PC Has Taken Over Everything!
I was watching Wired Science on PBS last night. There was a segment discussing an x-prize project aiming at a lunar landing.
The prize of $20 Million would be given to the first team to land a rover on the moon, record high definition videos and photos. There are also bonus prizes of $5 Million for additional goals, one for a photo of the remains of the Apollo lander, and… here’s where the bull squeeze comes in, assembling a ethnically and gender diverse team.
Yes, that’s right, if you land on the moon first, you get a bonus of FIVE MILLION DOLLARS for completing the task with women, asians, african americans and probably a transgendered nun from Alabama.
Have we REALLY gotten this insane that private industry motivation has to be laced with gender and racial “diversity” to be valid?
What makes the task any less momentous if the team that won was comprised of 10 white middle class men? Landing on the moon, escaping gravity, curing cancer, whatever… why taint the achievement with politically correct BS?
david
8 Nov, 2007
I’d hardly say that giving an extra incentive for diversity on the team would “taint” the accomplishment of a homogeneous team landing on the moon. If the winning team fails at that objective or fails to take a picture of the Apollo, they’ve just gotten less money. They still made it to the moon.
I’m not sure what there is to be angry about. Would it be acceptable if the government had mandated that such an incentive exist? Or that Google/X-Prize only allowed diverse teams to compete?
If someone values diversity, and wants to incentivize it, I’m not sure where that becomes “politically correct” (in the bad way you mean it). They’re doing it because they value it, just as they’d value a picture of the Apollo.
James
8 Nov, 2007
What I find to be so irritating is that they’re rewarding people for something that doesn’t NEED to be rewarded. Regardless of intention, rewarding someone for gender/racial reasons sends a statement to those who aren’t that they’re worth less to the challenge.
If there was a REQUIREMENT that teams be diverse rather than a BONUS, that would be a different story. It’s the same thing as a school giving discounts to individuals based on ethnicity rather than merit.
david
8 Nov, 2007
If your argument is that incentives or quotas can lead to tokenization–not sure if that’s a proper word: I mean making women or minorities token members of a group to which they make no contribution–then I agree.
I would add that my first thought when someone takes issue with “political correctness” is that it’s because they’d like to use words like “nigger,” “fag,” or “spic.” Clearly, you weren’t doing that, but I was half expecting you to–a reflection of my biases no doubt.
Tokenization concerns are real for both opponents and supporters of minority programs. For me personally, I don’t think piecemeal concern about these possibilities should necessarily prevent incentives–like this one–or, say, extra weight given to diverse applicants by universities. I absolutely oppose quotas–a broken form of affirmative action that hasn’t been used in this country for some time–but I find it hard to be to angry about the incentive program.
I see this incentive program as a statement that its better to have a diverse team than one made of solely of balding middle-aged white men. I do think it’s potential negatives–a black engineer on the winning team wondering why he was on the team–aren’t desirable, but neither is a team of white males who might explicitly exclude women or minorities.
I agree that, ideally, all programs that encourage “positive discrimination”–read: affirmative action–would be unnecessary. But racism and sexism aren’t gone, and such programs are one of the best, if bluntest, ways to combat them.
James
8 Nov, 2007
a reflection of my biases no doubt
No doubt
I see this incentive program as a statement that its better to have a diverse team than one made of solely of balding middle-aged white men.
Not saying a diverse group of individuals is less capable or more capable, but my point is that putting emphasis on diversity just because you CAN and not because it would TRULY garner better results is pointless IMHO.
I think punishment for provable sexism/racism wouldn’t be a bad point, but I still think there’s no REAL reason to push for diversity in this situation. They provided no basis for encouraging it other than just because they could. If they had data to show diverse groups produced better, more productive results then I wouldn’t raise my hand.