A PIER plan is not Equal Protection. For the last few years, a PIER plan is explicitly about Un-equal Protection in the service of achieving "equitable" outcomes.
How do you explain the un-equitable outcomes that we have been getting? The whole point of DEI is that there are (largely unconscious) biases that have been producing these un-equitable outcomes, and we need some conscious effort to get rid of them.
If truly being race-blind (or any other way of dividing people that is not strictly merit) is really your goal, and you are aware of unconscious bias, then what are people really objecting to?
Exactly. This [1] headline from the NYT pretty much sums up the issue: "To Make Orchestras More Diverse, End Blind Auditions."
Different groups of peoples have different strengths and different weaknesses. This isn't some sort of a problem that needs fixing.
And if one does want to 'fix' it you need to start way earlier than at the e.g. hiring point. Want to beat that kid who's been playing violin for hours a day since he was 6? Ok, then your target demographic is 6 year olds, not professional orchestras.
I can't read the article, so I don't really know what they are arguing for there. The headline sounds a bit click-baity, so I don't want to guess what the content is.
But looking from a sex standpoint blind auditions are responsible for a sweeping change in the ratio of men and women in professional orchestras (though men still outnumber women %60 to %40, but that is from a near %100 a while ago). This is absolutely a case to look at to demonstrate what unconscious biases are, and a wonderfully effective way of fighting it in one specific place.
The article is what you'd expect from the headline.
The change in gender differences is easily explained by more girls pursuing music from an earlier age. More people (as a ratio) from a group competently doing something means you end up with more highly successful outliers from that group.
Unconscious biases are well studied, and a good presenter can show it live on stage.
Please explain to me how %85 of Fortune 500 CEOs are white men. I don't believe for a moment that white men (myself included) are generically better at being CEOs, or at performing any of the roles that lead up to those positions.
The unconscious biases that the people in those positions choosing their successors to look like them selves is a strong explanation of this, and studies have been show that in controlled situations this sort of things happens all the time. Even by those who want things to be color-blind.
You can create toy experiments to 'prove' just about anything - this is why social psychology has a replication rate in the 20% range. Though it's really much worse since that's only independently repeating the same experiments, not adversarially challenging hypotheses, at which point the entire field looks about as reliable as astrology. Quite appropriately since astrology, which was also studied as a 'science' for centuries, was highly influential on the founding fathers of modern psychology - Jung in particular.
And group differences are not only genetic. Why do you think that, for instance, 70% of American football or NBA players are black, while only 8% of baseball players are?
Go look at an average MBA classroom and know what you'll overwhelmingly see? Pretty much what a sampling of CEOs looks like, especially once accounting for performance.
An inequitable outcome is not proof of bias or discrimination. Ask a group of high school kids to solve a quadratic equation, and there won't be an equitable distribution of correct answers.
Unconscious biases can be eliminated through anonymization or adopting objective evaluation criteria. E.g. having an orchestra audition behind a veil is a way to eliminate bias. By contrast, setting quotas on the number of each gender or race achieves equity, but it does so through explicit discrimination.
Some DEI policies act like a veil. Others work like the latter. The recent executive orders ban the latter, not the former.
The US Constitution protects the people from excessive acts of government, not the other way around. It says nothing about "enforcement mechanisms" which, should any actually be enacted by the legislature or ordered by the executive, are subject to constitutional challenge by the people before the judiciary (unless rendered moot by a superseding legislative act or executive order).
Our constitutional republic is not merely "just blots of ink on paper" but rather alive and well.
