American Psychological Association claims ‘hiring the most qualified candidate’ could be ‘unfair’
This was once a respectable professional organization. I was accepted as a member on Jan. 30, 1975. They even in 1996 put out a statement that blacks had lower average IQs.
https://differentialclub.wdfiles.com/local--files/definitions-structure-and-measurement/Intelligence-Knowns-and-unknowns.pdf
Now, however, they are trying to enforce the Leftist "all men are equal" absurdity
The American Psychological Association claimed that “hiring the most qualified candidate might be unfair” based on one of its recent studies.
The study, titled “Can Selecting the Most Qualified Candidate Be Unfair?,” examined people’s perceptions of merit-based hiring after learning more about the socioeconomic status of potential workers.
While previewing the results, it argued that hiring the most qualified candidate could contribute to more inequality.
“Fairness heuristic theory suggests that, as long as people consider selection processes such as hiring and promotion to be meritocratic and fair, they may continue to accept ever-increasing levels of income inequality. Yet, in reality, inequality and merit-based decisions are deeply intertwined,” the study noted.
It explained, “Socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages early in life can have profound influences on educational achievement, test scores, work experiences, and other qualifications that form the basis of ‘meritocratic’ selection processes. Yet the near-universal support for meritocracy suggests that most people may not give much weight to unequal advantages and disadvantages.”
The study was conducted across five different experiments. Each experiment found that respondents across the political spectrum were more likely to support “social class diversity” after being told about the economic advantages or disadvantages of candidates.
“In our work, we show that it does not take much for people to update their fairness perceptions of meritocracy and be more supportive of polices that foster social class diversity in organizations,” the study read.
One of the study’s authors, Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, concluded from the findings that “managers should learn about the effects of socioeconomic inequalities” to properly promote “equal opportunity.”
Goya-Tocchetto also noted that the experiments did not include race as a factor out of concern for “defensiveness among White conservatives,” but suggested that the study could be used to address racial inequality as well.
“Members of marginalized racial groups tend to experience socioeconomic disadvantages more often than members of privileged racial groups, and the negative consequences of these disadvantages can be even worse for racial minorities,” she said. “Focusing on socioeconomic considerations could garner more support and still help address racial inequality.”
Though both the APA and Goya-Tocchetto’s study questioned whether this proved that hiring the most qualified candidate was “unfair,” the findings did not examine any real-world effects of merit-based hiring vs. “fair” opportunities.
Fox News Digital reached out to Goya-Tocchetto for a comment but has yet to receive a response.
The APA has come under fire for pushing what some considered to be biased conclusions. In 2019, the organization claimed that “traditional masculinity” could be mentally damaging.
“The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful,” it claimed in a press release
******************************************************
Christian Nationalism Benefits All Americans
It is not hard to detect almost a sigh of relief amidst the left-wing panic over the supposed attempt by so-called “Christian nationalists” to return American to a more religious time. At just the moment when progressivism is experiencing a political backlash for its anti-Semitic sympathies, its opposition to controlled immigration, and its costly net-zero agenda, the idea that a group of white, right-wing extremists are plotting a theocratic revival of the country must seem like … well … a Godsend.
[T]he Christian nationalist measures the welfare of a nation by the extent to which its people are allowed to serve God’s will as they understand it.
The left’s handwringing over this alleged conspiracy actually dates back to just before Covid. Ever since late 2019, America Magazine, the Center for American Progress, the New Yorker, NPR, and other liberal opinion makers have been breathlessly reporting every conceivable sign that the Christian right has mobilized to reverse the secular progress made possible by the New Deal and the Great Society. (READ MORE from Lewis Andrews: Fix the Economy and Conservative Values Will Follow)
But the paranoia really kicked into high gear last November when the leftist press began claiming that Republican representative Mike Johnson’s ascension to the post of House speaker had been engineered by a secret network of Christian activists. If the election of a seeming unknown comes as a surprise to the larger world, the Nation warned its readers, it does not to the oil barons and other fundamentalist power brokers on the right: “They’ve been grooming Johnson for this position for many years.” And in a piece for Salon, former Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem declared that the new speaker, working secretly with Christian nationalist allies, constituted a “bigger threat to America than Hamas could ever be.”
More recently, we have the December announcement from liberal filmmaker Rob Reiner that his latest documentary, tentatively titled “God and Country,” will be released to theaters in February. Describing his production as a look “at the implications of Christian nationalism,” Reiner promises audiences it will show “what happens when a faith built on love, sacrifice, and forgiveness grows political tentacles, conflating power, money, and belief into hyper-nationalism.”
The timing of the documentary’s release is likely not a coincidence. Having argued that the Republican party is under the influence of Christian nationalists and having identified the shadowy cabal’s agenda as returning the U.S. to a more explicitly and repressively religious era, Democrats clearly plan to hype the joint claims as much as possible before the November elections.
The left is right about one thing: Christian nationalism does exist. Which is to say that it always has been, and continues to be, an important intellectual movement in U.S. history. But for Democrats to suggest that the heirs to this tradition would want to impose a more religious form of government today ignores the fact that even in more religious times Americans never had, or wanted, such a government.
Early American Christians were sufficiently versed in the history of Europe’s Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) to know that any effort to make their Constitution and Bill of Rights overtly theological could well prompt an ugly struggle among the country’s various denominations to dictate the final draft. Even worse, it might produce the very kind of European state religion which had prompted so many religious minorities to seek freedom of worship in the New World. That is why, for the three centuries from the founding of Harvard until World War I, the Protestant clergy running nearly every U.S. college and university never used their influential platforms to advocate for a more overtly Christian government.
Down though American history, the goal of Christian nationalists has always had much less to do with forcing the state to echo their religious convictions than with minimizing the ways the state might compel them to compromise those convictions. They especially wanted to make it possible for a Christian to serve or to work in government without having to violate his or her faith.
The current progressive demonization of Christian nationalism would clearly have baffled those non-Christians in times past.
Probably the best-known result of such efforts is the body of law surrounding conscientious objection to war. As far back as the American Revolution, states such as Pennsylvania allowed those who believed any killing immoral to avoid joining local militias in return for paying a fine equal to the time they would have spent drilling. During World War I conscientious objectors were permitted to serve the armed forces in noncombatant roles, such as ambulance driver, and eventually to become either auxiliary farmhands in the U.S. or relief workers in war-torn parts of Europe. (READ MORE: Progressivism Is Aggravating America’s Mental Health Crisis)
With the Second World War came the option to join the Civilian Public Service (CPS) as a firefighter, mental health worker, conservationist, or in some other socially needed capacity. Religious civilians who objected to funding combat by buying war bonds were provided alternative savings vehicles.
Today, the spirit of Christian nationalism is very much alive in events like last October’s sixth annual conference on “Christianity and National Security” in Washington, DC. Sponsored by the Institute for Religion and Democracy, it brought together Georgetown professor Matthew Kroenig, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs, former U.S. Special Envoy J. Peter Pham, and other experts to discuss the intersection of Christian ethics and American foreign policy. Among the topics they addressed were how to live one’s faith while representing the U.S. government in a country with different values, what policymakers can learn from the Christian concept of a “just war,” and what individual Americans can do to help other peoples displaced by war.
Because of their desire to preserve the believer’s ability to express his or her sense of God’s calling, no matter how it may differ from what is most convenient for the state, Christian nationalists generally share in social conservatism’s advocacy of small government, free markets, and traditional morality. But whereas the social conservative tends to stress the need for large institutions to reflect and promote that morality, the Christian nationalist places a greater emphasis on the simple freedom to go wherever the spirit leads, regardless of what others might believe.
Just as the seventeenth-century Puritan radicals understood that everyone’s life has the potential to help incarnate a better — if unforeseeable — world, so the Christian nationalist measures the welfare of a nation by the extent to which its people are allowed to serve God’s will as they understand it. A very old idea in American history, indeed the one idea that all the early Christian colonies would have either subscribed to or at least respected, despite their denominational differences.
The current progressive demonization of Christian nationalism would clearly have baffled those non-Christians in times past who understood that the freedoms it created in the U.S. could not only be enjoyed by citizens of all faiths but even guide other countries in how to better reconcile religion and government. When it was learned, for example, that First Dutch Reformed Church pastor and U.S. Congressman Julius Hawley Seelye would stop in Bombay on his 1872–73 around the-world tour, educated Hindus prevailed upon him to deliver a series of lectures which were published widely throughout India.
Twenty years later, Chicago hosted the World’s Parliament of Religions as the centerpiece of its four-hundred-year anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the New World, in part to satisfy the growing curiosity about Christian nationalism in places as far away as China. The event attracted seven thousand participants representing faiths from every part of the world and was covered for seventeen days on the front pages of U.S. newspapers from coast to coast.
In our own time, the journal Providence carries on the Christian nationalist tradition of seeking ways to maximize spiritual freedom in the political realm, both at home and abroad. Its contributors include journalist Fred Barnes, who most famously appeared as a regular panelist on TV’s McLaughlin Group, and the Wall Street Journal’s Global Views Columnist, Walter Russell Mead. (READ MORE: Meet the Suburban Parents)
All this is not to say that Christian nationalism has ever represented some kind of one-world philosophy or followed the Enlightenment tendency to see all religions as the same. Self-declared Christian nationalists are, and always were, Bible believing followers of Jesus. But unlike their current progressive attackers, they have long understood that it is far more dangerous for government to command a better society than to allow its citizens to build it by their own lights.
*****************************************************
Why You Should Rethink Flying United Airlines
Dennis Prager
In 2021, United Airlines released the following statement: “Our flight deck should reflect the diverse group of people on board our planes every day. That’s why we plan for 50% of the 5,000 pilots we train in the next decade to be women or people of color.”
In the past few weeks, a 2021 interview with United CEO Scott Kirby, in which he promoted United’s pilot-training policies, went viral.
The bottom line is clear: It will no longer be merit alone that determines who half of United’s pilots-in-training will be, it will be race and sex (or “gender,” as the Left prefers to call it). Despite The New York Times and the rest of the Left defending United, there is no other honest conclusion to draw.
As one who flies about 100 times a year, often on United, this worries me. Until now, I rarely worried about safety issues. I have certainly never feared flying.
But this is troubling enough that, although I will probably have flown a million miles on United by the end of 2024, and I am at the second-highest level available to United Airlines flyers (Premier Platinum), I will now do my best to avoid flying United.
I am also giving up my United Visa card.
And I am asking all Americans who have a choice in airlines and a choice in credit cards to do the same. If you don’t fight this battle, you have no right to complain about the demise of our society, let alone of United or any other airline adopting similar policies.
You have an opportunity to make a difference. United may be willing to compromise about safety, but it isn’t willing to compromise about its bottom line.
United is a particularly woke company. As one left-wing observer of the airline industry and defender of United, Gary Leff—writing on viewfromthewing.com—put it: “United was out way ahead of the Biden administration with vaccine mandates. This angered many pilots.”
It is important for me to note that until now I could not care less if my pilot was black, white, male, or female. I have flown on planes with black pilots and female pilots, and I slept equally well on board. Those of us who oppose United’s affirmative action do not do so for race- or sex-based reasons.
To cite a medical example, people of every color sought Dr. Ben Carson if they needed one of the country’s best neurosurgeons for their child. But if people know that a hospital was hiring surgeons using affirmative action criteria, they might well think twice before undergoing surgery with a minority surgeon.
Here’s a good test of whether opposition to United’s affirmative action for pilots is racist or not: Ask a black friend or colleague if he or she would prefer a pilot (or surgeon) who was chosen on merit alone or by also using affirmative action criteria.
We already know that colleges engaged in affirmative action have not helped black students succeed. Why should it work in the cockpit? Would anyone respect the decision of an NBA team to diversify its players by using affirmative action to hire more white players?
The woke DEI notion of companies, physicians, and cockpits having to “look like” the rest of the population is as absurd as it is dangerous. In fact, I can think of no area of life where this matters to anyone who is not on the Left.
How, exactly, have all the black mayors, congressmen, and even a black president, helped blacks in any way? Has the virtual absence of Indian American, Taiwanese American, Filipino American, or Pakistani American mayors, congressmen—or pilots, for that matter—hurt any members of these groups in any way? Those four groups are the top-earning ethnic groups in America (Census Bureau, 2021).
The notion that the cockpit or the mayor’s office has to look like the rest of the population is just foolish—as foolish as the idea that professional athletes have to look like the rest of the population. It is an idea, like most stupid ideas, that appeals primarily to college graduates.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/30/why-you-should-rethink-flying-united-airlines/
********************************************Australian Surf Brand’s Wipeout Over Transgender Surfer Shows Fed-Up Americans Are Winning
It’s been a week to forget for surf company Rip Curl, the latest brand to risk consumers’ wrath with a pro-transgender marketing campaign.
Its January post urging people to meet “waterwoman” Sasha Lowerson, a biological man in a bikini, lit a literal fire under fans, who took to the internet to burn everything from surf booties to boards. Days after deleting the reel, with international outrage at a peak, headquarters decided to do something that Bud Light still hasn’t: apologize.
In a revealing move, management issued a mea culpa late Wednesday night, just five days into the dust-up. “Our recent post has landed us in the divisive space around transgender participation in competitive sport,” a spokesman told Shop-Eat-Surf late Wednesday night. “We want to promote surfing for everyone in a respectful way, but recognize we upset a lot of people with our post and for that, we are sorry. To clarify, the surfer featured has not replaced anyone on the Rip Curl team and is not a sponsored athlete.”
If Americans want to know who’s winning the war with corporate bullies, look no further.
A reversal like this is majorly significant—not only because of how intense the backlash was, but how quickly executives responded. If anything, the wave of corporate pushback that was sparked by Bud Light has only intensified over time. In fact, it’s so powerful that even the media is starting to admit that the grassroots may actually be winning this fight. “Big corporates may finally be learning that ‘Go woke, go broke’ is real,” commentator Nicolle Flint pointed out.
“ … [T]he once iconic Australian surf brand is living proof that women are finally fighting back against companies using transgender women to promote products for women and girls,” she wrote. “What is most significant about the Rip Curl campaign featuring Sasha Lowerson that was removed from Instagram just five days after being posted, is that this is the first time a major brand has responded to female backlash. … Whether the company ‘woke up’ soon enough to the fact that the backlash from women was serious and potentially financially damaging remains to be seen.”
That’s a blow to the company’s relatively new CEO, who, pre-Bud Light, told The Sydney Morning Herald of Australia when she was hired in 2021 that her goal was to drift left. “You still want to be cool enough to recruit that next generation,” Brooke Farris said, “but I think by approaching it from a place of inclusivity, people will be attracted to that.”
Turns out, people were not attracted to that—and willing to sink her brand to prove it.
Meanwhile, Bethany Hamilton, the courageous face of Rip Curl from 1999 to 2023, is surely looking on with satisfaction. A year into her renewed contract with the company, the two sides abruptly parted ways last year, almost certainly because of Hamilton’s opposition to the new rules allowing biological men to compete in women’s surfing. The devoted Christian and shark-attack survivor, whose comeback story inspired the world, reiterated her stand at the height of the Rip Curl controversy, posting, “Male bodied athletes should not be competing in women’s sports. Period.”
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment