I haven't. We worry about fake water polo scandals but no one ever talks about where the rowing and water polo kids on scholarship come from. We sit here arguing for initiatives in psychology depts and VA hospitals. Does anyone think Judith Beck was the most qualified person to be running the Beck Institute and that there was no nepostism there? But she is a woman, so I guess the U of Pennsylvania can consider that a diversity hire. I mean that is why they did it, correct? Anna Freud, Janet L Cummings, etc all had a lot of hurdles to overcome I am sure. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be perfectly diversified in our $60k/yr jobs because that is all that insurance and universities deem our services are worth.

The only thing that we are fighting about is what is "fair" for the have-nots. This will do nothing to change the real power structures and those with influence that are discriminated against with leave and take their power and influence with them.

 

[WisNeuro]

I've maintained that this a nuanced issue for which a one-sized fits all solution does not exist. There are implementation failures that are anathema to the DEI purposes that were purportedly lifted up (going back to the OP). That leads some to conclude that "DEI is the problem". That conclusion is the oversimplified, black and white thinking here.

For the most part, I don't think anyone has said DEI is the problem, rather how DEI is implemented is the problem.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

For the most part, I don't think anyone has said DEI is the problem, rather how DEI is implemented is the problem.

Exactly.

In order to implement it we have to be able to have debates/discussions about specifics and people will sometimes disagree with respect to these. When someone asserts that white males unfairly dominate psychology, we have to be able to have real and critical discussions about the evidence for/against that assertion. When someone asserts that white males are an 'overrepresented' demographic, it's fair and necessary for someone to ask just how low male and white male representation would have to be before they were no longer considered 'overrepresented?' 50%? 35%? 20%? 10%? 1%? 0%?"

If we cannot reach a consensus on what the term "overrepresented" even means in this context or, relatedly, the point at which white males would no longer be considered to be 'overrepresented' in psychology then the assertion: "white males are overrepresented in psychology" is a scientifically *meaningless* statement that cannot even be evaluated as true or false.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Exactly.

In order to implement it we have to be able to have debates/discussions about specifics and people will sometimes disagree with respect to these. When someone asserts that white males unfairly dominate psychology, we have to be able to have real and critical discussions about the evidence for/against that assertion. When someone asserts that white males are an 'overrepresented' demographic, it's fair and necessary for someone to ask just how low male and white male representation would have to be before they were no longer considered 'overrepresented?' 50%? 35%? 20%? 10%? 1%? 0%?"

I’d say a good goal to strive for would be for it to be representative of the racial/gender makeup of the population in the region. Anyone else?

 

[Sanman]

I’d say a good goal to strive for would be for it to be representative of the racial/gender makeup of the population in the region. Anyone else?

Define region. I discussed this issue in post 351

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Define region. I discussed this issue in post 351

How about the state?

 

[Sanman]

How about the state?

That would mean that folks are restricted in the areas they already group into. So, more jobs for white folks in North Dakota, More jobs for black folks in Alabama, more jobs for Asians on the coasts. This does not take into account need. Cool to limit jobs for Black folks in CA? Hispanics in the midwest?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

How about county.

But, seriously, if your goal is to enforce a specific one to one correspondence between race/sex and percentage makeup in psychology...a LOT of white women are going to have to pick another profession, or lose their jobs.

That's just problem #1 with your plan. There are others but I think this one is bad enough to stand on its own.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

That would mean that folks are restricted in the areas they already group into. Some, more jobs for white folks in North Dakota, More jobs for black folks in Alabama, more jobs for Asians on the coasts. This does not take into account need.

Ah but I’d still encourage as much diversity as possible in predominantly White areas like ND. You have to work with what you got at the end of the day, but that doesn’t mean you can’t/shouldn’t try, right?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

How about county.

But, seriously, if your goal is to enforce a specific one to one correspondence between race/sex and percentage makeup in psychology...a LOT of white women are going to have to pick another profession, or lose their jobs.

That's just problem #1 with your plan. There are others but I think this one is bad enough to stand on its own.

Whoa who’s out here trying to make white people lose their jobs?? 😂 I have not heard of any DEI initiatives like this

 

[Sanman]

Ah but I’d still encourage as much diversity as possible in predominantly White areas like ND. You have to work with what you got at the end of the day, but that doesn’t mean you can’t/shouldn’t try, right?

Whoa who’s out here trying to make white people lose their jobs?? 😂 I have not heard of any DEI initiatives like this

But DE&I initiatives already disclude white males and Asians. So it is okay to overrepresent some minorities and women, but not White males and Asians? That is where the logic falls apart.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

But DE&I initiatives already disclude white males and Asians. So it is okay to overrepresent some minorities and women, but not White males and Asians? That is where the logic falls apart.

Le sigh….white males being talked about as a minority is where we keep getting stuck I think.

 

[Sanman]

Le sigh….white males being talked about as a minority is where we keep getting stuck I think.

White males are a minority in the psychologist population as a whole, but then stick to Asians if you please. It is okay to overrepresent White females but purposely exclude Asian males? Because that it what the initiatives do based on the written language.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

White males are a minority in the psychologist population as a whole, but then stick to Asians if you please. It is okay to overrepresent white females but purposely exclude Asian males? Because that it what the initiatives do based on the written language.

I’m not going to pretend to know everything I’d need to know to give an informed opinion about Asian minorities and their exclusion from DEI initiatives. My initial surface thought is that perhaps there’s a reason I’m unaware of for why they are excluded. I could be wrong though. But as far as White males, well I think that reason is obvious….they’ve been on top of the food chain for a long long time.

But my question to you is, why is this the hill that you all (those who are arguing about what’s wrong with DEI) want to die on? This hill of nitpicking what’s wrong with DEI initiatives, for the sake of discrediting the whole thing and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Could it maybe possibly be because the whole idea makes you uncomfortable? So far I haven’t heard any of you wholeheartedly say “yes, I’m not afraid to acknowledge my privilege, and yes the way things are is still not fair for minorities. Yes, I want to see change, I want to help change happen. I just have some adjustments I would make to how that’s being done, and here are some of my proposed solutions.”

 

[tombreaz]

I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

Affirmative Action is currently being looked at by the Supreme Court-pretty big deal in relation to academics and people entering the workforce.

 

[tombreaz]

Right. That's what representation is.

And yes, we should all care. The World is a better place when all points of view are represented and considered.

Diversity. Such a magical word.

 

[Sanman]

I’m not going to pretend to know everything I’d need to know to give an informed opinion about Asian minorities and their exclusion from DEI initiatives. My initial surface thought is that perhaps there’s a reason I’m unaware of for why they are excluded. I could be wrong though. But as far as White males, well I think that reason is obvious….they’ve been on top of the food chain for a long long time.

But my question to you is, why is this the hill that you all (those who are arguing about what’s wrong with DEI) want to die on? This hill of nitpicking what’s wrong with DEI initiatives, for the sake of discrediting the whole thing and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Could it maybe possibly be because the whole idea makes you uncomfortable? So far I haven’t heard any of you wholeheartedly say “yes, I’m not afraid to acknowledge my privilege, and yes the way things are is still not fair for minorities. Yes, I want to see change, I want to help change happen. I just have some adjustments I would make to how that’s being done, and here are some of my proposed solutions.”

Cause I am not a White guy.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’m not going to pretend to know everything I’d need to know to give an informed opinion about Asian minorities and their exclusion from DEI initiatives. My initial surface thought is that perhaps there’s a reason I’m unaware of for why they are excluded. I could be wrong though. But as far as White males, well I think that reason is obvious….they’ve been on top of the food chain for a long long time.

But my question to you is, why is this the hill that you all (those who are arguing about what’s wrong with DEI) want to die on? This hill of nitpicking what’s wrong with DEI initiatives, for the sake of discrediting the whole thing and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Could it maybe possibly be because the whole idea makes you uncomfortable? So far I haven’t heard any of you wholeheartedly say “yes, I’m not afraid to acknowledge my privilege, and yes the way things are is still not fair for minorities. Yes, I want to see change, I want to help change happen. I just have some adjustments I would make to how that’s being done, and here are some of my proposed solutions.”

What privilege does Sanman have as a minority that he is not acknowledging?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Cause I am not a White guy.

So you have no privilege whatsoever? You’re not a guy, not straight, not lacking in disabilities, etc.

 

[borne_before]

I fear that some members are no longer engaging in a good faith discussion.

 

[borne_before]

So you have no privilege whatsoever? You’re not a guy, not straight, not lacking in disabilities, etc.

This is kind of a dick move - to ask these invasive questions in such a public forum is uncivil.

 

[WisNeuro]

Goalposts, moved.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

This is kind of a dick move - to ask these invasive questions in such a public forum is uncivil.

He volunteered the information first 😊

 

[borne_before]

He volunteered the information first 😊

Hey, i'm sorry. I know we're not meshing well. I just want you to know that I respect you and feel like you've brought some good stuff to this discussion. I apologize for any feelings of animosity i've caused or contributed in you.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Hey, i'm sorry. I know we're not meshing well. I just want you to know that I respect you and feel like you've brought some good stuff to this discussion. I apologize for any feelings of animosity i've caused or contributed in you.

Much appreciated 😊 I did not assume any malevolent intent on your part. Or anyone’s part to be honest…I think a lot of us here are just opinionated and passionate.

 

[tombreaz]

So like, i'm totally wondering if we can create a consensus about the problem and clearly define it. Until we do that, aren't these discussions rather useless?

Can we agree that it was uncool of that institution to exclude an individual who can contribute based on their membership of various aspects of identity?

and

Can we agree that certain groups have advantage over others?

Or is there more interest in discussing the process over the content?

Ya, I seem to faintly remember this obscure quote. Something along the lines of judging people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Seems like a good solution to me.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Ya, I seem to faintly remember this obscure quote. Something along the lines of judging people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Seems like a good solution to me.

How about taking into account the content of their character and also recognizing that privilege still exists and you shouldn’t ignore it (because ignoring it creates further harm and perpetuation of that privilege). That, I could get on board with.

 

[tombreaz]

Sure, I think the number of white males vs others in academia speaks for itself.

Wow lol, "whites" (whatever that means) make up over 75% of the US population. Of course their numbers will be higher. This is like saying there's an issue with the majority of the NBA being "black" (whatever that means).

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Wow lol, "whites" (whatever that means) make up over 75% of the US population. Of course their numbers will be higher. This is like saying there's an issue with the majority of the NBA being "black" (whatever that means).

And that is why I said white males.

 

[tombreaz]

How about taking into account the content of their character and also recognizing that privilege still exists and you shouldn’t ignore it (because ignoring it creates further harm and perpetuation of that privilege). That, I could get on board with.

It's too loose of a term which is one of the reasons MLK has a dichotomy in the quote I provided. We can't play the oppression Olympics when trying to define one's privilege over another's. As this thread has shown, most people define it all differently anyway! Nothing would ever get done-unfair treatment would abound. So let's stick with content of character. Meritocracy. Fairness. Just like MLK said. And as a side note, he was in a much harder time racially than anyone in recent history has been so I'd be wary of possibly thinking we can one up him on his solutions.

 

[tombreaz]

And that is why I said white males.

Okay? Keeping running with the analogy then lol. There are WAY more males that play basketball than females. Is this because there is some anti-female overlord preventing them? No....

Males and females have many similarities and differences and this highlights one of the differences. It's okay for people to choose different things. I'm working in the engineering department at a university and one of my jobs is to record one of the graduate level courses. Guess how many girls are in the class? 1. Out of 20. Our university has DIE (sorry, DEI) plastered everywhere. But typically, far more males go into the engineering field versus women. And why? Choice. And that's okay.

Now apply this to whatever the original comment was about (I think it was more white males in academic authority positions?). "White" was answered and now so was "male vs female".

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

For the most part, I don't think anyone has said DEI is the problem, rather how DEI is implemented is the problem.

Hmmm...ok. I must be projecting again. Hopefully I'll figure that out in time.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Whoa who’s out here trying to make white people lose their jobs?? 😂 I have not heard of any DEI initiatives like this

Exactly.

That's the inconsistency / arbitrariness/ hypocrisy with respect to how these things are implemented (rather selectively and arbitrarily).

Internal consistency is a *minimal* necessary requirement for any position.

 

[Sanman]

So you have no privilege whatsoever? You’re not a guy, not straight, not lacking in disabilities, etc.

Oh, I wholeheartedly acknowledge my privilege if you acknowledge yours. Because we all have some. The orphaned legless, intellectually disabled, Native American, female little people among us may have other problems to contend with than pursuing a PhD in psychology. Chief among them defending herself from the hoards of armless people asking her to check her privilege. I mean we are a bunch of PhDs having an intellectual discussion here. Of course we all had some level of opportunity and privilege. I am not afraid of it whatsoever. Can we admit that the minority and female PhDs (many of whom I count as friends and colleagues) also have some level of privilege. Some, perhaps, even more so than myself?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Exactly.

That's the inconsistency / arbitrariness/ hypocrisy with respect to how these things are implemented (rather selectively and arbitrarily).

Internal consistency is a *minimal* necessary requirement for any position.

I won’t lie, I’m a little lost. Can you please give an example of what you mean by inconsistency in terms of job loss? Am I missing something?

 

[Sanman]

I’m not going to pretend to know everything I’d need to know to give an informed opinion about Asian minorities and their exclusion from DEI initiatives. My initial surface thought is that perhaps there’s a reason I’m unaware of for why they are excluded. I could be wrong though. But as far as White males, well I think that reason is obvious….they’ve been on top of the food chain for a long long time.

If there is something you don't know, feel free to ask. I don't know everything either, but I have done a lot of reading on the subject and even published a book chapter back in the day. The argument that Asians are discluded and White females are included in initiatives is that one group is overrepresented and the underrepresented in "Science" as a whole. However, the numbers in psychology are far different from physics and chemistry. As a result the implementation is unfair in some ways. Much like we were discussing regarding state level representation.

However, when the language of overrepresentation vs underrepresentation is introduced in a bill about diversity, people start to ask what is fair. Certainly no one puts a limitation on how many White folks are allowed into certain careers. So, why decide that Asians should only be allowed proportional admittance. We don't limit any other group to only to proportional admittance.

Now the aside from that Democratic politicians have their own political reasons to pander to women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans who make up large voting blocks for the Democratic party. Asians are a relatively small percentage of the population as a whole. I will let you decide if that may also have something to do with the way the initiatives were drafted rather than them just being interested in fairness.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Okay? Keeping running with the analogy then lol. There are WAY more males that play basketball than females. Is this because there is some anti-female overlord preventing them? No....

Males and females have many similarities and differences and this highlights one of the differences. It's okay for people to choose different things. I'm working in the engineering department at a university and one of my jobs is to record one of the graduate level courses. Guess how many girls are in the class? 1. Out of 20. Our university has DIE (sorry, DEI) plastered everywhere. But typically, far more males go into the engineering field versus women. And why? Choice. And that's okay.

Now apply this to whatever the original comment was about (I think it was more white males in academic authority positions?). "White" was answered and now so was "male vs female".

Hey I’m not saying males and females aren’t different. Hell, IQ scores show that males tend to score higher in visuospatial skills and females score higher in verbal skills. It’s a fact, and I’m not trying to argue that we don’t have our strengths and weaknesses that vary across genders. But being better-suited for academic positions? I don’t think you can argue either gender is better suited for that.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Oh, I wholeheartedly acknowledge my privilege if you acknowledge yours. Because we all have some. The orphaned legless, intellectually disabled, Native American, female little people among us may have other problems to contend with than pursing a PhD in psychology. Chief among them defending herself from the hoards of armless people asking her to check her privilege. I mean we a bunch of PhDs having an intellectual discussion here. Of course we all had some level of opportunity and privilege. I am not afraid of it whatsoever. Can we admit that the minority female PhDs (many of whom I count as friends and colleagues) also have some level of privilege. Some, perhaps, even more so than myself.

😂 I am officially slain, I just spent a full five minutes laughing out loud. 🤣 That got me. But yes of course I acknowledge my privilege.

 

[foreverbull]

Ya, I seem to faintly remember this obscure quote. Something along the lines of judging people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Seems like a good solution to me.

You might want to look at racial colorblindness research and how effective (or ineffective) it is and who engages in that thinking the most.

https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PSYCH138/Βιβλιογραφία/Πολιτισμικές%20ιδεολογίες/Apfelbaum%20et%20al.%20%282015%29%20Racial%20color%20blindness.pdf

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

If there is something you don't know, feel free to ask. I don't know everything either, but I have done a lot of reading on the subject and even published a book chapter back in the day. The argument that Asians are discluded and White females are included in initiatives is that one group is overrepresented and the underrepresented in "Science" as a whole. However, the numbers in psychology are far different from physics and chemistry. As a result the implementation is unfair in some ways. Much like we were discussing regarding state level representation.

However, when the language of overrepresentation vs underrepresentation is introduced in a bill about diversity, people start to ask what is fair. Certainly no one puts a limitation on how many White folks are allowed into certain careers. So, why decide that Asians should only be allowed proportional admittance. We don't limit any other group to only to proportional admittance.

Now the aside from that Democratic politicians have their own political reasons to pander to women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans who make up large voting blocks for the Democratic party. Asians are a relatively small percentage of the population as a whole. I will let you decide if that may also have something to do with the way the initiatives were drafted rather than them just being interested in fairness.

Oh boy. Let’s please not bring politics into this, that’s a can of worms that might send this little community of ours into full-on war 🪱😬

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I won’t lie, I’m a little lost. Can you please give an example of what you mean by inconsistency in terms of job loss? Am I missing something?

White females are far more statistically 'overrepresented' in clinical psychology these days than white males. There are calls to deal with the 'problem' of white male 'overrepresentation' but not white female 'overrepresentation.'

 

[WisNeuro]

Hmmm...ok. I must be projecting again. Hopefully I'll figure that out in time.

I certainly hope so, but I'm not optimistic.