| ▲ | croes a day ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
That’s still DEI. Poor have less chances? Enforce hiring of the poor. Non-white habe less chances? Enforce hiring of non-whites. Non-male have less chances? Enforce hiring of non-males. Disabled have less chances? Enforce hiring of disabled. If you have less chances because of a attribute you aren’t responsible for, enforce hiring of people with such an attribute to normalize the attribute in the workspace is DEI. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 21 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The premise of that proposal is that the test scores are inaccurate as a result of the economic disparity, because people with less income have less resources to prepare for the test. That would apply in the case of an economic disparity because having more resources allows you to artificially receive a higher score. It's not about accepting someone with less merit out of charity but rather about adjusting for a measurement error. But the economic disparity is the reason for the racial disparity, because otherwise we expect people of different races are equally intelligent, right? So the economic disparity is the real one and accounting for that inherently accounts for the racial disparity as well, and you don't need both. Which is the reason doing the latter is controversial. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||