I need to see data regarding this narrative. Are white and asian guys no longer getting promoted and getting leadership positions?
As somebody who is pro DEI, my concern about the checklist is threefold. (Not that I think it is the greatest tyranny in the world, but it is bothersome. Personally, I would just check the boxes and not put any thought into it. Move on to the important stuff.)
1. How is it (could it be) effective in any way? Does it prevent bigots from submitting work? There is no mechanism for effectiveness. As a matter of fact, someone not concerned with or even dismissive of equity is less likely to put effort into addressing the questions than someone who is concerned with equity.
2. It's confusing. It is not the framework that most science or early clinical research should be concerned about (just make that FLASH work for someone, then worry about getting everyone access to it).
3. As there is no mechanism for effectiveness, the checklist appears performative and almost ritualistic. I don't like these things in general, including oaths and anthems. They signal a desire for severe conformity...pluralism is what I take the most comfort in.
I can't speak for white guys.
This will include a lot of stereotypes and I know that this does not hold for all of the South Asian community. And it is going to be meandering before gets back to your point.
I don't think Indian people are being held back in any meaningful way in medicine. Most of us in our 30s-50s - our parents immigrated here and tend to be practical and also tend to give their own opinions on what their children should be / do. Kids showing any promise in the 80s-90s in math/science were pushed towards medicine. Now probably tech and medicine in equal numbers. In India, medicine still remains very respected, and when they immigrated here in the 70s and 80s, they noted that physicians had stable + high incomes, perma-ployment and overall good quality of life. And though my parents were a bit less conservative than many, they still did tell me that I will have a pretty high quality of life if I go into medicine (neither of my folks were docs). So, aside from a rebellion junior year where I considered education, I followed that path.
Vast majority of my Indian-American physician friends don't even consider academics. Our parents or our parent's friends were somewhat kept out of academia during the 70s-80s (as FMGs..) and instead made fortunes in the community with great medicine and great service. Most of their kids pursue this path, even though they are relentlessly being asked to stay on as faculty. So, not having leadership positions - I don't think it is because any one is keeping us from getting there. The amount of CEOs / Founders of major Silicon Valley companies that are of Indian descent is staggering compared to percentage in population. So, I don't think any lack of leadership in medicine is due to external issues (-isms and such). I think it is mostly internal.
So, over the course of 1-2 generations and now Indian-Americans have the highest average incomes of all ethnic groups in America. We are educated at the highest rates. Etc. Etc. Brain drain of India? Maybe. But, people are showing up with a suitcase and $50 USD and somehow making a life for themselves. My last set of cousins came about 6 years ago. Worked at Dunkin Donuts and Amazon Fulfillment (the new Dunkin for modern Indian immigrants). They took a bus to Newark airport and worked 4a to noon x a few years, get a manager position, save save save. The Amazon jobs were backbreaking. And, their kids got educated and got great jobs. Every one of them has a single family home. All 3 families have at least one Tesla (to my dismay). None of them had white collar jobs. They just busted ass, so their kids can work white collar jobs.
What else? Well, due to tradition/culture (+ misogyny), divorce does not occur much and it typically does not occur until kids are older (I have recently heard about two divorces where they were at 20 and 30+ years of marriage, but they must have suffered thoroughly all those years). Everyone goes to college. EVERYONE. I don't know one person in my entire network that didn't go. Nobody has kids before marriage. Maybe because were were too nerdy and studying or maybe because our parents put the fear of ... I'd say God ... but I was more afraid of my Mom. You see some substance use, but rarely do you see addiction. You see people that blend in, but keep their own culture, too. We grew up with our "American" friends and our "Indian friends" (My mom still says American when she means white, haha) and typically, those worlds were kept separate. Indian kids do their traditional/classical dance, learn the language, eat/cook Indian food, go to our version of Sunday School. But, they also play basketball, and go to parties and make out with non-Indian boys and girls and sometimes marry them, and despite the dramatics of "disowning", once these parents see a grandkid, harmony returns. Lot of "code switching" for us and that's why you will see a recent immigrant 3 months into living in America in a suburb of Milwaukee, inviting all his new grad school friends for a Super Bowl party - to watch a sport they had not watched 3.1 months ago, eating a food they were forbidden to eat 3.1 months ago (burgers and dogs), drinking beer and canoodling with the cute Chinese post-doc - whether it's a boy or a girl! This "cracking of the code" or cultural adaptation appears to have a lot to do with cultures that tend to succeed in the US vs the ones that struggle.
This story translates well to certain other immigrants and not so well to others. In Detroit, when I was a kid, the Iraqi Catholics (Chaldeans) that immigrated here when Saddam was trying to murder them mostly worked liquor stores and labor jobs, maybe 1 in a graduating class at Wayne State Med. Now, one generation later? Dozens in the entering class at the SOM. I talked to a new friend herethe other day - 8 years younger than me - a Chaldean dx rad with 8 siblings that are all MDs. All married to MDs, too. In 1.5 generation, their entire family legacy has changed dramatically. Not brain drain - these were refugees who's parents were on them at all times to make good decisions and work hard. They are hard core family-oriented people, their social life centered on families and their best friends are their siblings and cousins. They, too, rarely divorce and tend to have many kids. They are an immigrant success story and I feel much more in common with them than other Americans, b/c we share similar values.
What DEI tells us, at least the equity party, is that we all deserve equal outcomes not equal opportunity. And, I find this maddening. There are people that work way harder than me. That are smarter than me. These people should do better than me - they should get better jobs, they should earn more, they should get more respect. There is a denial of positive cultural traits. Just look at the amount of discussion by the chattering class about having two parents. Yes, it matters. It matters a lot. And, yes, it is horrible to be in a failing divorce, but many in our community sacrificed their own happiness, hid their misery b/c this was their shot for their kids to make it. There is an idea that everything meritocratic is on its face racist. There was a Times article on the SAT this weekend, FINALLY looking at the repercussions of getting rid of the test. Removing the test made colleges LESS DIVERSE, b/c the rich kids can hire tutors for their essays and hard core test prep and consultants to make that application pristine. If an under represented minority doesn't have the opportunity to show they can shine with a great test score, they are SOL, unless someone somehow guides them through the process. Equity concerns lead to us be accepting if an outcome where every one is worse off, but with less disparities between them. Equality is accepting of disparities, because growth will always be unequal - due to internal and external factors, but this will raise all sails eventually.
What DEI tells us is that diversity is only meaningful if it is one of a few ethnicity/races or of a particular sexuality or of a gender or of a ... you get the idea. I'm Indian-American. Despites my "success", my people make up 1-1.5% of the population. That means I am a ... say it together ... minority. I am also the child of immigrants. Diversity the way I was taught when I was a kid was meaning oustide of the mainstream community - white and Christian. Now, diversity means whatever the grad school people tell us it is, and then everyone falls in line. The rest of us are "white-adjacent". I'll react violently if you ever say that to my face
Jewish people make up like a few percent of the nation's population and they are considered "mainstream" and not included in anything about diversity. And they have been suffering the last 3 months here on campuses and other places, similar to how Arabs/Muslims must have felt post 9/11.
What DEI tell us about inclusion is that you will be included if you agree. Otherwise, we will exclude you. I am not making this up. Think about how ASTRO treats me. At the beginning, they were excited to have this new and exciting voice. Afterwards, they felt that my viewpoint diversity was dangerous, I got censored, blocked from committees and silenced in other ways. Inclusion is afforded to those that are in agreement with the group think. Inclusion means you have to think the same way as everyone else and if not, see ya. I have never heard of a DEI committee say "we need more conservative voices" (even though they are a minority in these spaces). I have never heard of a DEI committee say, "maybe an evangelical Christian voice would be helpful" even though there isn't one person identifying that way in the group. This is seen in workplaces all over America. You're included if we think you should be included.
There was a paper on Indian Americans that showed that with same scores/grades, our admission rates to colleges are far lower than all others. This a-hole white kid, I'll call him Hamsterpeck, didn't get into UMich when I was a senior and I did. He said it front of the whole class that it was because I was a minority. I had beat his SAT score by literal 400 points (on the old 1600 scale). It was the only time in my life I was violent in school. I mentioned the SAT score and then I threw a mechanical pencil at his head and it got him right above the eye. That little bitch. Luckily, teacher didn't see and that was the last time he made a crack like that. So, now instead of a dipsheeit high schooler giving me trouble, instead, an administrator will literally make it harder for my kids to get into top colleges, like U of M. (If you're reading, U of M, I really need you to let my kids in. It's way cheaper than out of state / private schools and the colors are better than State's)
If you changed the ethnicity on that paper and replaced it with a favored - protected race /ethnicity / sexuality, the liberal world would be up in arms. But, my half Indian kids getting discriminated against? No problem. Their dad is rich, they will land on their feet. Which is probably true, but man, it really must affect these kids. Imagine all the access to this data and being 16-17. Hearing all this, seeing how they are going to marginalized. They are creating race wars, animosity between people and not actually fixing the problems. It has led to absolute disaster on campus and in corporate life. We end up with a hypermutated version of the aggrieved, Indian American male and he runs for president and embarrasses the lot of us (Yeah, Vivek, I'm talking about you). There are going to more VR's that we see in society, especially the kids that are 18-22 right now. Not a good look, but I can see where it comes from. Trump, but enjoys Biryani. UGH.
DEI is not the problem, never was.
"DEI" is the problem - the Kendis, the white fragility lady, the people making millions off of this, the consulting class, the grad students that have to write ... something, the people that saw to it that CG became president of Harvard.
