What would be good inclusivity training?

[ergative]

Or, y'know, if it's truly impossible to know whether someone was a diversity hire or not, we could evaluate them on their own actions, without pre-judging (ooh--look at that etymology!) what we think they're capable of.

You mean like the 24 year old armorer on the set of "Rust" where Alec Baldwin killed someone by firing a gun that wasn't supposed to be loaded?

I haven't really been following that story. On the surface, I would willingly agree that doing one's job so badly that someone is killed by one's negligence is the sort of thing that would be excellent grounds for judging one's job performance. Is there more to it that makes this particular incident that is relevant to the discussion?

[marshwiggle]

Or, y'know, if it's truly impossible to know whether someone was a diversity hire or not, we could evaluate them on their own actions, without pre-judging (ooh--look at that etymology!) what we think they're capable of.

You mean like the 24 year old armorer on the set of "Rust" where Alec Baldwin killed someone by firing a gun that wasn't supposed to be loaded?

I haven't really been following that story. On the surface, I would willingly agree that doing one's job so badly that someone is killed by one's negligence is the sort of thing that would be excellent grounds for judging one's job performance. Is there more to it that makes this particular incident that is relevant to the discussion?

One of the most recent bombshells is that apparently *some of the crew were shooting beer cans on the set a few hours before the tragedy. In other words, they were using REAL BULLETS on the set. The investigation seems to be getting more shocking every day.


(*possibly including the armorer herself; it's not clear at this point.)

[apl68]

Or, y'know, if it's truly impossible to know whether someone was a diversity hire or not, we could evaluate them on their own actions, without pre-judging (ooh--look at that etymology!) what we think they're capable of.

You mean like the 24 year old armorer on the set of "Rust" where Alec Baldwin killed someone by firing a gun that wasn't supposed to be loaded?

I haven't really been following that story. On the surface, I would willingly agree that doing one's job so badly that someone is killed by one's negligence is the sort of thing that would be excellent grounds for judging one's job performance. Is there more to it that makes this particular incident that is relevant to the discussion?

I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of this story to the subject at hand myself.  Unless maybe marshwiggle is suggesting that the person most culpable in this tragedy is a prime example of an incompetent diversity hire?  Don't know what evidence there is for such an assertion.

[Caracal]

Or, y'know, if it's truly impossible to know whether someone was a diversity hire or not, we could evaluate them on their own actions, without pre-judging (ooh--look at that etymology!) what we think they're capable of.

You mean like the 24 year old armorer on the set of "Rust" where Alec Baldwin killed someone by firing a gun that wasn't supposed to be loaded?

She's the daughter of someone who was a very well known armorer. Seems like its more likely to be a case of nepotism. But, I could imagine that you could be partially right. What we know is that this seems to have been a production where people were willing to cut a lot of corners. Someone hired an assistant director who had a terrible record of safety violations. They were obviously trying to save money. I'm guessing the 24 year old armorer with only one previous job cost a lot less than hiring one of the more established people. It would not shock me if the people who made the decision to hire this person justified it as being about inclusivity.

If they actually hired someone without the proper qualifications, and without vetting, because they wanted to get credit for valuing diversity, that mostly would just indicate they weren't concerned about being careful around guns and didn't think armorer was a very important position. Presumably that's how you end up hiring someone who got fired from a previous job for safety violations around guns.

People get hired all the time for jobs they are unqualified for or unsuited for, for all kinds of bad reasons. I suspect its often because employers put too much emphasis on some particular trait (This person is really charismatic! They have a lot of experience! They went to Harvard!) and ignore red flags. Is it possible to do that with diversity? Of course, but its mostly just a symptom of other problems. 

[marshwiggle]

People get hired all the time for jobs they are unqualified for or unsuited for, for all kinds of bad reasons. I suspect its often because employers put too much emphasis on some particular trait (This person is really charismatic! They have a lot of experience! They went to Harvard!) and ignore red flags. Is it possible to do that with diversity? Of course, but its mostly just a symptom of other problems.

This goes to the question of how much you allow merit to be compromised in favour of diversity. (And experience would be one of the things going into merit.) While there may be some subjectivity in determination of merit, that's not the same as basically making it a secondary consideration.

[dismalist]

People get hired all the time for jobs they are unqualified for or unsuited for, for all kinds of bad reasons. I suspect its often because employers put too much emphasis on some particular trait (This person is really charismatic! They have a lot of experience! They went to Harvard!) and ignore red flags. Is it possible to do that with diversity? Of course, but its mostly just a symptom of other problems.

This goes to the question of how much you allow merit to be compromised in favour of diversity. (And experience would be one of the things going into merit.) While there may be some subjectivity in determination of merit, that's not the same as basically making it a secondary consideration.

The armorer story is not about diversity or statistical discrimination. It was known before the hire that she was a moronette. Hiring her was a reckless decision.

Statistical discrimination is used when one knows little about the person to be hired, but one can associate that person with the average of a population's trait or group of traits.

To get away from negative aspects of gender and race for a moment, and go to positive selection, people in New York City hire child carers, sight unseen, from among Mormons in Utah, who have a reputation for honesty and diligence! One doesn't know how the particular child carer will turn out, but there's a good chance she will be around the average Mormon.

In many ways, pressure for diversity makes it less possible to use statistical discrimination. Hence, the quality of the workforce in any particular firm must go down. This last may not be a big problem in universities, say, but it would be for airline pilots, say. [I say would be because potential pilots are individually tested and tested and tested again. No need for statistical discrimination in such circumstances.]

[marshwiggle]

The armorer story is not about diversity or statistical discrimination. It was known before the hire that she was a moronette. Hiring her was a reckless decision.

But that's the point. Is it likely that a man who was as young and inexperienced, with that kind of history would have been given the job otherwise? It's doubtful. She may not have been an "official" diversity hire, but no doubt the people who hired her were patting themselves on the back for their enlightened decision (despite her background).

[dismalist]

The armorer story is not about diversity or statistical discrimination. It was known before the hire that she was a moronette. Hiring her was a reckless decision.

But that's the point. Is it likely that a man who was as young and inexperienced, with that kind of history would have been given the job otherwise? It's doubtful. She may not have been an "official" diversity hire, but no doubt the people who hired her were patting themselves on the back for their enlightened decision (despite her background).

Well, if so, diversity really reduced the quality of the workforce there! :-(

As someone said upthread, it's probably a case of nepotism.

[marshwiggle]

The armorer story is not about diversity or statistical discrimination. It was known before the hire that she was a moronette. Hiring her was a reckless decision.

But that's the point. Is it likely that a man who was as young and inexperienced, with that kind of history would have been given the job otherwise? It's doubtful. She may not have been an "official" diversity hire, but no doubt the people who hired her were patting themselves on the back for their enlightened decision (despite her background).

Well, if so, diversity really reduced the quality of the workforce there! :-(

As someone said upthread, it's probably a case of nepotism.

But again, even if the 24 year old were the son of the respected professional, would that have gotten him hired, with his record? Again, unlikely that nepotism alone would have sufficed. (To be a minion on set; sure. But to be in charge? No way.)

[Caracal]

The armorer story is not about diversity or statistical discrimination. It was known before the hire that she was a moronette. Hiring her was a reckless decision.

But that's the point. Is it likely that a man who was as young and inexperienced, with that kind of history would have been given the job otherwise? It's doubtful. She may not have been an "official" diversity hire, but no doubt the people who hired her were patting themselves on the back for their enlightened decision (despite her background).

Well, if so, diversity really reduced the quality of the workforce there! :-(

As someone said upthread, it's probably a case of nepotism.

But again, even if the 24 year old were the son of the respected professional, would that have gotten him hired, with his record? Again, unlikely that nepotism alone would have sufficed. (To be a minion on set; sure. But to be in charge? No way.)

I dunno, they hired a guy who got fired from a previous movie for putting people in danger.

[marshwiggle]

The armorer story is not about diversity or statistical discrimination. It was known before the hire that she was a moronette. Hiring her was a reckless decision.

But that's the point. Is it likely that a man who was as young and inexperienced, with that kind of history would have been given the job otherwise? It's doubtful. She may not have been an "official" diversity hire, but no doubt the people who hired her were patting themselves on the back for their enlightened decision (despite her background).

Well, if so, diversity really reduced the quality of the workforce there! :-(

As someone said upthread, it's probably a case of nepotism.

But again, even if the 24 year old were the son of the respected professional, would that have gotten him hired, with his record? Again, unlikely that nepotism alone would have sufficed. (To be a minion on set; sure. But to be in charge? No way.)

I dunno, they hired a guy who got fired from a previous movie for putting people in danger.

Two things are different about that.

• He wasn't as directly responsible for gun safety as the armourer.
• He had lots of experience. The fact that he got fired from his last movie was only part of his history.

There were obviously a lot of poor decisions on this project, but that just goes to show how the factors that should have been most important (like safety) were not taken as seriously as other things.

[artalot]

How has this thread moved from inclusivity training to the armorer on the Rust set?
I'll just say that as a woman, I found a lot of what was written here really troubling, though it certainly explains the situation on my campus. Much of what was written here is the reason why we need diversity and inclusivity training. If you legitimately think that a woman, LGTBQ person or BIPOC was hired because they were a 'diversity hire,' then you're part of the problem.

For ways to fix it: try surveying your students on the first day on their name and pronouns. Make sure you pronounce their names correctly. Try acknowledging the work of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC in your field, while also acknowledging how far your field has to go. Try teaching about the roles of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC - they are part of history, society and humanity. Try not using the term diversity hire.

[downer]

For ways to fix it: try surveying your students on the first day on their name and pronouns. Make sure you pronounce their names correctly. Try acknowledging the work of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC in your field, while also acknowledging how far your field has to go. Try teaching about the roles of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC - they are part of history, society and humanity. Try not using the term diversity hire.

So would you say that inclusivity training should focus on curriculum design?

One worry I had about the training I was in that it was by people who knew nothing of my discipline. So their advice was all very general. Should something like focus on curriculum be done within a department? Does there even need to be training about that? Maybe just Googling "inclusive syllabi" for one's own field is going to produce enough helpful ideas.

I think we have had a discussion of pronouns on The Fora at some point. I don't use pronouns to refer to my students in my classes, so I don't ask what their pronouns are.

[mamselle]

How has this thread moved from inclusivity training to the armorer on the Rust set?
I'll just say that as a woman, I found a lot of what was written here really troubling, though it certainly explains the situation on my campus. Much of what was written here is the reason why we need diversity and inclusivity training. If you legitimately think that a woman, LGTBQ person or BIPOC was hired because they were a 'diversity hire,' then you're part of the problem.

For ways to fix it: try surveying your students on the first day on their name and pronouns. Make sure you pronounce their names correctly. Try acknowledging the work of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC in your field, while also acknowledging how far your field has to go. Try teaching about the roles of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC - they are part of history, society and humanity. Try not using the term diversity hire.

+1

A friend once consoled me about the frustration of trying to see a different kind of change into being.

"It'll happen in a couple generations, after all the die-hards die off."

I suppose that's what we face here. In another thirty years....

M.

[Puget]

For ways to fix it: try surveying your students on the first day on their name and pronouns. Make sure you pronounce their names correctly. Try acknowledging the work of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC in your field, while also acknowledging how far your field has to go. Try teaching about the roles of women, LGTBQ people and BIPOC - they are part of history, society and humanity. Try not using the term diversity hire.

So would you say that inclusivity training should focus on curriculum design?

One worry I had about the training I was in that it was by people who knew nothing of my discipline. So their advice was all very general. Should something like focus on curriculum be done within a department? Does there even need to be training about that? Maybe just Googling "inclusive syllabi" for one's own field is going to produce enough helpful ideas.

I think we have had a discussion of pronouns on The Fora at some point. I don't use pronouns to refer to my students in my classes, so I don't ask what their pronouns are.

Not to further derail this thread, but I've recently been made more aware of how problematic it can be to ask people to state their pronouns, as opposed to inviting them  to do so if they want to-- some people may not want to be public with their pronouns, or are still exploring their identity. It is well-intentioned, but puts pressure on those folks, whereas it is an easy and non-loaded thing to say for those who's pronouns match their sex assigned at birth/obvious gender presentation. So I've stopped doing this, and tried to gently suggest to others that they stop too. Instead, I give them the opportunity to tell me anything else they want to share about themselves, and give pronouns as one example of that. Students should get to control what they disclose to us/the class.

Also, like Downer, I've rarely if ever encountered a situation where I needed to refer to a student in class with a pronoun. I generally talk directly to students, not about them. For students in my lab or other people I work with regularly and might talk about with other people I would obviously want to use their preferred pronouns, but in that case they are likely to tell me what those are without me asking if they are something different than their obvious gender presentation might suggest.