#Office of Diversity and Inclusion | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 3 months

Text

By: Aaron Sibarium

Published: Jan 30, 2024

It's not just Claudine Gay. Harvard University's chief diversity and inclusion officer, Sherri Ann Charleston, appears to have plagiarized extensively in her academic work, lifting large portions of text without quotation marks and even taking credit for a study done by another scholar—her own husband—according to a complaint filed with the university on Monday and a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

The complaint makes 40 allegations of plagiarism that span the entirety of Charleston's thin publication record. In her 2009 dissertation, submitted to the University of Michigan, Charleston quotes or paraphrases nearly a dozen scholars without proper attribution, the complaint alleges. And in her sole peer-reviewed journal article—coauthored with her husband, LaVar Charleston, in 2014—the couple recycle much of a 2012 study published by LaVar Charleston, the deputy vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, framing the old material as new research.

Through that sleight of hand, Sherri Ann Charleston effectively took credit for her husband's work. The 2014 paper, which was also coauthored with Jerlando Jackson, now the dean of Michigan State University's College of Education, and appeared in the Journal of Negro Education, has the same methods, findings, and description of survey subjects as the 2012 study, which involved interviews with black computer science students and was first published by the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.

The two papers even report identical interview responses from those students. The overlap suggests that the authors did not conduct new interviews for the 2014 study but instead relied on LaVar Charleston's interviews from 2012—a severe breach of research ethics, according to experts who reviewed the allegations.

"The 2014 paper appears to be entirely counterfeit," said Peter Wood, the head of the National Association of Scholars and a former associate provost at Boston University, where he ran several academic integrity probes. "This is research fraud pure and simple."

Sherri Ann Charleston was the chief affirmative action officer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison before she joined Harvard in August 2020 as its first-ever chief diversity officer. In that capacity, Charleston served on the staff advisory committee that helped guide the university's presidential search process that resulted in the selection of former Harvard president Claudine Gay in December 2022, according to the Harvard Crimson.

A historian and attorney by training, Charleston has taught courses on gender studies at the University of Wisconsin, according to her Harvard bio, which describes her as "one of the nation's leading experts in diversity." The site says that her work involves "translating diversity and inclusion research into practice for students, staff, researchers, postdoctoral fellows and faculty of color."

Experts who reviewed the allegations against Charleston said that they ranged from minor plagiarism to possible data fraud and warrant an investigation. Some also argued that Charleston had committed a more serious scholarly sin than Gay, Harvard's former president, who resigned in January after she was accused of lifting long passages from other authors without proper attribution.

Papers that omit a few citations or quotation marks rarely receive more than a correction, experts said. But when scholars recycle large chunks of a previous study—especially its data or conclusions—without attribution, the duplicate paper is often retracted and can even violate copyright law.

That offense, known as duplicate publication, is typically a form of self-plagiarism in which authors republish old work in a bid to pad their résumés. Here, though, the duplicate paper added two new authors, Sherri Ann Charleston and Jerlando Jackson, who had no involvement in the original, letting them claim credit for the research and making them party to the con.

"Sherri Charleston appears to have used somebody else's research without proper attribution," said Steve McGuire, a former political theory professor at Villanova University, who reviewed both the 2012 and 2014 papers.

One-fifth of the 2014 paper, including two-thirds of its "findings" section, was published in the 2012 study, according to the complaint, and three interview responses are identical in both articles, suggesting they come from the same survey.

According to Lee Jussim, a social psychologist at Rutgers University, "it is essentially impossible for two different people in two different studies to produce the same quote." At best, he said, the authors got their wires crossed and mixed up interviews from two separate surveys, both of which just happened to involve 37 participants with the exact same demographic profile. At worst, the authors committed data fraud by framing old survey responses as new ones—a separate and more serious offense.

The Journal of Negro Education did not respond to a request for comment. Sherri Ann Charleston, LaVar Charleston, and Jerlando Jackson did not respond to requests for comment.

Monday's complaint, which was filed anonymously, comes as Harvard is facing questions about the integrity of its research affiliates and the ideology of its diversity bureaucrats, most of whom report to the sprawling office that Sherri Ann Charleston oversees.

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of Harvard Medical School's three teaching hospitals, announced in January that it would retract six papers and correct dozens more after some of its top executives were accused of data manipulation. That news came on the heels of a viral essay in which Carole Hooven, a Harvard biologist, described how she had been hounded out of a teaching role by her department's diversity committee after she said in an interview that there are only two sexes.

The school is also facing an ongoing congressional probe over its handling of anti-Semitism and its response to the plagiarism allegations against Gay, which Harvard initially sought to suppress with legal saber-rattling. Half of Gay's published work contained plagiarized material, ranging from single sentences to entire paragraphs, with some of the most severe lifts coming in her dissertation. Though Gay stepped down as president on January 2, she remains a tenured faculty member drawing a $900,000 annual salary.

Some of Charleston's offenses are similar to Gay's. In her 2009 dissertation, for example, Charleston borrows a sentence from Eric Arnesen's 1991 book Waterfront Workers of New Orleans: Race, Class, and Politics, 1863-1923, without quotation marks and without citing Arnesen's work in a footnote.

She also lifts full paragraphs from her thesis adviser, Rebecca Scott, while making minimal semantic tweaks.

"There's simply not enough difference to consider them original words," said Jonathan Bailey, the founder of the website Plagiarism Today. "Though the sources in those examples are cited"—Charleston includes a footnote to Scott at the end of each passage—"the text either needed to be quoted or properly paraphrased."

Bailey added that the plagiarism of Scott alone merited an investigation—ideally, he said, "by a neutral party with no ties to either the school or the school's critics."

Harvard did not respond to a request for comment. Scott and Arnesen did not respond to requests for comment.

Charleston also lifted language from Louis Pérez, an historian at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; Alejandro de la Fuente, an historian at Harvard; and Ada Ferrer, an historian at New York University, among other scholars.

Charleston cites each source in a footnote but omits quotation marks around language copied verbatim. The omissions violate Harvard's Guide to Using Sources, a document produced for incoming students, which states that quotation marks are required when "you copy language word for word."

Pérez, de la Fuente, and Ferrer did not respond to requests for comment.

The range of examples presented in the complaint, which was also filed to the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, highlights how plagiarism can shade into more severe forms of misconduct when it involves interviews or other data.

In fact, some experts said the term "plagiarism" didn't quite capture the dishonesty of duplicate publication, which is sometimes categorized as a separate offense and accounts for 14 percent of all paper retractions in the life sciences.

"You cannot just republish an old paper as if it is a new paper," Jussim, the Rutgers psychologist, said. "If you do, that is not exactly plagiarism; it's more like fraud."

Wood said the case was really a combination of the two offenses. "Because the second paper, on which Sherri Ann Charleston is one of the three co-authors, recycles so much of the text of the original paper by LaVar J. Charleston, this does have the earmarks of plagiarism, but the plagiarism is compounded by an even larger effort to deceive," he said. "The universities and journals need to investigate."

While scholars can reuse data across multiple papers, they must make clear when they are doing so and provide appropriate attribution to earlier studies, per guidelines from the Office of Research Integrity and the editorial policies of top academic journals, including Nature and Cell.

But the 2014 paper never indicates that it is reusing research from 2012. Instead, it claims to present new data that fill a "gap" in the literature and "corroborate" the 2012 study, among others, and on two occasions refers to survey subjects as "participants in this study."

Those participants appear to be the same people whom LaVar Charleston interviewed in 2012. Both surveys involved the same number of undergraduates, graduate students, Ph.D.s, and students at historically black colleges—all drawn from the same computer science conference—a similarity that experts said was a red flag.

"It is curious that the proportions are identical," said Debora Weber-Wulff, a German computer scientist who researches plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct. "This would be grounds for the universities in question to request the data and investigate."

Jussim agreed. "This seems sufficiently improbable that, absent something saying they are re-reporting an already-published study, it would be fraud," he said.

LaVar Charleston did not respond to a request for comment about whether the two studies used the same interviews. The University of Michigan said it was "committed to fostering and upholding the highest ethical standards in research and scholarship," but declined to comment on the complaint. The University of Wisconsin-Madison told the Free Beacon it had "initiated an assessment in response to the allegations."

The main difference between the papers is a long section in the 2014 article about "culturally responsive pedagogy theory," which the authors say their findings support. Both articles are littered with the tropes of progressive scholarship, including a disclaimer about "positionality"—the authors assure readers that they reflected on their own "racial, gender, and socioeconomic status"—and a lament that computer science is a "White male-dominated field."

Both also criticize the idea that "computing sciences is for nerds, only for White people, [and] only for geniuses."

Such language is typical of the diversity initiatives Charleston oversees. Since 2020, her office has pumped out a stream of materials that bemoan the "weaponization of whiteness," discuss the ins and outs of "white fragility," and urge students to "call out" their peers for "harmful words." One message, signed by Charleston herself, was titled "A Call to Dismantle Intersecting Oppressions."

"We must continue to work against systematic oppression in all its forms—racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and more," she wrote.

Her office also curates resources for students seeking to become fluent in progressive patois, including a "glossary of diversity, inclusion and belonging (DIB) terms" that provides examples of "gaslighting."

Tactics can include "shooting down the target's ideas," the entry reads—or "taking credit for them."

Here we go again...

If you haven't already figured it out, the DEI-related faux-"disciplines" - the "Studies": Ethnic Studies, Women's Studies, Gender Studies, Postcolonial Studies, Media Studies, etc - are the most corrupt, the most ideological with the absolute lowest academic standards of all. All they care about is echoing back the "correct" opinions, not valid scholarship.

And yet, somehow these lunatics and fanatics end up the most powerful people in the asylum.

Harvard needs to fumigate the house, top to bottom.

#Aaron Sibarium #Sherri Ann Charleston #Claudine Gay #Harvard #Harvard University #academic corruption #DEI #DEI bureaucracy #diversity officer #chief diversity officer #diversity equity and inclusion #diversity #equity #inclusion #plagiarism #academic fraud

8 notes · View notes

laurenairay · 3 months

Text

Just put on the most fun Lunar New Year celebration with my DEI Committee at work - including catering from a small local business and a raffle for these adorable mini dragons!

#diversity equity and inclusion is so important #and I’ve already had a bunch of feedback from those in the office that celebrate so that feels amazing!

2 notes · View notes

nationallawreview · 1 year

Text

Legal News Reach S3E1: The DEI Dialogue: How Feedback Fosters Inclusion and Diversity in the Workplace

Welcome to Legal News Reach Season 3! We begin the new year with a conversation between the National Law Review’s Social Media Manager, Crissonna Tennison, and Bracewell’s D&I and Community Outreach Director, Monica Parker. By now, most firms understand that diversity and inclusion are nonnegotiable foundations for a successful organization, but feedback conversations remain a commonly…

View On WordPress

#careers #DEI #Diversity #diversity equity and inclusion #equity #feedback #inclusion #mentorship #office communication #office politics

4 notes · View notes

carlocarrasco · 18 days

Text

Prohibition on e-bikes and e-trikes on major Metro Manila roads takes effect today

Be mindful that effective today, electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric tricycles (e-trikes) are officially prohibited from traveling along major roads of Metro Manila in accordance to the Metro Manila Council’s approved resolution. To be very clear, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) declared the following thoroughfares as off-limits to e-bikes and e-trikes: C1: Recto Avenue;…

View On WordPress

0 notes

jobsbuster · 2 months

Text

0 notes

nourishflourishuk · 2 months

Text

Has Boots Made A Boo-Boo?

Feeling overwhelmed and under productive in the office? Times changed with the advent of COVID-19. People were asked to work from home during lockdown so a lot of businesses* could carry on as (almost) usual. People were trusted to do their jobs, and actually did them… ��nearly 90% thought that their productivity had either stayed the same or improved while working from home”. (How Productive…

View On WordPress

#Boots The Chemist #business #disability #equality and diversity #HR #inclusion #inclusivity #office #productivity #reasonable adjustments #working from home

0 notes

myguidetogrowth · 2 months

Text

Difficult Employee- Supervisor Relationships

I recently quit my job due to difficultly meshing with my supervisor. I am glad I am on to better things where I feel supported and uplifted.

Managing a difficult supervisor can be challenging, but with the right strategies, you can navigate the situation more effectively. Understand Their Perspective: Try to understand your supervisor’s perspective and motivations. Put yourself in their shoes to gain insight into their expectations, pressures, and concerns. This understanding can help you approach interactions with empathy and find…

View On WordPress

0 notes

abiodun-360degree · 3 months

Text

Embracing Diversity and Inclusion in the Professional Landscape

Kindly read and share. Thank you.

blogs.vmware.com Embracing Diversity and Inclusion in the Professional Landscape Dear Readers In an era where the global professional landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace, the significance of diversity and inclusion cannot be overstated. Today, more than ever, organizations are recognizing the importance of cultivating an environment that not only values differences but actively…

View On WordPress

#africa #business #culture #diaspora #diversity #entrepreneurship #europe #executive #gender equality #inclusion #Management #newsletter #nigeria #office #professional #startup #startups #vision #workplace

1 note · View note

notanannoyingfangirl · 4 months

Text

Key Trends Shaping the Future of Corporate Compliance

Corporate compliance functions are entering a new era of rapid transformation, driven by technological advances, regulatory shifts and stakeholder pressures surrounding sustainability. By understanding critical developments in compliance operating models, risk management approaches and oversight frameworks, leaders can proactively position their organizations for long-term success.

Digitization to Enable “Compliance by Design”

Automation through robotic process automation (RPA), artificial intelligence and advanced analytics is empowering next-generation compliance. Machine learning facilitates real-time audits, gathering intelligence across transactions, communications and ecosystem signals to identify regulatory exposure. Self-updating compliance manuals tuned to latest ordinance shifts are on the horizon. The end vision is embedding compliance through system design across operations.

Focus Expanding Beyond Narrow Regulations

With intensifying scrutiny by investors, employees and society on ethical conduct, compliance roles are ballooning beyond narrowly meeting legal obligations alone to championing holistic integrity. Leading organizations are tying codes of conduct to societal value frameworks addressing diversity, sustainability and equitable impacts surrounding products and services. Data transparency, anti-corruption and human rights commitments are rising in priority.

Centralized Governance with Localized Operations

Global companies are moving towards centralized compliance governance under chief ethics/compliance officers and committees to align policies while localizing procedures. Geographic and divisional compliance heads are being empowered to tailor training programs using cultural nuances and localized languages to make integrity standards intuitively resonate across borders rather than appear disconnected edicts from headquarters.

Ultimately corporate compliance is maturing into a value creation function contributing towards trust and transparency with stakeholders rather than merely a check-the-box necessity. As guardians of integrity underpinning quality, fairness and reliability commitments made across supply chains and communities, compliance is becoming an ethical backbone driving capitalism’s next chapter.

0 notes

mnmilitaryradio · 1 year

Text

MNNG's Special Emphasis Program and MDVA's SOAR Program

This week we learn about the Minnesota National Guard’s Diversity & Inclusion Special Emphasis Program. Discuss how the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs SOAR Program is helping Veterans in need and get an update from the Minnesota Association of County Veterans Service Officers. Guests include: Capt. Nicole Wiswell – Minnesota National Guard KJ Johnson – Minnesota Department of Veterans…

View On WordPress

#Diversity and Inclusion #minnesota association of county veteran service officers #Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs #Minnesota National Guard #SOAR

0 notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 9 months

Text

By: Te-Ping Chen and Lauren Weber

Published: Jul 21, 2023

Two years ago chief diversity officers were some of the hottest hires into executive ranks. Now, they increasingly feel left out in the cold.

Companies including Netflix, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery have recently said that high-profile diversity, equity and inclusion executives will be leaving their jobs. Thousands of diversity-focused workers have been laid off since last year, and some companies are scaling back racial justice commitments.

Diversity, equity and inclusion—or DEI—jobs were put in the crosshairs after many companies started re-examining their executive ranks during the tech sector’s shake out last fall. Some chief diversity officers say their work is facing additional scrutiny since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions and companies brace for potential legal challenges. DEI work has also become a political target.

“There’s a combination of grief, being very tired, and being, in some cases, overwhelmed,” says Miriam Warren, chief diversity officer for Yelp, of the challenges facing executives in the field.

In interviews, current and former chief diversity officers said company executives at times didn’t want to change hiring or promotion processes, despite initially telling CDOs they were hired to improve the talent pipeline. The quick about-face shows company enthusiasm for diversity initiatives hasn’t always proved durable, leaving some diversity officers now questioning their career path.

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder in police custody in May 2020, companies scrambled to hire chief diversity officers, changing the face of the C-suite. In 2018, less than half the companies in the S&P 500 employed someone in the role, and by 2022 three out four companies had created a position, according to a study from Russell Reynolds, an executive search firm.

Once mostly tasked with HR matters, today’s diversity leaders are expected to weigh in on new product development, marketing efforts and current events that have an impact on how workers and consumers are feeling. Warren and other CDOs said the expanded remit is playing out in a politically divided environment where corporate diversity efforts are the subject of frequent social-media firestorms.

Falling demand

New analysis from employment data provider Live Data Technologies shows that chief diversity officers have been more vulnerable to layoffs than their human resources counterparts, experiencing 40% higher turnover. Their job searches are also taking longer.

“I got to 300 applications and then I stopped tracking,” says Stephanie Lubin, who was laid off from her role as diversity head at Drizly, an online alcohol marketplace, in May following the company’s acquisition by Uber. In one case, Lubin says she went through 16 rounds of interviews for a role she didn’t get, and says she is now planning to pivot out of DEI work.

The number of CDO searches is down 75% in the past year, says Jason Hanold, chief executive of Hanold Associates Executive Search, which works with Fortune 100 companies to recruit HR and DEI executives, among other roles. Demand is the lowest he has seen in his 30 years of recruiting.

At the same time, he says, more executives are feeling skittish about taking on diversity roles.

“They’re telling us, the only way I want to go into another role with DEI is if it includes something else,” he says of the requests for broader titles that offer more responsibilities and resources. He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago.

During the pandemic, some companies moved people into diversity leadership if they were an ethnic minority, says Dani Monroe, even when they weren’t qualified. Monroe served as CDO for Mass General Brigham, a Boston-based hospital system and one of the largest employers in the state, until 2021 and convenes a yearly gathering of more than 100 CDOs.

“These were knee-jerk reactions,” she says of the hurried CDO hires, adding that some of those elevations didn’t create much impact, leaving both sides feeling disillusioned.

On-the-job obstruction

American workers are split on the importance of a diverse workforce, surveys find.

Diversity chiefs also encounter obstruction from top executives, says Melinda Starbird, a human resources and diversity executive who has worked at AT&T, Starbucks and OfferUp, an online marketplace. Leaders sometimes associate diversity efforts with mandates, such as the equal-employment rules that apply to federal contractors. Those requirements for compliance can create executive resistance that bleeds over into other cultural or policy shifts, such as adding Juneteenth as a company holiday, she says.

“Even if you report to the CEO, it’s still a battle and it’s a smaller budget,” says Starbird, who was laid off from OfferUp in November during a broader restructuring.

Many diversity executives feel a lack of buy-in from their colleagues. In a survey of 138 diversity executives conducted this spring by World 50 Group, a networking organization for corporate leaders, 82% said they had sufficient influence to do their job, down 6 percentage points from 2022. Asked if they felt supported by middle managers, 41% said yes, an 8-percentage-point drop.

Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in June, companies are anticipating spillover legal action could have an impact on them. Those that are still hiring CDOs want people who can help the board navigate the political and legal landscape of diversity work and figure out how to take defensive moves to shield them from litigation, says Tina Shah Paikeday, global leader of Russell Reynolds’s diversity, equity and inclusion practice.

“They recognize it would be smart to get ahead of that.”

People are more resistant to company-backed efforts to advance diversity when they are worried about their own jobs, whether because of impending layoffs or disruptions from AI, says David Kenny, chief executive of Nielsen, the media-ratings company.

Kenny was both CEO and CDO for a time, taking on the diversity role to emphasize how important it was to the future of the business. Even as CEO, it could be a tough sell. Efforts to restructure compensation to make it more equitable created a backlash.

“A lot of it is, ‘I’m losing my slice of the pie,’ ” he says.

[ Via: https://archive.vn/jHRFo ]

The grift is over.

There seems to be a built-in implication that much of the movements around DIE in the last few years have been performative: organizations making the approved signals to keep the puritans at bay. Perhaps they've now figured out that these measures are, at best, unable to demonstrate their efficacy, or at worst, anti-productive. The number of DIE programs that can or even will quantify or demonstrate their effectiveness with metrics and data can be counted on one hand; the truly fanatical ones will scold you for even suggesting that you should. Or more likely, perhaps they've figured out that as an insurance policy, the impact to the bottom line is no longer worth the investment; throwing buckets of money to purchase indulgences during a moral-religious panic might have made sense in 2020, but not so much in 2023.

Study after study reveals that none of this social snakeoil - from the phrenology of "implicit bias training" to the Maoist struggle sessions of "white fragility training" - actually help, and reliably make things worse by making everyone fixate on identity politics rather than doing anything productive. Meaning DIE is nothing but expensive and destructive virtue signaling. If you want to destroy an organization from the inside, there's no better way than embracing DIE.

You're far better off sticking to your core telos, supported by liberal ethics like equal opportunity, colorblindness and the ideal of meritocracy. Or more formally, Merit, Fairness and Equality (MFE). Whatever results you get from a fair process are inherently fair.

"Diversity" in particular is always about superficiality and thinly-veiled racism, while "equity" requires someone in authority to artificially create preferred outcomes (establishing the perfect conditions for an authoritarian), rather than a system of fairly and consistently applied rules (equality).

I can name five people, men and women, where I work who have different ethic ancestry, who grew up within 40 miles of each other and have the same local accent.

And I can name five white men who grew up on four different continents with three different first languages, who have worked for over a dozen different organizations, from multi-national companies to military to non-profits to education institutions before immigrating.

"Diversity" apparatchiks don't acknowledge the diversity in the latter. Only, like any good racist, the bogus "diversity" in the former.

10 notes · View notes