zlacker

I think a lot of people would argue against DEI because it takes the easy way out of a real problem. The result we want is more black doctors, but the way you should get to that is not changing standards that are not inherently racist.

The easy (and right) way out was to hire the most competent doctors, not the blackest doctors. I don't want more black doctors, I want the best doctors, regardless of their skin color. If you want more black doctors, you should train better black doctors. However, if you're going to do that, don't be surprised when white trainees band together to work harder too. If it's fair for your side, it's fair for every side.

I have no idea why we went backwards from "discrimination based on skin color is never okay" to "it's okay if they're black" but there's no reason not to simply recognize the mistake, fix it, and move on.

>>jimbob+(OP)
> The easy (and right) way out was to hire the most competent doctors

What I mean by "easy" is "quick and superficial." Hiring the most competent doctors delays achieving the statistic of "more black doctors," so it's not the "easy way" I'm talking about. It takes time for education to come up to par in black communities, because they're poorer for historical reasons. The right (and harder, because it's not doable via a means that the DEI people directly control---hiring) way is to put money where it's needed for education, and "more black doctors" will be a ripple effect achieved without discrimination.

>>jimbob+(OP)
If you are going to train black doctors, then you need to enrol them in universities. If you don’t want tu use scholarships or quotas, then you must make sure that those black candidates actually do good in high school, otherwise it’s DEI.

If you are giving scholarships or subsidies to black teenagers so they can eventually get into a university, that’s also DEI, so better subsidise their families so they can get a better primary education and upbringing… but that’s also DEI.

So you keep going back and the “solution” is basically to do nothing and keep the status quo.

>>mmusta+fE
> If you are giving scholarships or subsidies to black teenagers so they can eventually get into a university, that’s also DEI, so better subsidise their families so they can get a better primary education and upbringing… but that’s also DEI.

Looking at this in terms of race is misguided. Don't do anything for "black people," just help "poor people" get better educations by giving more money to poor schools. A lot of "poor" schools are actually black schools, but not all, so more than just black people will benefit; and not all black people are poor, so we won't waste resources on those who already have them.

Defining DEI as "doing anything about the problem" and then saying that DEI opponents therefore don't want to do anything about the problem is a lazy bait-and-switch that I wish we would all recognize and stop doing.

>>mmusta+fE
I dont see how doing nothing is the logical conclusion of tracing things back to the root cause, or why non-racial solutions cant be implemented at any of the levels.

What is wrong with helping poor people get better primary education? What is wrong with making university cheaper and more accessible?

These types of things should help black people, as well as hispanic, asian, or white people that start with a disadvantage.

>>tines+OF
I think there is a deep seated concern that this could exacerbate the problem if poor people white people are able to take advantage of that help to a greater degree than poor black people.

>>mmusta+fE
I don't think people regard scholarships as DEI. Lowering the standards for university admissions a la SFFA v. Harvard, yes, but scholarships to pay for university is distinct from discrimination in admissions.

Also, society can tackle problems like the study time gap https://fburl.com/oa3uenrr