Read on Twitter
This type of backlash is what happens when the diversity conversation focuses too much on identity and not on education about how biases are play out in real life. https://twitter.com/worksdotpm/status/1283395127134871553
But I mean, this is the same affirmation action argument we’ve been having forever.
I read this study last year about how minorities are thrust into an impossible situation when their team perceives then to be a “diversity hire” and how it impacts their experience.
I read this study last year about how minorities are thrust into an impossible situation when their team perceives then to be a “diversity hire” and how it impacts their experience.
Particularly important is where they talk about the spectrum between “this distinctiveness is what makes me valuable to the group,” and “I’m hiding my distinctiveness and feel isolated.”
Spectrum, not binary.
Spectrum, not binary.
All of this stuff matters because you can argue all you want about ethics and values but you need to figure out a pragmatic way to execute or it could make things worse.
We lose this in this debate for some reason.
We lose this in this debate for some reason.
This article: http://web.mit.edu/cortiz/www/Diversity/Ely%20and%20Thomas,%202001.pdf
talks about diversity & inclusion in practice. They identify three different perspectives on this in the workforce, only one of them they found to have positive results.
talks about diversity & inclusion in practice. They identify three different perspectives on this in the workforce, only one of them they found to have positive results.
The one being something they call "integration and learning." As described, "the way people do and experience the work–in a manner that makes diversity a resource for learning and adaptive change."
What this looks like: encouraging their perspective when dealing with cases regarding that perspective.
Their example: hired a Latina attorney to expand work into the Latino community specifically. This changed who they hired and the law firm's values over ten years.
Their example: hired a Latina attorney to expand work into the Latino community specifically. This changed who they hired and the law firm's values over ten years.
The two other perspectives which weren't helpful:
"Access and legitimacy": "use their diversity only at the margins, to connect with a more diverse market" but do not "incorporate the culture competencies of their diverse workforce into their core functions."
"Access and legitimacy": "use their diversity only at the margins, to connect with a more diverse market" but do not "incorporate the culture competencies of their diverse workforce into their core functions."
And,
"Discrimination and fairness": "focuses diversification efforts on providing equal opportunities in hiring and promotion, suppressing prejudicial attitudes, and eliminating discrimination."
"Discrimination and fairness": "focuses diversification efforts on providing equal opportunities in hiring and promotion, suppressing prejudicial attitudes, and eliminating discrimination."
Which perspective do you think the organizations you're looking at apply?
Trying to summarize these 20+ page PDFs into a Twitter thread but I hope ppl try to at least read parts of them because this D&I stuff is much harder than people pretend it is.
It's not a matter of "hire this group." Don't invite people into a boat with a hole in it.
It's not a matter of "hire this group." Don't invite people into a boat with a hole in it.
This thread is going to get little play because the underlying suggestion here is that you have to actually do work to help people and that you may not always be 'right' in your execution, instead of raging on Twitter about racists/sexists.
