[HN Gopher] The Impact of Chief Diversity Officers on Diverse Fa...
___________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Chief Diversity Officers on Diverse Faculty Hiring
Author : undefined1
Score : 66 points
Date : 2021-02-02 17:59 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nber.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nber.org)
| slg wrote:
| I think this makes sense when you consider what hiring a CDO
| signals. Organizations that don't care about diversity aren't
| going to hire a CDO and it is likely not going to be anyone's
| first step into valuing diversity. It instead is a signal of a
| commitment that already exists within the organizations and
| therefore isn't going to generate much change. The places that
| could actually benefit from hiring a CDO don't do it because they
| likely already have an institutional apathy for the work that a
| CDO would do.
| bluGill wrote:
| Organizations that don't care will hire a CDO and put him
| (sexism intentional, though it could be her and still fit) off
| to the side to be a figure head for the non-existent efforts.
| If it gets the activists off their back it might be seen as
| worth a high salary.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Is anyone tracking what percentage of college employees does work
| related to actual education?
|
| I assume it's in steep decline the last few decades.
| corty wrote:
| The intended impact of hiring a CxO is a press release about how
| important 'x' is and how great they are for recognizing that,
| whatever fashionable new thing 'x' might be. Anything more is
| bonus.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I think that's only true if you don't understand the
| development of power blocks between groups of people.
| Empowering someone to define policy regarding hiring gives them
| a lot of leverage over other people and groups, and it builds
| power blocks as members of each subclass of identity politics
| wants access to that power.
|
| The press release is the least impactful long term consequence
| of the decision.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| That's only true if the position is actually empowered.
| Titles are cheap, the Chief of Diversity may just be a PR rep
| in the same way that janitor is a "President of Custodial
| Duties."
| bluGill wrote:
| That isn't completely true. Titles sometimes have legal
| implications. If a company is sued the testimony of "just
| and employee" has a different value from the Chief
| Diversity Officer. Even a low level HR employee (is someone
| who should have done something about the situation that
| brought this to court) might be able to sneak by on company
| policy not allowing the right action. However the Chief
| Diversity officer will take the fall. This taking the fall
| might or might not be enough to protect the CEO (who also
| should have done something)
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I've had to sit through diversity training and then sit at lunch
| with a team of older guys and gently try to undo the damage the
| training did in their opinions of diverse people. I honestly
| think these programs are actively counterproductive in the
| majority of cases.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Almost all the academics I know already share the desire for more
| diversity, are aware of pitfalls like unconscious bias, and are
| completely ready to hire people from more diverse background...
| only to find that the overwhelming majority of the applicants are
| run-of-the-mill (say, "white male") candidates. :(
|
| One could force up those candidates that would add to a
| department's diversity, even if there is no indication of prior
| adverse circumstances. This is however considered undesirable -
| it might not be fair and also be bad for the candidate's
| reputation in the long run.
|
| Academic hiring can be great fun but in the end it is already a
| completely ill-defined optimization problem. I do not see how a
| CDO could be a valuable addition to the process.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > the overwhelming majority of the applicants are run-of-the-
| mill (say, "white male")
|
| See, people keep saying this, but when I was in school (in the
| U.S.) - especially when I was in grad school in the mid 00's -
| I was the lone white male in a sea of Indians. My teachers were
| Indian. The TA's were Indian. My classmates were Indian. There
| was one class where there were two Americans, including me -
| and the other one was born to Indian immigrants.
|
| And today, all my co-workers are Indian.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Sounds like the CDO might have misread their job description.
| :)
|
| I should not have said "white male", in particular because in
| my field there are also a significant number of (excellent)
| Chinese and Indian researchers. Although we should not forget
| about the many other underrepresented groups, the most
| visible diversity issue for us is the gender asymmetry.
| COGlory wrote:
| >We are unable to find significant statistical evidence that
| preexisting growth in diversity for underrepresented
| racial/ethnic minority groups is affected by the hiring of an
| executive level diversity officer for new tenure and non-tenure
| track hires, faculty hired with tenure, or for university
| administrator hires.
|
| This is certainly no surprise to anyone. The real question is -
| is this because most college administration jobs are just
| bureaucratic rent seeking, and really don't do anything to begin
| with, or is it because trying to hire diversity is difficult
| because there is a low supply of diverse candidates who meet
| requirements?
| undefined1 wrote:
| what if not they're not actually seeking diversity? maybe
| that's a red herring?
|
| what if the goal is to entrench an ideology?
|
| a good strategy would be getting control of the hiring process.
| then adding signals and filters for like-minded people. CDOs
| may be highly effective if measured on that basis.
| COGlory wrote:
| That doesn't make for as high quality of a discussion if I
| open with that. But it's certainly a possibility, and if the
| goal was to entrench an ideology, getting control of the
| hiring process is probably the best way to do it.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Have they considered that tenure track positions are pretty far
| along the education pipeline?
|
| Best way to get "diverse" tenured hires is to get "diverse"
| grad students. And the best way to get "diverse" grad students
| is to get "diverse" undergrads.
|
| And, shockingly, getting "diverse" undergrads can be
| achieved... by investing in whatever "diverse" community you
| want to grow.
| lucozade wrote:
| > just bureaucratic rent seeking, and really don't do anything
| to begin with, *or* is it because trying to hire diversity is
| difficult
|
| At the risk of appearing trite, that *or* is very probably
| inclusive.
| COGlory wrote:
| I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Could you
| clarify it?
| alexpetralia wrote:
| It's not an exclusive-or (exactly one is true), but rather
| an inclusive-or (at least one is true, potentially both).
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Third option: universities are already seeking to be as diverse
| as possible, so adding extra C-level pressure doesn't move the
| meter.
|
| Honestly, I think university culture is _too_ diversity
| /intersectionality/critical race theory etc. focused at the
| expense of other goals. So it wouldn't surprise me if
| additional diversity is hard to achieve.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Another option: the same amount of pro-diversity work is
| being accomplished regardless of whether a university
| classifies the person/people doing the work as C-level
| executives or not, and the title and bureaucratic shuffling
| is effectively noise.
| Balgair wrote:
| Yet another option: The CDO's effects are hidden as
| ineffective and maintaining of the status quo. Yet, without
| them, the environment would be even less diverse. Their
| actions are meaningful, but through sheer luck, they
| exactly cancel out any further 'backsliding' of diversity.
|
| I'll admit, this possibility is incredibly small.
| offby37years wrote:
| "The next time some academics tell you how important
| diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their
| sociology department" -- Sowell
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| The irony is that the modern university's view of diversity
| is so narrow-minded that it doesn't actually yield a
| diversity of perspectives. Yes, you can bolster a student
| body by welcoming students of different backgrounds, but ask
| any conservative student, any Christian student, or any
| student with no obvious ideological home in the secular Left
| if they feel welcomed and free to contribute the conversation
| and you will get an entirely different picture of the
| university system.
|
| Diversity is not merely a set of physical traits--it has to
| run through the psychological core of a person.
| spoonjim wrote:
| I remember when I was at an elite institution's diversity
| training session and the facilitator asked people to stand
| up and say how they felt oppressed because of their
| diversity. An enormous man stood up and said that he felt
| that people thought he was stupid because he had a Southern
| accent. That was so clearly the "wrong" answer that even
| the facilitator laughed, until finding the black people and
| women she had been looking for.
| [deleted]
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Agreed. I was in ROTC at a very left-leaning campus during
| the "Bush=Hitler" fad. It wasn't a pleasant experience.
| kingkawn wrote:
| How you think that experience rates against Iraqis and
| Afghans?
| pc86 wrote:
| With a comment like this, on supposedly a professional
| forum, it's easy to see why @ARandomerDude had to put up
| with nonsense.
| ylem wrote:
| I am a bit confused by this. I went to college in the
| Midwest in the 90s (grew up in the Midwest) and to grad
| school on the east coast. I am agnostic, but my grandfather
| was a baptist minister and have other ministers in the
| family. I am a democrat. I was in the engineering school
| and started college with a lot of credits, so the only
| humanities/social science course I took was a junior level
| english class--so I can't comment on classes. But, I
| remember that people seemed quite willing to share
| Christian views. My roommate in grad school was a devout
| Catholic and we had several good debates in issues like
| abortion. I had another roommate who was a libertarian who
| also wasn't shy about his views. In college, I had friends
| that tried to convince me that the bible was consistent
| with evolution. My point is that at least in my
| interactions people seemed pretty comfortable sharing their
| views even if we disagreed. Has this changed in colleges (I
| don't work at a university)? Again, in classes I have no
| idea because it just doesn't come up in say a quantum field
| theory course or when you are learning analysis on
| manifolds. Even with coworkers, I had an officemate who was
| very pro iraq war and we debated a lot-- I also had him
| over for Thanksgiving dinner. Do I live in a bubble?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| At lot has changed in 30 years. Not only are you about
| two generations removed from the current zeitgeist on
| college campuses, intersectionality means politics is now
| appropriate in fields that used to be apolitical.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| > an entirely different picture of the university system
|
| I disagree. When I was in college ~4 years ago there were
| diverse discussions in all my classes and students freely
| contributed what would be considered conservative
| mainstream opinions without retribution - and when well
| argued earned some support from their more liberal
| colleagues.
|
| University means different things to different people. For
| many it means partying. For others it means the paper
| certificate you may then use to get a higher paying job. To
| me the heart of a university is the discussion sections
| where students pick and prod at their lectures and each
| other's ideas. Diversity initiatives did not, anecdotally,
| affect those for me personally.
| asciident wrote:
| Isn't the premise already a problem? Even the
| _mainstream_ conservative views did not result in
| retribution. Yet extremist liberal views would never be
| considered for retribution.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| > students freely contributed what would be considered
| conservative mainstream opinions without retribution
|
| Sure, but the presence of these opinions is not the same
| thing as proof of a diverse, free-thinking environment. I
| shared unpopular opinions too--when I felt I could. It
| wasn't always easy to do so.
|
| The chilling effect is hard to measure because people
| self-censor and self-censorship is invisible. It's a bit
| hard to explain, but if we take your metric and extend
| it, you can see where it falls short: just because there
| are black students on campus doesn't mean they feel
| welcome or comfortable to share their minds.
| musingsole wrote:
| Unless you're the one stating the views, you're not in a
| position to know if those students received no
| retribution for their views. What you perceived as your
| peers listening and responding thoughtfully to the non-
| tribal thoughts may well have been anything but to
| someone without your set of assumptions. You simply
| cannot know.
|
| Claiming that you know otherwise is highly indicative
| you're part of the problem when it comes to diversity of
| thought in these venues.
| renewiltord wrote:
| People say this about tech, too, and I'm in tech and not
| particularly left by the standards here (I support free
| enterprise way more than anything else and can easily say X
| lives are worth less than Y money) and people haven't been
| dicks to me at all. In fact, people quite like me.
|
| So considering that there's all this wolf-crying about
| tech, and the warnings about universities sound almost
| exactly the same, I'm going to go ahead and just assume
| they're also wolf-crying.
| mrec wrote:
| If you're willing to say, whereabouts are you? My
| impression is that the rampant illiberalism in tech is
| _mostly_ confined to California /SV and companies
| headquartered there.
|
| Which needn't damn the whole sector, but is still
| worrying considering how influential those places are.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I live in San Francisco. To be clear, here are some views
| I've expressed and had others discuss with me while still
| treating me kindly after both as a human being and as a
| coworker:
|
| * Universal tracking and rating would allow better
| standards of living for normative people
|
| * It's okay to exclude low-quality people from some parts
| of cities since they are generally bad for everyone else
|
| * It's okay for some army of people to be kept quiescent
| with heroin since it is societally cheaper than
| attempting to get them productive
|
| * Government employees are mostly rent-seekers. We can
| create systems far more capable than them.
|
| * Most government services should also have auction lanes
| where you can just bypass the normal line.
|
| Essentially, lots of anti-equity stuff, lots of anti-
| privacy stuff, lots of callous nonsense. People engage
| with this all in good faith (which is nice, because I'm
| not trolling them).
| Bakary wrote:
| What you describe just sounds like standard neoliberal
| ideas that tech people with high salaries are likely to
| gravitate towards. That said, some of these are not
| necessarily expressed directly or are cloaked in
| euphemisms and emerge more as actual behavior than stated
| opinions. In any case, I'm not sure why you expected
| ostracism in the tech sector from those opinions alone.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I don't expect ostracism because I don't get ostracised.
| I expect to be listened to and it happens because people
| in real life like listening to me.
|
| I suspect lots of people are just expressing views no one
| is eager to debate because they're uninteresting.
| mrec wrote:
| That's possible. I don't agree with most of your
| examples, but only one of them would make me want to
| reach for a pitchfork, and they're interesting enough to
| trigger a "hmm, okay, how would that work in practice?"
| reaction rather than a hardwired one.
| mrec wrote:
| That's certainly controversial, but seems to avoid the
| major Hot Buttons Of Doom i.e. anything coded on (or
| insufficiently coded on) the officially important kinds
| of identity label.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I don't want to be flagged here, so I avoided mentioning
| any of those. Rest assured that I didn't hesitate to
| correlate "low-quality people" or who should be given
| heroin instead of jobs with the appropriate visible
| markers.
| _jal wrote:
| I do believe there exist some well-meaning conservatives
| who come to be Big City College and are hammered for their
| views. I think their misfortune is not just to be exposed
| to the same sort (but opposite polarity) of conformity
| demands I experienced growing up in a small southern town,
| but also to be used as political weapons by their supposed
| allies.
| cherrycherry98 wrote:
| Would love to see some statistics on party affiliation of
| faculty at these universities as a proxy measure for
| ideological diversity.
| pc86 wrote:
| It's not a good proxy, at least not anymore, so I'm not
| sure why you would. Plenty of fairly conservative people
| had been registered Republicans for a long time up
| through and maybe including 2016. Maybe this was
| different in the 90's or 00's and may have worked then?
| offby37years wrote:
| Heavily Democrat:
|
| - Of 12k donors from University of California faculty,
| only 6% donated to Trump, 94% to Biden
|
| - MIT, 5% Trump, 95% Biden
|
| - Stanford, 5% Trump, 95% Biden
|
| - Harvard, 4% Trump, 96% Biden
|
| - University of Colorado, 4% Trump, 96% Biden
|
| - University of Washington, 3% Trump, 97% Biden
|
| And so on:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-election-trump-
| biden...
| mindslight wrote:
| A straightforward conclusion from that data would be that
| universities are overwhelmingly conservative, having
| donated to the more conservative candidate. But really it
| just shows the futility of discussing things in terms of
| group affiliations when one of the major parties in the
| middle of an upheaval.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| A straightforward conclusion would be that you are
| spinning that data _really_ hard to try to make it
| support your narrative.
| mindslight wrote:
| I didn't spin anything. The comment I was replying to
| said that 95% of faculty donations went to Biden. Biden
| was the conservative candidate - he respects
| institutions, supports gradual changes to the status quo,
| and goes to church regularly.
|
| What I was doing was being a bit facetious, by using the
| plain definition of the word _conservative_ rather than
| the contemporary stretched definition referring to a
| movement that has turned into _radical populism_. And I
| obviously don 't believe that colleges are full of
| conservatives - that was a reductio ad absurdum.
|
| My actual point is that it's foolish to be looking at
| that 2020 presidential race as a proxy for conservatism
| on college campuses, especially tolerance of
| conservatism, when the candidate calling himself
| "conservative" is nothing of the sort. Put another way,
| shunning Trump supporters is in no way shunning
| conservatives.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| A fair point - once you bother to make it. You could have
| made the same point in your previous point without
| sounding like you went full-on troll, though...
| hooande wrote:
| This is a weak proxy in this case. Could be ideological
| conservatives that didn't want to donate to a particular
| candidate
| COGlory wrote:
| I haven't thoroughly investigated this study or its
| methodology, but it doesn't seem very hard to believe:
|
| https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-
| registration-i...
|
| >We looked up 7,243 professors and found 3,623 to be
| registered Democratic and 314 Republican, for an overall
| D:R ratio of 11.5:1.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| That kind of makes sense though - university jobs rely on
| government funding and it's usually the Republicans who
| (at least claim to) try to reduce government spending.
| setr wrote:
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/146786/democrats-lead-ranks-
| uni...
|
| Across federal employees, that doesn't seem to matter
| much. I also wouldn't expect republicans to care so much
| that they'd put monetary source before job type/location
| -- it'd be quite difficult to be a republican teacher and
| find a job that's not significantly government-funded
| cafard wrote:
| Josh Hawley graduated from Stanford, didn't he?
| pc86 wrote:
| When I attended a private liberal arts college (04-08)
| there were plenty of conservative and Christian students,
| and to my knowledge none had any issues with administration
| or faculty. Most of the problems came from other students,
| typically because of the ideological fervor of a fresh (and
| uneducated) convert.
| ripply wrote:
| Occupy wallstreet was 2011, it ended with the narrative
| switching from class warfare to critical race theory and
| systemic racism. Gamergate was 2014 when the culture war
| really started to heat up. 08 was a different time,
| things have really changed that much.
| listless wrote:
| I felt like it went into overdrive in 2016. Maybe
| partially driven by a certain political figure who seemed
| to be the perfect foil.
|
| I think the irony of MAGA is that it made a bad situation
| far worse. Or rather, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
| The question is whether or not we've learned that lesson.
| d33lio wrote:
| People still think that the way the TV show Silicon Valley
| portrayed Christians is a joke... it's now more true than
| ever.
|
| For those out of the loop, the gist of the joke is "it's
| more risky to come out as a christian in SV than come out
| as gay in a baptist town in the 50's"
| driverdan wrote:
| Absurd. No one is going to kill or beat you for being
| Christian in SV.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Some large nonprofit arts organizations (orchestras, theatres,
| etc.) have privately expressed that the hiring of a "chief
| diversity officer" has simply become a necessary cost for
| organizations. Even if you have already been doing outreach for
| years or decades to attract a more diverse audience, activists
| will hold it against you that you do not have a formal, salaried
| position dedicated specifically and solely to this aim.
| fallingknife wrote:
| There is a high degree of overlap between people who care a lot
| about "diversity" and people who think bureaucracy gets things
| done and titles matter.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Absolutely, but it's not just nonprofits. It's become a
| competitive barrier to entry exercise throughout industry. Only
| the big, established players can afford to do this, and it
| functions as a sort of tax.
| namdnay wrote:
| I don't think small organisations would be criticised for not
| having this type of position though.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I think it depends on how much attention the smaller
| organization gets. I can totally see a CDO being a de-facto
| requirement for Bay Area startups due to all the pressure
| from the politics in the area.
|
| It's also possible a small to mid size organization gets
| into some imbroglio on Twitter and realizes they need a CDO
| to try and stop the bad PR.
| naturalpb wrote:
| "Tax" is a great model on which to view the situation! I also
| think of these leadership positions, critical race theory /
| anti-racism / unconscious bias trainings, and diversity
| initiatives as a sort of insurance policy against social
| media-driven outrage. A large organization pays the "premium"
| to prevent a possible large loss of brand reputation.
|
| As you stated, this functions to benefit the large
| organizations that can afford the premiums while smaller
| organizations will go unprotected and pay the costs of the
| outrage that will be deflected their way.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| From an ideology point of view, this is amazing. Imagine having
| activist pressure be so strong that you can make institutions
| create high paying executive positions designed to satisfy your
| demands.
| namdnay wrote:
| I don't see what "ideology" or "views" that would be. It's
| not like anyone is saying that diversity is bad, we all agree
| that the ideal company would match the diversity of the
| society it operates in.
|
| It's just that hiring someone specifically for this seems a
| bit silly. To take a coding parallel, it's as if you had a
| "chief code review officer" to ensure people are doing enough
| code reviews. We all agree that code reviews are a good
| thing, and that most companies could do with more of them,
| but we also think it's a bit silly to have n executive
| position for it
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I'm saying diversity is bad. I want a pure meritocracy, not
| a college campus where applicants are judged based on the
| color of their skin.
| namdnay wrote:
| We seem to be arguing two different things. I'm saying
| diversity is a good goal for our society to aim for, not
| that it's a good means to get there.
|
| i.e. I'm not saying that selection should be based on
| skin colour, I'm saying that it's a good long term goal
| for our institutions (be they fortune 500 companies or
| universities) to reflect the diversity of our society.
| There are lots of ways to get there, and american-style
| racial quotas are definitely not the best way IMHO
| rory wrote:
| I think the more common stance is that diversity is
| neutral, not good or bad but merely incidental.
| free_rms wrote:
| Which society should they demographically match, America?
| namdnay wrote:
| I guess it depends on the company, right? For a global
| company I'd expect the top levels to be pretty global
| too.
| vel0city wrote:
| > It's not like anyone is saying that diversity is bad
|
| From the start, there are absolutely people out there who
| argue diversity is bad and that ultimately we should live
| in some kind of ethnostate. Then there's a whole gradient
| of people from that end to people who think the government
| should force integration in pretty much any semi-public
| setting. There are definitely people out there arguing
| diversity is bad. I don't agree with these people, but I at
| least acknowledge these people do exist.
|
| In this spectrum, there are other people who don't have a
| problem with diversity but only wish for such things to
| happen more or less organically. Of course there's a view
| that if the people making hiring decisions are always a
| particular kind of world view they're going to usually
| select people they can self-identify with leading to a
| self-selection bias that restricts the rate of integration
| in an organization. Enforcing such integration or not, or
| the level of such forced integration, is absolutely a
| diverse range of policy viewpoints largely anchored on base
| political ideologies.
|
| Your own opinion that "hiring someone specifically for this
| seems a bit silly" is a view you have based on your
| ideology. Others don't find it silly, which is their view
| based on their ideology.
| jariel wrote:
| This has become institutional.
|
| And FYI it's not a paradox that you can 'care about
| diversity' and still be bullied by activists.
|
| Major corporations are making requirements for panels at
| conferences etc. and it can get very complicated.
|
| A female documentarian in Montreal just quit the industry
| over the institutional rejection of her work which focused on
| homelessness and happened to be mostly 'white men' due to
| requirements of diversity.
|
| In my own discussions with 'executive level people' I find
| that they are generally of the classically liberal type
| (think European liberal). Basically - they are nice, upper
| middle class white men who actually do 'care' about such
| things, but generally are not exactly well read or super
| thoughtful on the issue. They're not 'up on the lingo' and
| are very, very afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing. The
| 'right thing' is effectively forced upon them, and they
| generally act to placate angry voices and want it to all go
| away, like a Father caving to his teenagers angry demands
| about this that, hoping that tomorrow it will all just go
| away.
|
| I've heard, even my own very white, executive golf club
| member say the most 'woke' things lately it's almost made me
| laugh, when I inquire about it, it's clear they have no idea
| what they are saying, they are repeating the argument made to
| them by someone with a more radical view.
|
| Because there is no 'pushback' on the issue (everyone is
| afraid), then things get out of tilt.
|
| I'm not sure what the end-game is, but it would be nice if
| there were some kind of 'centrist' and defensible ideal that
| people could appeal to that enables execs to make thoughtful
| decisions about diversity but that aren't based on 'caving
| out of fear to activism'.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > A female documentarian in Montreal just quit the industry
| over the institutional rejection of her work which focused
| on homelessness and happened to be mostly 'white men' due
| to requirements of diversity.
|
| Homeless folks were white men in Montreal? How is that
| surprising?
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| Doesn't seem much different than any of the ISO9000 guys I've
| met at big companies. Cushy job if you can tolerate it.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| ISO9000 is a documented and defined standard. What
| qualifies as 'Diverse' is entirely up to the whims of the
| most vocal.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I was going to argue that ISO9000 doesn't get its own
| C-level exec, but apparently Chief Compliance Officer _is_
| a thing so maybe
| EpicEng wrote:
| The tricky bit, apparently, is making the right demands in
| the first place.
| nailer wrote:
| Hiring a Chief Diversity Officer is a fine demand, in that
| it requires the institution to pay attention to activists.
| Activists of the 'woke' kind generally prioritise attention
| over improving ethnic group involvement in a field. Once
| the CDO is hired, the activists will move on gaining
| attention by making subsequent additional demands.
| one2know wrote:
| CDO's are democrat party political officers who are charged with
| keeping corporations under the control of the leftist democrat
| party. That doesn't necessarily mean they will meet minority
| quotas for executives because racial diversity is not the true
| goal. Party control is the true goal, and that is why CDO exists
| and has power to veto new hires who might be a threat.
| gsich wrote:
| No surprise there.
| jxramos wrote:
| Wow are my eyes deceiving me, but did they just blindly link to
| anything hit on the web that links back to them? Just from the
| titles it doesn't look like the backlinks hold too flattering a
| view on their work? This is pretty bold and catching me off
| balance, I always interpreted "mentioned in the news" sections as
| curated and tailored to maximize the positive impressions of a
| place.
|
| > # Mentioned in the News > * Colleges Are Hiring More Diversity
| Officers Than Ever - Here's How Racial Resentment Could Be ...
| JULY 13, 2020 SOURCE: THE DAILY CALLER > Surprise: Diversity
| officials pull down big salaries with little effect > SEPTEMBER
| 7, 2018 > SOURCE: THE COLLEGE FIX
| itsdrewmiller wrote:
| There is a pretty good chance that is automated, and there
| isn't a ton of mainstream excitement over a paper that fails to
| reject the null hypothesis. (I'm glad they published though!
| Keep those negative results papers coming!)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-02 23:02 UTC)