by Aaron Warner
Continuing on with the theme of implicit bias the training now cites two studies indicating bias in the workplace. The first is a 2004 study at Chicago University which randomized fake applications with “white sounding” and “African-American sounding” names. The fake applications were also randomized for lower and higher quality candidates in a variety of clerical, managerial and sales positions. The results showed the “white names” got 50 percent more callbacks than “black names” regardless of industry. The second study involved the use of A.I. by Amazon to rank applicants based on a database. The results here showed a bias against women, so Amazon scrapped the program.
What else can we conclude other than we’re a nation of patriarchal bigots who have systemically ingrained these biases to advantage one group – white males. Where have we heard that before?
Both the studies and conclusions are problematic. Why? For starters the idea that there are white sounding names and black sounding names, though real, creates an implicit racism in the study. What if one of the black candidates was Dave Johnson, or one of the white candidates was Jerome Williams and got picked for the job? The fact that the social scientists established a racist study to entrap potential employers is just as racist as the fake outcome. Furthermore, did we look at white versus black sounding names applying for jobs in black owned businesses? Had they the results would have been the same or even more biased. Why? It’s a cultural fact that people of similar ethnic backgrounds prefer to work with and live around each other. People naturally segregate, not all people, but most do. This is a matter of choice not systemic racism. Cities throughout the U.S. have Chinatowns, Italian sections, and yes black neighborhoods by matter of natural human instincts not because white people are racist.
The bias toward women has also be soundly debunked since this argument has become popular. We know the wage gap between men and women is a myth. We also know men typically make up more management and workplace positions because men are built for more work. This is a physical reality. As a strength coach of twenty years I train clients based on work capacity. That is, how much can you lift in a given session? They pay me to increase their work capacity and, like it or not, men have easily a natural 30% greater work capacity than women thanks to basic biology. We also have more testosterone, the hormone linked to aggression. These God-given realities translate to the…wait for it…WORK place. Men are going to out-work most women in physical labor as well as be inclined to work longer and harder in white collar positions. This is also why you see more men firefighters, police, and longshoremen. You’ll notice the studies are not concerned with getting more women on Alaskan fishing rigs or building skyscrapers. Why? Because the people pursuing these angles are after “leadership opportunities” – it’s about power, not nature.
To wit the next slide (#25) looks at representation and cites a private sector study from 2016 that found “white men represent 42% of the civilian sector workforce yet they hold 61% of the management positions” while “women represent 46% of the civilian workforce yet…hold only 39% of all management positions”, and “blacks represent 12% of the civilian workforce yet…only hold 6% of all management positions.” Here we see the use of math to decry a supposed social injustice. Is it though? What percentage of white guys make up NBA teams? What about rappers or R&B groups? How many Chinese restaurants are run by white ladies? What social law suggests these numbers should all shake out mathematically?
In a name – Identity-Marxist socialism.
The fundamental philosophy driving these complaints is derived from the idea there are oppressed groups under the thumb of oppressors. Whereas during Marx’s time it was economic with the worker being oppressed by the property/business owner it has since shifted to identity (race, sex, etc.) Which is why this D.E.I. training focuses explicitly on studies that highlight perceived injustices in those categories while ignoring data and realities that prove otherwise.
Consider these counterfactuals:
- If America is systemically racist why are Nigerians the most successful immigrant group?
- Women in Burundi and Rawanda own 54% of the land while only 11% do in Senegal.
- When accounting for occupation, position, education, job tenure and hours worked per week the wage gap between men and women is non-existent.
- Female farm product buyers and purchasing agents made 107.5% as much as their male counterparts.
- Female meeting, convention and event planners made 110.7% as much as men in the same field.
- Black Americans are more likely to be working than white Americans
- There has been a 793% increase in the number of elite university students identifying as LGBTQ
As the saying goes there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The use of studies and statistics can be easily curated and manipulated to paint just about any narrative you like. The Marxists like an identity narrative that portrays women, race and sexual minorities as treated unfairly in America. One of their favorite “government is systemically racist” arguments is the violence by police against black people. Is that true?
- There are no racial differences in police killings when accounting for whether or not the suspect was armed or a threat.
- Police killings in New York City declined dramatically for all races, from an average of 59 per year between 1970-75, to an avg. of 12 per year between 2015 and 2020, even as it’s population increased.
There are dozens more that refute the claims in this training however they aren’t important because the goal is not protecting certain groups from injustice but creating new sources of privilege.
This comes back to Ibrahm X. Kende’s assertion that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination (re: privilege) and the only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination” which he has since edited out of his famous best seller “How To Be An Anti-racist”. It’s not enough to simply live a life based in morality and ethics at work, this D.E.I. training is a call to activism. The final slides are clear on that when they bullet point “commit to equity and…inclusiveness” “be an ally; be a leader” “get out of your comfort zone” “keep widening your circles”. None of which has anything to do with the job description you were hired to perform but rather the new social mind they want to create in you.
These calls to action are followed by the “Summary” which again reads like a kindergarten lesson on basic decency with calls to be “thoughtful” and show “courtesy” and “kindness”. However the point here is not in general but specifically toward a cultural shift that includes highly controversial people behaviors like “transgender” and “queer” and the idea that these selected groups (LGBTQ-BIPOC) need special treatment from others to accommodate them rather than them needing to simply assimilate into an already moral and ethical social structure currently found in the American workplace.
In other words, this is brain washing via “re-education” if you didn’t already know.
The fact that these D.E.I. trainings are not just pervading corporations and other workplaces but highly represented at the university level among staff show this is program intended to re-shape culture. The next question is why?
(Click this link to see the actual slide show)
The author is a VDC columnist and Upper Valley regional reporter. He lives in Hartford, VT where he owns two award-winning small businesses. He is a graduate of Leadership Upper Valley class of 2010.