Check out the website: https://lenspoliticalnotes.com Look at the recent Political Notes and Len’s Letters on the website:
February 24th, 2025 Len’s Letter #76 DEI v RUS
DEI v RUS
It seemed simple. The country and every institution in it would be better off if staff they hired reflected the Diversity of the country, if positions were distributed Equitably, if Inclusion ensured the everyone was part of the conversation. It seemed particularly simple since the alterative RUS meant that decision-making was based on Racism, Unfairness, and Segregation.
When DEI was applied to hiring, there was an assumption behind the plan. Organizations want to hire the best candidate for a job. If women, non-whites, the disabled were encouraged to apply, reluctant candidates would respond and the pool of candidates would be enlarged. A large pool would lead to additional able candidates emerging, more attractive than when the pool of candidates was limited to white men. That would especially be the case if the pool of candidates had previously been limited to white men who already knew the white men who were doing the hiring,
Of course, sometimes the strongest candidate for a job would be a white man. In a country in which men were roughly 50% of the population and in which 75% of the population was white, you might reasonably expect that 37.5% of the ablest candidates would be white men, 37.5% of the ablest candidates would be white women, 12.5% of the ablest candidates would be non-white men, and 12.5% of the ablest candidates would be non-white women.
That kind of calculating leads to the worst features of DEI – or at least what some people believe are the worst features of DEI. When we count, we create targets. When we create targets, we try to achieve those targets. In trying to achieve those targets, we can forget that our goal is to find the best possible candidate. An institution attempting to remedy a previous disproportion may give the impression that it is choosing to hire less able candidates to remedy the disproportion. That appearance may be the reality in some places.
Before affirmative action or the interest in Diversity, it was not unusual for a white woman or a person of color who might have been the strongest candidate to never even be considered. Those who oppose DEI fear that a white man who is the ablest candidate in a particular hiring event might lose out, unfairly, to a white woman or a person of color.
I think about what I would do if I were still a school superintendent and the US Department of Education (if it were to still exist) issued a threat. Get rid of DEI or we take away the money that is part of the funding for low income kids (Title I) and/or the money for special education kids (IDEA).
Maine Governor Janet Mills is right. If you follow the law, DEI is permissible. As head of a small school district, I did not have the resources that even a small state has to fight with the federal government. As Superintendent, I would not hesitate. I would scrap all reference to DEI. I would, however, retain the expanded pool. While I might not be committed to remedying a disproportion, I am and have always been committed to hiring the best possible candidate. And I would continue to value Diversity. I would certainly support Equity, that is, fairness, in hiring. And I could not escape Including others in hiring.
Retaining the expanded pool would add to my work. I might add a rotation of comments to the advertisement. “We have had an outstanding music teacher who was both an evangelical Christian and a person of color.” “Among our four schools, we have had an Asian principal who stayed with us for years and a Black principal who left to teach at a university.” “We have had a male teacher aide who, with his family, participated in the “Love Makes a Family” promotion of understanding that families with gay parents are like other families.” “We participated in the ‘Love Makes a Family” promotion to ensure members of the LGBTQ community are comfortable here.’ “When we participated in the ‘Love Makes a Family’ promotion, we consulted with local churches including an Evangelical Church.”
Screening for candidates, we would look for the candidate who seemed to be the best teacher or the best of whatever position we were filling from the pool of candidates available. Informally, unpublished, I would watch to see if there is a change in the pool and a change in our numbers.
What if I were overseeing all the school districts in a state? How would I know if a Superintendent is looking for the best candidate possible, whether the Superintendent is striving to have a large pool and is choosing both wisely and fairly from among candidates.
We could do random audits. How did you advertise the vacancy? Who did the organization interview? How did you choose finalists? Who were the finalists? Who did you select for the position(s) that are being audited.
Does the auditor see an effort to be Fair and Equitable in hiring? Are enough people and the appropriate people Included in the hiring process? Who is excluded? Is there any indicaton of Racism in the decisions made. Have any of the candidates been treated Unfairly? Are we considering only white candidates for predominantly white schools? persons of color for schools that have predominantly students of color? Are we fostering Segregation? Or is something else moving our decision making?
Random audits can suss out what school districts are doing and whether they are doing it with good will. They are better than counting and creating targets.
Still. Can you blame people for occasionally hiring an excellent candidate who is also connected to the school district? Can you blame people for occasionally trying to give a strong candidate from a minority group a leg up?
I will finish with a story.
We were hiring a principal. I would interview six candidates before sending three of them on to the staff, and a community group. I was choosing between two young men to be the sixth person interviewed. One had an early American presidential surname. I guessed he might be Black and decided to include him. The other had a spelling error which gave me a reason to skip him. The fellow with the president’s name? He was tall and white. Bright and funny. He had no administrative experience, but he had a good understanding of how a school is run. I hired him. He went on to three superintendencies. I remember him helping the kids in his school choose a logo for the school newspaper they created: “All the news that fits, we print.”
And the fellow I skipped? He was Lebanese and a friend of the tall, white guy. He got a principalship that was better paid than ours. He went on to at least two superintendencies. The two remained friends and made a kind of threesome with one of the other principals in my school district.
And the impact on the school district? Without giving her any extra help at all, the next principal hired in the school district was an administrator from the same school district the tall, white man had come from. She was gay.