That is not the intent here. When I talk about DEI, I’m not talking about the political side of it or how it’s often co-opted by the left as a gateway to Marxism.
I was going to criticize the lack of non-SV political context (e.g. thinking that bringing this up a decade ago means they were discussing affirmative action “before it was cool”), but the whole thing is just completely off kilter. DEI is as related to “Marxism” as it’s related to the secret ((plot)) to convince people the world is round. Baseless conspiracies don’t make good bases for technical decisions, IMHO.
I read through the whole article and forgot about that sentence, which did come off as pretty off field. Not sure where Marxism came from.
But idk, I thought the article was reasonable enough in calling for prestige-agnostic measures. Not like the measures in the article will guarantee the flawless hiring loop, but what was off kilter about the rest?
Good question! Basically, there are two theses here:
1. Systematic oppression exists but it's not your problem, don't worry about it, colleges should fix it.
2. You shouldn't put much stock in undergrad university ranking when choosing early career candidates.
In my opinion, the former is immoral cowardice and the latter is perfectly true, just trite. God knows why the big companies still work off of school filters, but I think a big part of it is that it's "common knowledge". I guess every argument we add on the pile against that is good, but not when it's based in a fundamentally out-of-whack worldview that sees 2024 as defined by terrible discrimination against the rich and powerful. Broken clocks and all that :)
It also doesn't help that it's all, ultimately, an ad for their services. Their big plan for solving systematic oppression is... to hire them. Which is pretty funny!
Comments
I read through the whole article and forgot about that sentence, which did come off as pretty off field. Not sure where Marxism came from.
But idk, I thought the article was reasonable enough in calling for prestige-agnostic measures. Not like the measures in the article will guarantee the flawless hiring loop, but what was off kilter about the rest?
Good question! Basically, there are two theses here:
1. Systematic oppression exists but it's not your problem, don't worry about it, colleges should fix it.
2. You shouldn't put much stock in undergrad university ranking when choosing early career candidates.
In my opinion, the former is immoral cowardice and the latter is perfectly true, just trite. God knows why the big companies still work off of school filters, but I think a big part of it is that it's "common knowledge". I guess every argument we add on the pile against that is good, but not when it's based in a fundamentally out-of-whack worldview that sees 2024 as defined by terrible discrimination against the rich and powerful. Broken clocks and all that :)
It also doesn't help that it's all, ultimately, an ad for their services. Their big plan for solving systematic oppression is... to hire them. Which is pretty funny!
The E part of DEI is pretty explicitly Marxist.