Diversity and discrimination are kind of two different topics, no? Discrimination clearly leads to lack of diversity, but lack of diversity does not imply discrimination. I hope everyone thinks discrimination is bad, that doesn't seem like a controversial subject.
Lack of diversity in STEM also has other causes, though, like self-selection away from subjects due to lack of role models, or struggling in college because your background has not prepared you for the academic culture. Some of these are likely more race/ethnicity/gender related, like the role model issue. When it comes to being prepared for the academic culture, though, that firmly seems to be in the socio-economic territory.
The trouble is that ethnicity also works as a semi-good proxy for socio-economic background, so it seems like people think that by fixing the "I don't see anyone like me here" problem, they can also do a good enough job of fixing problems due socio-economic background, even though that leaves out a significant chunk of people.
> I hope everyone thinks discrimination is bad, that doesn't seem like a controversial subject.
How about all the "positive" discrimination? As a Caucasian male from the Middle East, I feel like many entities take pride in actively discriminating against me, and I don't have any victimhood cards to play in that game.
I'm a Caucasian male, too, and I've never experienced anything I'd call "discrimination". Even now when I live in a place where whites are in the minority (Hawaii, ~27%).
I'm curious what kinds of experiences you are referring to.
Stuff like this is happening more and more these days => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6dzZdceT4 (protestors blocking only white and asian people from crossing a bridge).
e.g. when employers set quota for minority groups (e.g. gender or race) in recruiting and promotions. That means someone somewhere is losing a deserved opportunity solely based on belonging to a majority group. I can't say I've personally experienced anything blatant though.
>The trouble is that ethnicity also works as a semi-good proxy for socio-economic background, so it seems like people think that by fixing the "I don't see anyone like me here" problem, they can also do a good enough job of fixing problems due socio-economic background, even though that leaves out a significant chunk of people.
Exactly this. A focus on race/ethnicity is only looking at part of the picture. The question remains, though: is it better than looking at none of the picture?
>When it comes to being prepared for the academic culture, though, that firmly seems to be in the socio-economic territory.
Maybe the academic culture is wrong? What if that culture is applying arbitrary standards that disproportionately filter out certain groups, even when those standards don't translate to the skills needed in the real world?
If you grew up never eating with a fork and knife, you'll certainly feel uncomfortable and out of place being put in a situation where that's expected. You can argue that culture is "wrong", but that won't really help you.
There are all kinds of cultures ("communities of practice", is the term) that we find ourselves in. Academics is one of them, in the sense that being a successful member requires you to be proficient in things like making coherent arguments, arguing from evidence, and asking clear questions. If your parents were university faculty, for example, you likely have much more exposure to a world where this is the norm than if you're first-generation college bound, which will make it much easier for you to navigate that world. That doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with academic culture -- it evolved because of what its practitioners do.
To the extent that "university student culture" crosses over into "the culture of the well-off", though, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Not necessarily. That model completely removes the individual and community as actors in society. What you are saying is that all accomplishment of a person is due to society "acting on that person" to make that person successful. Everything that happens can be labeled as discrimination with that kind of model, making it a completely useless model.
Is society "discriminating" against communities and individuals when some individuals and communities value education and spend more time studying than others?
Newborns may be blank slates, but college- and working-age people clearly are not. By the time we are ready to join the working world, we are already imprinted by what our culture tells us are "male" and "female" jobs, for example. I don't think of that as discrimination. It's discrimination if a female applies for a construction job and is passed over for being female, not if she never applies because she thinks construction isn't for her because that's something men do. But both lead to a lack of diversity.
I agree. It's important to realize that the rationalization of a lack of diversity in the workplace is explicitly based on racist theories about intelligence, and that the discomfort that many people feel is the fear of judgment if they openly express adherence to those beliefs.
Lack of diversity in STEM also has other causes, though, like self-selection away from subjects due to lack of role models, or struggling in college because your background has not prepared you for the academic culture. Some of these are likely more race/ethnicity/gender related, like the role model issue. When it comes to being prepared for the academic culture, though, that firmly seems to be in the socio-economic territory.
The trouble is that ethnicity also works as a semi-good proxy for socio-economic background, so it seems like people think that by fixing the "I don't see anyone like me here" problem, they can also do a good enough job of fixing problems due socio-economic background, even though that leaves out a significant chunk of people.