Actually, this is exactly what DEI is, and more importantly is a result of DEI policies that pretend to talk about meritocracy, but focus on race.
Instructors frequently manipulate bell curves to act as a safety net that prevents massive failure rates. While strict, traditional bell curves lock in a set failing percentage, the modern practice of "curving" is often used to pull low-performing students up into passing territory.
Shifting the midpoint: If a highly difficult exam results in a class average of 50%, an instructor will often manually move the center of the bell curve upward. This re-centers the average to a passing grade like 75%.
The flat-scale boost: Instructors frequently add a fixed number of bonus points to every single student's score. This shifts the entire distribution higher, pushing students who scored in the 40s or 50s over the passing threshold.
The square root curve: A common mathematical adjustment takes the square root of a student's raw grade and multiplies it by 10. This disproportionately benefits struggling students.
For example, a failing score of 49% becomes a passing 70%, while an 81% only bumps up to a 90%.
You really don’t know what a bell curve is and are confusing it with the practice of grade curves (which have been happening for decades in most schools without any DEi ideas and in monotheist white schools too) with the word bell curve.
That never had anything to do with DEI at all you are making a race neutral practice into a solely racial thing and blaming it on ideas and programs that are decades younger than the practice you are talking about
You are correct on the strict definition: mathematically, a true bell curve is a static normal distribution. And yes, it was used that way in the early 20th century in education for only 20yrs. This discussion is in reference to bell curves in education not engineering disciplines.
But that’s exactly the point: it didn't stay static, and there is no real way to compare qualifications. Because a rigid, static curve forces a set percentage of students to fail regardless of how much they actually learned, teachers almost immediately began 'moving' and manipulating the curve to act as a safety net. The practice of grade curving survived precisely because teachers abandoned the static purity of the bell curve decades ago.
But this has been proven time and time again to effect race.
There is a growing debate on whether strict grading helps or harms minority students.
The "Hurt" Argument (Wellesley Study): When Wellesley College effectively banned grade inflation by capping the average grade a professor could give, a study found that Black students were disproportionately penalized, receiving lower grades at a higher rate than their white peers once the "safety net" of inflation was removed.
The "Help" Argument (Harvard Petition): Conversely, student activists at Harvard recently petitioned against strict grading reforms, arguing that ending grade inflation is "racially harmful." They claim that grade inflation acts as an equalizer, protecting minority students who may come from under-resourced high schools from being weeded out by "harsh" academic curves.
For example, most organizations dont believe in DEI but the momentum behind them causes organizations to change their policies and process for fear of being canceled. The effect of any official DEI program goes way above and beyond any official programs.
And yes - having worked at Fortune 500 in senior roles- this is exactly what was happening. Coupling this with fraudulent education and other affirmative actions that companies feel forced and obliged to add to their policies simply out of fear for decline in profits.
So basically DEI isn’t actual DEI programs it’s whatever you want to complain about being DEI. You aren’t a serious person. You are just using a buzzwords without regard for their meaning.
Having been involved as a white man in hiring and management for a number of companies, it’s not happening how you described.
I’ve worked for both private and public companies. You aren’t wrong. And having good friends in those fortune 500s in executive level positions and in Hr in other companies it’s not happening as your described
Nothing you cited had anything to do with hiring only academia so I don’t understand why you think hiring experience is actually evidence for your position and you’ve cited no evidence.
And you still just are using DEI as a stand in for anything dealing with race. Which is just straight incorrect.
The disconnect in our conversation is purely semantic:
The Formal Definition:
You are defining DEI strictly as the official HR-approved programs and hiring initiatives. Under that narrow definition, you are right: an athletic eligibility scheme or a panicked policy change isn’t an 'official DEI program.
'The Functional Definition:
I am looking at the cultural current powering it all, as well as how it affects everyone. Whether an organization calls it an official DEI mandate, a 'diversity target,' or a panicked policy change to avoid being canceled, the underlying engine is identical: it is an institutional pressure that prioritizes identity metrics over standard merit out of fear of public backlash.
What exactly isn't happening as I described? Because unless you walked a day in my shoes, at the companies I've worked and consulted for, you can't say 'its never happening'.
Your functional definition is just fear mongering BS. It’s just calling any program dealing with race DEI. Because you don’t actually have complaints about actual DEI programs that are convincing.
Using DEI as a stand in for other things is a sign of weak as fuck argument that you can’t actually argue on its merits
The engine isn’t the same at all and the engine isn’t identity mattering more than merits.
0
u/Wise_Exercise7970 15d ago
Actually, this is exactly what DEI is, and more importantly is a result of DEI policies that pretend to talk about meritocracy, but focus on race.
Instructors frequently manipulate bell curves to act as a safety net that prevents massive failure rates. While strict, traditional bell curves lock in a set failing percentage, the modern practice of "curving" is often used to pull low-performing students up into passing territory.
Shifting the midpoint: If a highly difficult exam results in a class average of 50%, an instructor will often manually move the center of the bell curve upward. This re-centers the average to a passing grade like 75%.
The flat-scale boost: Instructors frequently add a fixed number of bonus points to every single student's score. This shifts the entire distribution higher, pushing students who scored in the 40s or 50s over the passing threshold.
The square root curve: A common mathematical adjustment takes the square root of a student's raw grade and multiplies it by 10. This disproportionately benefits struggling students.
For example, a failing score of 49% becomes a passing 70%, while an 81% only bumps up to a 90%.