A flagship business school's diversity plan listed race-based tiebreakers in hiring as official policy. The current Chair of the EEOC says that's illegal.
I recall Joe Biden, when he was titular president, explaining to all of us that DEI wasn't about discriminating against anyone; it was only about choosing a minority candidate when all else was equal. I had seen this same argument in many places, such as newspaper opinion pieces written by harrumphing old white editorialists such as Donald Kaul, who wrote for the Des Moines Register back in the day.
And I thought: how is that not discrimination? And then, after serving on many search committees and chairing quite a few, I recognized that committee members who want very badly to hire a nonwhite person don't limit themselves to "all else being equal". They spin the evidence any way they can to elevate the ranking of a minority candidate, and downplay the evidence for a disfavored white candidate.
Search committee work can be very frustrating, because there is so much dishonesty and gaslighting be people doing work-arounds.
This is an interesting topic and I think it would be cool to dive into. But the AI writing was so jarring and difficult to follow, I spend more time stumbling through it than interpreting the contents.
Using AI to anonynimize the source is working so well it reads like the world's blandest fiction, or a Netflix serial.
Which is too bad, but it makes sense. Anyone inside enough to spill this kind of tea has the cushiest gig this side of a corrupt USAID drone--or her hired Senator. And it's a tiny world.
I miss Tightly Wound blog. Big Arm Woman was hilarious.
I recall Joe Biden, when he was titular president, explaining to all of us that DEI wasn't about discriminating against anyone; it was only about choosing a minority candidate when all else was equal. I had seen this same argument in many places, such as newspaper opinion pieces written by harrumphing old white editorialists such as Donald Kaul, who wrote for the Des Moines Register back in the day.
And I thought: how is that not discrimination? And then, after serving on many search committees and chairing quite a few, I recognized that committee members who want very badly to hire a nonwhite person don't limit themselves to "all else being equal". They spin the evidence any way they can to elevate the ranking of a minority candidate, and downplay the evidence for a disfavored white candidate.
Search committee work can be very frustrating, because there is so much dishonesty and gaslighting be people doing work-arounds.
“If both candidates are equal, give the job to the white man” -> discrimination
“If both candidates are equal, give the job to anyone but the white man” -> not discrimination
Apparently this makes sense.
I don't know if the writing style for this is supposed to emulate AI or if it is AI, but it's barely readable.
Friend, write your own article.
This is an interesting topic and I think it would be cool to dive into. But the AI writing was so jarring and difficult to follow, I spend more time stumbling through it than interpreting the contents.
Using AI to anonynimize the source is working so well it reads like the world's blandest fiction, or a Netflix serial.
Which is too bad, but it makes sense. Anyone inside enough to spill this kind of tea has the cushiest gig this side of a corrupt USAID drone--or her hired Senator. And it's a tiny world.
I miss Tightly Wound blog. Big Arm Woman was hilarious.
When I worked on Capitol Hill, a State Department lifer called to report a pretty serious scandal in his bureau.
Could I do something about it?
"Hey, you're there, you know the score. Get the facts and go to the IG (Inspector General)!"
"Chris, that would end my career (he was right, of course). I've got a family, a mortgage, tuitions - I've got six years until full retirement.
You can only quit once."