Biden Commits To Picking A Diversity Hire For SCOTUS Since That Worked So Well With His VP | Babylon Bee January 2022: "Justice Stephen Breyer has announced he is retiring from the Supreme Court, sparking intense speculation for who Biden will be nominating to replace him. In response, the President has pledged to nominate a woman of color for SCOTUS, since diversity hires have always strengthened his Presidency.
" 'I gotta go with what works, folks. And just like choosing my VP, I will select someone for SCOTUS based solely on her race and her gender," said President Biden. "I did that last time and look how well it's worked out for me. Everyone loves and approves of Kamala! She's got a great laugh, comes across as extremely relatable, and just look at how she handled the border crisis so well!' " . . .
"Diversity Metrics - Track gender and demographic estimates to achieve your
diversity hiring goals
"This was never a secret, or even an issue. Then-candidate Joe Biden was very explicit about his plans to pick a woman of color to share the ticket. After it became clear that Biden was to be the Democrats' nominee for president in 2020, Biden said during a CNN-Univision debate, "If I'm elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president." In a separate press conference, this one a roundtable with Black journalists, Biden was even more specific: "Preferably it will be someone who was of color and/or a different gender," he said of his potential running mate." . . .
. . ."However, diversity hiring is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s great. It gets people — who in the past would have never been given a second glance — in the door. But it also puts individuals in a place that they feel like they’re fighting heaven and earth for it to not slam right back into their face. (Emphases in the original)
"As a girl in software engineering, a girl who is a varsity athlete, a girl…. period, I am constantly surrounded by people who — to some extent — believe that I have succeeded not because of my skills, but instead because I am a girl.
"Just as some people believe that extra funding for helping people of color is unfair — or even ‘racist’ — towards white people, some apply the same ideology to women in the workplace. They look at any example of incompetence or weakness as proof that these women only received their job because they filled a certain quota." . . .
"When Diversity and Inclusion Training Goes Wrong
"Unfortunately, while the idea behind diversity and inclusion training is valuable and ethical, when it is implemented incorrectly or without thought, it can often elicit adverse effects. According to Frank Dobbins, a Harvard Sociologist focused on diversity training, there are three primary reasons D&I efforts can go wrong-- and hurt a company's culture. Here are the three common missteps:
- When it's mandatory. Mandatory diversity and inclusion training can net an immediate and negative response. When it's mandatory, it can seem punitive, with a reaction of “someone did something wrong and now we all have to sit through this.” If training is required in response to a problem you may already be behind the eight-ball where employee opinion is concerned. The majority of people don’t see themselves as biased and immediately become vehemently defensive if they’re accused of being so. Similarly, when it's clearly being offered as a response to an incident, attendees can become extremely defensive. Some may even cling more strongly to their biases. Research has overwhelmingly shown negative messaging in D&I training not only doesn’t help, but it may also set inclusion efforts back. Social scientists have also found, over a number of years, that people naturally tend to rebel against enforced rules.
- When it's too focused on the law. Another mistake businesses make when implementing D&I programs is focusing on a legal viewpoint as opposed to an empathetic and ethical viewpoint. When employees perceive the training as an attempt to stay compliant and simply check off a box, they will usually be more resistant to the teachings. If a business is not genuine in its reasons for offering the training, it will be harder for employees to genuinely absorb the information.
- When it's offered to (or required for) a limited group. Dobbins' research suggests that when training is only offered to one group in the office, it's much less effective. Training only your management team may seem like a good (and cost-efficient) idea, but employees don’t like being left out. Furthermore, discrimination and biases don't solely occur at a managerial level. To be effective with training, it should be accessible and encouraged for all
No comments:
Post a Comment