SUBSCRIBE
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
Discern Report
Discern Report
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
Discern Report
No Result
View All Result
Home Type Curated

DEI Supporters: Corporate DEI is a Mess

by Hot Air
December 25, 2024
in Curated, Opinions
DEI Supporters: Corporate DEI is a Mess
At last, a conservative news aggregator that does not bow to the woke right.

The Wall Street Journal published a story this week about DEI supporters who think corporate DEI needs a makeover. It turns out that a lot of the stuff being promoted in the name of DEI either doesn’t work or borders on illegal.

Some of the most visible steps that businesses took after George Floyd’s murder in 2020 turned out to be ineffective, according to Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin, whose research on racial and gender disparities in management is often cited as evidence for robust diversity programs. Those pledges companies made to fill certain percentages of leadership roles with women and people of color? Besides being legally risky, the goals seldom materialized, he says.

And the unconscious bias training that was supposed to produce antiracist allies? Turns out people hate being told they have hidden prejudices.

Dobbin is an interesting character. In 2018 he wrote a critique of corporate DEI training titled “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work?” Here’s a sample:

Promised Grounds

…two-thirds of human resources specialists report that diversity training does not have positive effects, and several field studies have found no effect of diversity training on women’s or minorities’ careers or on managerial diversity. These findings are not surprising. There is ample evidence that training alone does not change attitudes or behavior, or not by much and not for long. In their review of 985 studies of antibias interventions, Paluck and Green found little evidence that training reduces bias. In their review of 31 organizational studies using pretest/posttest assessments or a control group, Kulik and Roberson identified 27 that documented improved knowledge of, or attitudes toward, diversity, but most found small, short-term improvements on one or two of the items measured. In their review of 39 similar studies, Bezrukova, Joshi and Jehn identified only f ive that examined long-term effects on bias, two showing positive effects, two negative, and one no effect.

But an article Dobbin co-wrote for the WSJ last year seemed to lean heavily on implicit bias testing (though the authors said it was being misused by DEI trainers to shame people). But a response to that article in the City Journal points out the deeper problem: Implicit Bias is junk science.

The problems with DEI trainings are not in their tone, however, but in their substance. The implicit-bias theory (also called unconscious-bias theory) on which these trainings are based has no scientific basis, as years of examinations have consistently demonstrated. Lee Jussim puts it politely in his “12 Reasons to Be Skeptical of Common Claims About Implicit Bias,” but the Open Science Foundation’s archive of Articles Critical of the IAT and Implicit Bias renders a harsher verdict. In 2011, Etienne LeBel and Sampo Paunonen reviewed evidence that measures of implicit bias possess low reliability. In other words, when you test for implicit bias multiple times, you rarely get the same result. Their conclusion was that some part of “implicit bias” is really “random measurement error.” In 2017, Heather Mac Donald’s intensive examination of the theory and its empirical basis (or lack thereof) concluded that the “implicit-bias crusade is agenda-driven social science.” And Bertram Gawronski’s 2019 review of the scholarly literature on implicit-bias research also concludes that there’s no proof that people aren’t self-aware enough to know what’s causing their supposedly “implicit” or “unconscious” biases; and that you can’t prove that there’s any relationship between how people do on the test and how they behave in the real world…

Professional critiques of implicit bias have shown, politely but repeatedly, that there is nothing there. Activists and scientists who think that science should serve political objectives want to believe in the existence of massive systemic bias to justify their goals of imposing “equity” by law and by litigation. Implicit bias is a pseudoscientific theory made to order for this purpose. It’s a house of cards, and governments and the private sector should terminate every program based on it.

All that to say, Dobbin is right that DEI training doesn’t work but there’s no rescuing a field that is based on junk science that doesn’t measure anything. The other claims supporting corporate DEI also have serious problems.

The argument that more diverse leadership teams are directly linked to greater profits has come under fire. Still, companies know they risk missing talent if they don’t actively recruit a range of people, says Fayruz Kirtzman, a senior client partner at Korn Ferry who advises companies on using DEI to help the bottom line.

She says a lot of businesses stumbled in recent years by publicizing demographic targets. Intended to keep companies accountable to the numbers, the goals were easily misconstrued as reverse discrimination.

“By the time the message trickles down, it’s heard as, ‘They won’t hire a white guy,’” she says.

It’s probably heard that way because that’s actually what is happening in many cases. Companies, like colleges, will travel to the ends of the earth to find a competitive black candidate and in the process ignore or overlook the white (or Asian) candidate standing on their doorstep. As mentioned, the justification for a lot of this is the dubious claim that diversity leads to greater profits. That claim has been trumpeted for several years by McKinsey & Company. But academics who attempted to replicate their results based on public information couldn’t do it. […]

— Read More: hotair.com

JD's Links





Two Storms, One Harvest

Empty Shelves

Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.

What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.

Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.

This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.

Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.

Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.

The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running

While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.

The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.

Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.

The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.

Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.

The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?

The System Has No Slack Left

The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.

Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.

There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.

The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.

What Joseph Knew

Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.

Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.

Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.

Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.

None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.

Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.

Tags: LedeTop Story
Next Post
Elon Musk Predicts The Rise Of The Machines By 2030

Elon Musk Predicts the Rise of the Machines by 2030

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • About Us
  • America First Newsletter
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Integrating With Augusta Precious Metals
  • Newsletter
  • Privacy Policy
Site Operated By JD Rucker.

© 2023 America First Report.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Original
  • Curated
  • Aggregated
  • News
  • Opinions
  • Videos
  • Podcasts
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

© 2023 America First Report.

Not enough quota to unlock this post
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?