(may also be worth noting that statistically, the existence of many cases of verifiable correlation does strongly suggest causal relationships.)
@albert69 actually @awcntdb was he/she stated:
"I would say unequivocally that diversity has nothing to do with whether a company gets worse or better if the employees are following the company system and the systems are good ones.
However, diversity for only diversity sake could make a company worse if employees think that the business is there to assuage their beliefs and are continually offended by something, such as certain clients etc. Those people can make a company worse by not knowing when and how to leave their personal feelings and beliefs outside the office - clients pick up on this very easily and quickly, and there goes some of your business out the door."
I love the above.
At some point, I think the students should call the residential college by another name. Eventually the new name will stick.
You are arguing about the effects of diversity. I don’t think awcntdb is saying there ought to be no diversity, they are just arguing the point that diversity = success under all situations and it is solely due diversity itself. Maybe it does, I don’t really have an educated opinion to put in on it.
I am a professional investor. It is my job to understand what makes a company outperform relative to others, and my success depends on me making decisions contrary to the majority of investors, and being right about that decision most of the time.
So if you actually find a real causative relationship at the executive level, I really am interested. But I have looked at this before, and I found that after controlling for the fundamentals of the company, the composition of the board offers no additional predictive value. But my data was limited, so perhaps someone has done a better job.
While the low level experimental results you present are interesting, you just can’t extrapolate that to the executive level.
@hebegebe Well take a look at McKinsey and Co 's latest research report on “Diversity Matters” They seem to think that there is a causative relationship
Our “Diversity Matters” research looked at the relationship between the level of diversity (defined as a greater share of women and a more mixed ethnic/racial composition in the leadership of large companies) and company financial performance (measured as average EBIT 2010–2013). The research is based on financial data and leadership demographics compiled for this purpose from hundreds of organisations and thousands of executives in the United Kingdom, Canada, Latin America, and the United States. The size of the dataset allows for results that are statistically significant and the analysis is the first that we are aware of that measures how much the relationship between diversity and performance is worth in terms of increased profitability.
The analysis found a statistically significant relationship between a more diverse leadership and better financial performance. The companies in the top quartile of gender diversity were 15 percent more likely to have financial returns that were above their national industry median. Companies in the top quartile of racial/ethnic diversity
were 30 percent more likely to have financial returns above their national industry median. Companies in the bottom quartile for both gender and ethnicity/race were statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the dataset (that is, they were not just not leading, they were lagging). The results varied by country and industry. Companies with 10 percent higher gender and ethnic/racial diversity on management teams and boards in the US, for instance, had EBIT that was 1.1 percent higher; in the UK, companies with the same diversity level had EBIT that was 5.8 percent higher.
Moreover, the unequal performance across companies in the same industry and same country implies that diversity is a competitive differentiator that shifts market share towards more diverse companies.
you can read the whole report here - there is so much more -Chapter 2 Why do more diverse companies preform better
https://web.duke.edu/equity/toolkit/documents/DiversityMatters.pdf
[/quote]
The two variables of interest also could be correlated due to a third variable, which has a causal relationship to each variable of interest. If this third variable is not identified properly, the two variables of interest can mistakenly be thought to have a causal relationship.
Thank you for this. I will review in the morning.
There are lots of companies that profited from the Holocaust and/or did business with the Nazis http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/bmw-owners-finally-admit-nazi-past/. http://www.topinfopost.com/2015/01/23/10-companies-profited-nazi-camps
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/23/books/books-of-the-times-daimler-benz-and-its-nazi-history.html
There were apparently many “forced laborers/slave laborers” . There were many of my parents generation who would not own a Mercedes because of the reported relationship between Mercedes and the use of their engines in the gas chambers. Now, many own Mercedes, BMW’s and interface with other companies that were involved in the Holocaust or profited from it. Haven’t heard of any protests and/or demands to change the company names.
If someone doesn’t want to affiliate with a school that was historically connected with slavery, don’t go.
And Henry Ford was a notorious anti-Semite who had very disturbing views about what he reportedly called the " Jewish Menace" https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/the-dark-legacy-of-henry-fords-anti-semitism-commentary/2014/10/10/c95b7df2-509d-11e4-877c-335b53ffe736_story.html. https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/henryford-antisemitism/
Should Ford be forced to change its name too? People can just not do business with them.
Yes, that’s why I asked upthread if the Ford Center for engineering at my alma mater should be renamed to ensure Jewish students aren’t bothered by having to study in a place funded by a noted anti-Semite. Interesting that when it was built (within the last 20 years) there were no such protests.
Ironic that the engineering building is named for a person/company/donor that builds a piece of junk car. There ya go - maybe people should demand they engage in truth in advertising and change their name to junk (or another 4 letter word that starts with “cr” - not sure if that word is permitted here). Or better yet- they should change their name to “Drek”. Someone should start a protest movement and demand a change. Ford is drek!
Calhoun was a leader of the pro slavery movement. He was in a position of power. It is not hard to remove his name from a building. I disagree with my fellow jews here.
Just because there isn’t a push in the jewish community to change this name or that name, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t respect the rights of others who feel differently.
This argument that if you don’t like it, don’t go, isn’t well thought out.
I saw this…
The feds have renamed Harney point to Black Elk peak (Harney massacred native women and children). Denali is back to being Denali after more than 40 years of effort by the state of Alaska. And we have a US Board of Geographic Names:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/harney-peak-south-dakota-renamed-black-elk-peak/
If a residential college or building was named "kill <> , then sure, a name change would be more than reasonable. But it’s not. Dealing with the history behind the current issues at Yale could be a teachable moment.
The students know the history. That is why they want the name changed. 
How about they update the name in line with contemporary health initiatives - they can change the name to Kalehoun.
“All I pointed out was that changing the name of a residential college wouldn’t affect Yale’s brand. It might affect Calhoun College’s brand, which may not be a bad thing.”
So why not change Yale’s name too? Your argument seems to be that it’s ok to change Calhoun because Calhoun isn’t a big global brand. Well, why not change Yale’s name? Is it ok to change brands that ARE large and global? (I mean, obviously it’s ok in that it’s legal.)
Okie Dokie. It should now be known as Kale University and Kalehoun College. Problem solved.
Interesting reads: http://digitalhistories.yctl.org/2014/11/01/elihu-yale-was-a-slave-trader/
http://digitalhistories.yctl.org/2014/11/01/elihu-yale-was-a-slave-trader/
And Vandy apparently tried to remove the name on Confederate Hall but were successfully sued/blocked by the Daughters of the Confederacy who funded the building http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tn-court-of-appeals/1298138.html
Some organizations do choose to change the name, but I think it is up to the organization. Yale may feel it is more important to stand firm, honor the grads from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s than to make the current students happy.
If it were my decision, I’d close Calhoun and open another college. It’s fine to use the same buildings and set up, but then Calhoun is separate from whatever new name is chosen. They can choose new colors and symbols and traditions like ham on Tuesdays or throwing water balloons on the new students or whatever the schools do to separate themselves from the other RCs. The new RCs are doing this and not tied to old alums, and they seem no worse for it. When the alums come back to visit, they can still be ‘Calhoun’ and the new students can be ‘New Names’.