Friday, November 01, 2019



The Business Case for More Diversity -- is crap

The quant-brains at the WSJ would make good epidemiologists -- they make the same simple mistakes. They find that big companies with more women among their top people make more money.  An open-and-shut argument for "diversity", right?  Sadly, no.  All it shows is that the companies with smart leadership  are sensitive to social signals and so heed and act on one of the most pounded social signals of all -- the desirability of diversity.  To simplify, which is it?

* Smart companies hire more women and so make more money because of that

* Smart companies make more money because they are smart and hire more women because it is also smart to be politically correct. Had it been politically correct to hire baboons, they would have hired baboons

Yes.  I know. Some lamebrain is going to say I have compared women to baboons.  To such people I have no reach.  But I hope the point is clear.  The data behind the story below do not enable us to tell which way the causal arrow points so the claim the authors make is moot.  Their data cannot show what they want it to show.

In their better moments, epidemiologists call such studies a "correlational" study, in full awareness of the basic statistical truth that correlation is not causation

We get some inkling of the real direction of the causal arrow from the finding that smaller companies are less likely to hire women. Such companies are presumably less exposed to social scrutiny

The evidence for benefit from diversity that Leftists normally  quote is the much belaboured report from Kinsey & Co which first came out in 2007 and was reissued in 2015. I debunked that report on 10th.  We swim in a sea of Leftist bunkum.

Excerpt only below of the WSJ article



DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE cultures are providing companies with a competitive edge over their peers.

So concluded The Wall Street Journal’s research analysts in their first ranking of corporate sectors, as well as the individual companies in the S&P 500 index, based on how diverse and inclusive they are.

The financial industry overall was the best-performing sector in the study, with banks and insurers dominating the list of the 20 most diverse companies. The communications- services and consumer-staples industries came in a close second and third, while the energy and materials sectors brought up the rear.

Turns out the 20 most diverse companies in the research not only have better operating results on average than the lowest-scoring firms, but their shares generally outperform those of the least-diverse firms, the research shows.

Many of the high-scoring companies in the study say that having a well-rounded workforce has helped them create better products and be more innovative, leading to growth in sales and profit. Analysts agree that diversity can help fuel innovation, which is critical to success in a fastchanging world where technological disruption has become the norm.

Female board representation remains fairly low across the S&P 500.

“Diversity helps create long-term shareholder value,” says Lottie Meggitt, responsible- investment analyst at Newton Investment Management, a unit of Bank of New York Mellon. “Too often we have seen companies fail or make poor decisions where teams are populated with individuals who all think the same, or who are unwilling or unable to challenge the status quo.”

To create the ranking, The Wall Street Journal’s environment, social and governance research analysts gave each company in the S&P 500 a diversity and inclusion score from 0 to 100. The scores were based on 10 metrics, including the age and ethnicity of the company’s workforce, the percentage of women in leadership roles, whether the firm has diversity and inclusion programs in place for employees, and the makeup of the board. (See the full methodology at wsj.com/leadershipreport.)

Among the findings:

Progressive Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. took the top two spots in the ranking, with scores of 85 and 80, respectively. The financial industry overall had an average score of 50.4 followed closely by the communications- services industry at 49.5 and the consumer- staples sector at 48.8. Companies in the energy and materials sectors earned average scores of 40.

Following a string of gender- and racialdiscrimination lawsuits over the past few decades, banking firms in recent years have worked to narrow pay disparities and recruit a more diverse workforce. Other companies in the financial sector have had to make changes to attract and retain millennial workers and to reach an increasingly diverse U.S. customer base.

“Consumers have many different options and higher expectations for products and services that reflect and meet their unique needs,” says Lori Niederst, chief human-resources officer at Progressive. “This makes constant and concerted attention to diversity and inclusion a business imperative.”

Larger companies tended to score better than smaller companies in the research, probably because bigger firms have more resources to devote to D&I programs, the study found. (The average market cap of the top 20 performers is $127 billion, compared with $17 billion for the bottom performers). But some say it could be that smaller companies haven’t faced the same kind of pressure larger companies have to create more diverse and inclusive workplaces.

SOURCE 





Why Is YouTube Protecting the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Last week, Reason's libertarian commentator John Stossel tweeted about YouTube restricting his videos, one on socialism and one on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left smear group that uses its history suing the Ku Klux Klan to "mortally embarrass" conservative and Christian organizations. YouTube has also restricted many videos from Prager University, including one exposing the SPLC. These videos are off-limits to children and others who use YouTube in restricted mode.

"YouTube has restricted my video that points out how the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a money grabbing slander machine," Stossel tweeted. "Could it be restricted because YouTube uses the Center’s guideline to police its content?! Seems like a conflict of interest."

PJ Media reached out to Google, YouTube's parent company, for comment, but the company did not respond by press time.

Founded in 1971, the SPLC represented death row inmates and free speech cases but gained a national reputation for bankrupting KKK groups in the 1980s. After defeating the KKK, the SPLC expanded its strategy to the more nebulous "hate groups." The SPLC's list of "hate groups" — which still includes some allegedly KKK-affiliated organizations — has grown nearly every year, and the organization breathlessly reports a "rising tide of hate," scaring donors and pressuring Big Tech to blacklist its political opponents. Amazon has kicked "hate groups" off of its charity donation service. Eventbrite has blacklisted America's premier national security grassroots organization, ACT for America.

The "hate group" accusation inspired a gunman to target the conservative Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Convicted of terrorism, he confessed that he intended to shoot everyone in the building and place a Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich by their heads.

In March, the SPLC lost its co-founder, president, legal director, and a major board member amid a sexual harassment and racial discrimination scandal. Amid this scandal, a former staffer came clean about being part of a "con," and revealed the "hate group" accusations to be a cynical fundraising scheme — as well as a tool to silence political opponents.

After the SPLC smeared a Muslim reformer as an "anti-Islamic extremist," the organization settled his defamation lawsuit by paying $3.375 million. The SPLC faces many lawsuits, and one of them has reached the discovery process, threatening to unearth the smear factory's secrets.

Despite all this, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified that YouTube considers the SPLC a "trusted flagger." A full 90 percent of political donations from employees of Alphabet (Google's parent company) have gone to Democrats since 2004. In the 2018 cycle, Alphabet employees contributed 96 percent to Democrats.

In a Lincoln Network survey published early this year, a self-described liberal at an unidentified Big-Tech company warned that "there are no clear boundaries set by the organization to prevent ideological bias. Third parties that used to be respected for setting such boundaries, like the EFF [Electronic Frontier Foundation], are no longer respected, while partisan organizations like ADL [Anti-Defamation League] and SPLC (who I believe push a political agenda) are considered by most employees to be objective."

Perhaps Google, Amazon, and Eventbrite kowtow to the SPLC's blacklisting because the left-leaning Silicon Valley agrees with the SPLC's demonizing of conservatives. It is quite plausible that YouTube is protecting the smear group in order to abet its attacks on conservatives.

"It doesn’t surprise us that YouTube, which uses the SPLC to police videos, would restrict a video that is critical of the SPLC," Michael Ricci, a spokesman for John Stossel, told PJ Media. Ricci noted that the SPLC video has been restricted from close to the time it was posted in January 2018. The video has also been demonetized — YouTube does not allow Reason to run ads on the video.

Stossel drew attention to the restriction of this video after getting a recent notice that YouTube was restricting an old video on socialism.

Stossel tweeted, "[I] hate that socialists get YouTube to restrict my videos. Got this email: 'Your video Socialism Fails Every Time was flagged to us for review. Upon review, we’ve determined that it may not be suitable for all viewers...'"

If socialists flagged Stossel's video on socialism, did a certain "trusted flagger" complain about his video exposing the SPLC?

In the video, the Reason commentator interviewed notorious "hate group" leaders like the Ruth Institute's Jennifer Roback Morse. The SPLC has accused the Ruth Institute of being an "anti-LGBT hate group" because it quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church in opposing same-sex marriage. The Ruth Institute lost its credit-card processing company thanks to the SPLC's accusation.

Yet Morse told Stossel, "I like gay people. I have no problem with gay people." What a hater!

"Crying hate brings in lots of money," Stossel says in the restricted video. He noted that the SPLC almost exclusively attacks conservative "hate," refusing to condemn antifa, "the hate group that beats up people on the right."

Stossel's experience should sound familiar. Prager University has sued Google/YouTube for discrimination against conservative speakers. YouTube has restricted dozens of PragerU videos, claiming the educational messages are unfit for children.

"Ever since we filed our lawsuit against them, YouTube has continued to increase the amount of PragerU videos that they restrict. It's reached the point of absurdity as there are now over 200 of our videos restricted, including five videos on the 10 Commandments. We're fighters at PragerU and we will never stop fighting for free speech," Craig Strazzeri, chief marketing officer for PragerU, told PJ Media on Tuesday.

Like Stossel, PragerU found its video exposing the SPLC restricted on YouTube.

"Shutting down people you don’t agree with is about as un-American as you can get," Philanthropy Roundtable Vice President Karl Zinsmeister says in the video. "Rigorous debate, honest discussion, and open exchange of ideas — that’s the American way."

His video exposes the SPLC's strategy of silencing debate by demonizing those who dissent from its liberal worldview. "The SPLC’s hate list has become a weapon for taking individuals and groups they disagree with and tarring them with ugly associations," he says.

Zinsmeister cited former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok, who said, "I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them."

"Instead of reducing hate and violence, the SPLC’s name-calling directly incites it," the Philanthropy Roundtable VP adds. "In March 2017, Charles Murray was trying to discuss his acclaimed book Coming Apart at Middlebury College … enflamed by the SPLC’s labeling of him as a racist." He also references the FRC shooting: "While promoting itself as a monitor of 'hate groups,' the SPLC has become a fomenter of hate."

It seems more than a little ironic that YouTube would restrict a video advocating for free speech. Perhaps Google is adopting the very SPLC tactics Zinsmeister rightly condemns. PragerU's lawsuits aim to prove just that.

SOURCE 





The Gun Grabbers Mislead Us

Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation’s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether.

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The law’s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers.

Today’s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15.

By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.

Let’s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in its 2018 report on crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles.

A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club, or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred and seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot, or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders—6,603.

What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buy-back plan, which Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating knife control, hammer control, and feet and fist control.

Gun controllers’ belief that “easy” gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase.

With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here’s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today?

That’s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.

Let’s examine some elements of this decline.

If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today’s America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn’t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn’t believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors.

During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn’t believe that we’re now debating whether teachers should be armed.

Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation’s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they’ve eliminated our means to defend ourselves.

Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them.

After Fidel Castro’s demand for gun confiscation, he said, “Armas para que?” (“Guns, for what?”) Cubans later found out.

SOURCE 





Australia: Assisted dying outrages religions

Remarkable unanimity

Islamic and Jewish leaders have joined the churches in slamming any rollout of voluntary euthanasia in Queensland, the latest state t0 weigh the right to die. In a joint statement, 16 religious leaders headed by president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and archbishop of Brisbane Mark Coleridge, former primate of Australia and Anglican archbishop of Brisbane Phillip Aspinall, president of the Islamic Council of Queensland Habib Jamal and Rabbi Levi Jaffe of the Brisbane Hebrew Congregation warned that voluntary assisted dying was "not dying well".

"We believe that the Queensland government should main-tain the current laws and improve palliative care for a flourishing Queensland based on human freedom, human dignity and the common good," the statement said.

A modified version of the voluntary assisted dying (VAD) law that came into effect in Victoria in June passed the lower house of West Australian parliament last month, but faces a sterner test in the Legislative Council, possibly by the end of the year.

Queensland is at an earlier stage of assessing VAD but its unicameral state parliament means the process will be smoother if an all-party committee endorses the need for legislation and the state Labor government grasps the nettle.

This happened with abortion law reform in 2017, to the dismay of
the churches. Their effort to block euthanasia shows signs of being more concerted and co-ordinated. The joint statement argued that VAD offered a misleading choice: "You can choose to die horribly or you can take your own life."

But Everald Compton, of the Dying with Dignity organisation and an elder of the Uniting and Presbyterian churches, rejected the religious leaders' position. "I fundamentally disagree with the unreasonable position taken by my church and all the other churches -- which is based on creating fear and misrepresentating what voluntary assisted dying is all about," he said

The religious leaders said the provision of high-quality palliative care was paramount, so that death did not need to be terrible or feared. "High-quality palliative care is not merely a third option; it is best practice," they argued. "Queenslanders do not yet have universal access such as specialist palliative care that addresses the physical, psycho-social and spiritual needs of people."

The statement said VAD would undermine efforts to curb suicide in a state with the nation's second highest rate of self-inflicted death.

Other signatories were: moderator of the Uniting Church Queensland Synod Reverend David Baker, Reverend Peter Barson of. the Presbyterian Church, Conference president of the Churches of Christ Geoff Charles, moderator of the Queensland Congregational Fellowship Dr Joe Goodall, state chairman of the International Network of Churches Pastor Gary Hourigan, Elder Carl Maurer of The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints, Pastor Carl Mutzelburg of Acts 2 Alliance, acting general superintendent of Queensland Baptists Reverend Stewart Pieper, Reverend Rex Rigby of the Wesleyan Methodist Church South Queensland, Bishop Paul Smith of the Lutheran Church, district and state ministries director of Christian Churches Queensland-NT Pastor Gary Swenson.

From "The Australian" of 28/10/2019

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************



No comments: