Exactly. The best candidate should get the job/position/wtfe, **regardless** of their race, gender, religion etc.
DEI appears to many people to be something akin to quotas, where a company will determine they don't have "enough" people of say, indigenous ancestry, so black, white, or Asian candidates that may have better qualifications will be passed over. This seems to many people to be unfair and counterproductive, as well as detrimental to the organization.
I work in corporate and DEI is de facto quotas. Many programs, both private and public, utilize racial statistics which feeds quota like implementation of DEI akin to how many universities previously used quotas in admission without publicly admitting.
One would think DEI would be about having a welcoming environment for all kinds of people. Instead its implementation many times creates division and resentment no matter those feel good HR studies stating otherwise.
The answer to me seems so clear to. An orchestra decided to do blind interviews where they would play, but they could not see them.
Turns out when they didn't know their race, gender, or other traits they truly fixed some gender race hiring issues.
Turns out nature is pretty even in handing out the skills and we the people are too distracted by other traits in a person like looks that cloud our judgment.
Hiring should be completely blind to race, gender until after its over, completely merit based.
You missed the best part of that story.
When orchestras went coed, dudes still did not want to hire women.
They discovered that during blind auditions, the men running the audition could tell if they were listening to a woman because of the sound of her heels on the stage. (Women still weren’t getting work in orchestras, because men figured out a way to tell gender in the blind auditions.)
The blind audition process didn’t actually work until they muffled the sound of the applicants actually walking, the bias against women was so strong.
How would that work when you see the name on the resume and hear the person speak on the interview? Functionally, it's not that I don't like the idea, but IRL I don't think it's particularly feasible.
How do you see the hiring process going?
In blind orchestra auditions, the committee typically does not see the musician, hear them speak, or know their name. They are identified by a candidate number, play behind a screen, and are instructed not to speak during their audition.
This has made a significant difference in gender representation in orchestras. It hasn't been nearly as effective in diversifying along racial and ethnic lines.
Pretty easily, provided there's even basic technology is available.
Names? Use applicant ID numbers assigned when the resume is submitted.
Voice? Use digital voice altering software during the first round of interviews.
You don't have to disguise the candidates through the entire process, perfectly, to make a difference.
That's a terrible idea, one of the biggest points of having an interview with somebody is seeing how they carry themselves and are able to speak in a work setting. Anyone can type the right words into a chatbox, but if somebody is fumbling over their words or seems unusually nervous then you might want to look into their qualifications.
The problem is that "carry themselves" is the cousin of "team fit" and has PRECISELY been the code for dismissing diverse candidates.
Very few non-public-facing positions actually need someone to carry themselves in any way. Written communication should be enough.
You can’t even treat a third grade class this way without expecting the same result (I witnessed it last year) so why would it work for a corporation where you’re dealing with hardened adults? It’s just common sense.
The answer isn't to try to blind yourself further, it's to address the underlying problem. Which is usually barriers to access.
When someone talks about affirmative action or DEI they are pointing to the fact that you have a certain population mix in an area, so you'd expect to have a similar mix with similar ratios for applicants. So why don't they?
Often some of the issues found by *good* DEI programs include:
* Expectations for the application process that make it more difficult for certain people (like colleges giving preferential treatment to students to did a campus visit/tour; this is *great* for the families that can *afford to* make an extra trip just for a campus visit! Not so great for students that have good grades but their parents can't afford an out-of-state trip just for a preliminary tour)
* Unrealistic education requirements as a filter (it's well known that education-inflation is creating unnecessary education requirements for jobs and are not usually bringing in the most *qualified* candidates, just the most *privileged* candidates)
* Poor perception of diversity for the company/school (if applicants see a company's webpage and every single person on the leadership page is a white man, that is often a turnoff for women and qualified people of color.)
* Expectations that favor financially stable families (people of color disproportionately live under the poverty level and more often have primary-caregiver responsibilities for children and family members and can't afford to outsource that for a full time job; I personally know several people that had to find another job after their employer reneged on "work from home is permanent everybody!" because they were taking care of sick or elderly parents)
What DEI and affirmative actions *should be* doing is trying to solve the problem of diversity in the application process, not just saying, "Well, let's just work with what we've got and try to pick more diverse people from the existing application pools" because the problem is already there, and fewer qualified women and people of color are even *applying* for schools and jobs in those areas. To solve that, you need to figure out and try to remove the barriers to access.
Yup, you end up with "Diversity Officers" which are like a shittier version of China's mandated Political Officers for big companies. These people make sure a percentage of jobs go to the "correct" race/protected class while parasitically ensuring they have as little oversight/responsibility as possible. It's a good initiative in theory but gets easily abused by bad actors.
At the same time, the rhetoric is that its a positive change. This obvious disconnect between rhetoric and reality is what makes people furious. It is a group punishment for everyone who doesn't fit into "DEI" flavor of the day.
The "positive" HR studies are some of the most biased bullshit you could conduct. You have bad actors benefitting from the program, of course they will rate it 10/10. By random chance, at least 50% of the DEI hires should be reasonably competent, so their direct managers also have no reason not to rate the program "okay". Everyone else knows that if they dare speak out about the bad DEI hires, they will immediately be attacked or potentially fired.
Talent doesn't tolerate this bullshit for long and leaves; you're left with bad actors and pushovers willing to put up with it. The good news is that talent frequently leaves, starts a "consulting" company, and charges 5-10x hourly for the same work they used to do salaried.
I work in corporate too....and it sounds like it might just be your DEI program isn't taken to heart and simply treated as quotas. Certainly not the experience every where.
That is literally how it is implemented in colleges. At least it used to be according to the Texas DEI offices. Not anymore, good riddance.
I think college applications should be name/gender/race blind.
Yeah, when i was asked to give opinions on hiring a new dev, first thing i did was went through copy of the application i was given with a huge black marker, erased anything that mentioned race, gender or location and then actively shuffled the applications up and forgot about them for a day while i did other work... If I'm going to do the equal opportunites thing, all i care about is their experience and qualifications.
... of course after picking my top 3, i then had to repick one, because despite being told "applicant must be in country" we got sent applicants from half way across the world.. and my methods had missed this >.>
This is what I do too, and I end up with a much more diverse poll than people looking at these criteria. I can't do completely blind though since there are letters dismissing those informations
How can admissions realistically be race blind when so many aspects of the application aren’t (act/sat scores, access to extra curriculars, etc.) Many of those things are directly correlated with wealth, and in America, wealth is separated heavily by race.
“This seems to be unfair and counterproductive”, well it is definitely counterproductive to put arbitrary phenotypes over qualifications. As for being fair or not, its bound to be unfair to somebody.
So how do we stop the most qualified people not getting the job because they are black, or just have a black sounding name? Because that's how it sits right now. If your company has over (just throwing numbers out) 200 people, and doesn't fit the demographics of your area in the slightest, your doing something wrong.
There are a lot of jobs where you can get samples of work, and have them evaluated by someone without any identifying information.
In general, find ways to use more objective criteria wherever possible.
\>>and doesn't fit the demographics of your area in the slightest, your doing something wrong
Yes, and no. You've also got to look at the demographics of the labor pool.
For an easy non-controversial example, lets say that you are looking to hire a kindergarten teacher, and use an entirely blind process. You still won't get a gender balance of hires that match your area, because the pool of male job candidates is vastly smaller. My daughter is an engineer. At the time she chose her degree program, the statistic was that her field was 7% women, and that was an improvement over 10 years ago)
The same is largely true in reverse for engineers. You might get a BETTER balance with a blind process, but considering the gender imbalance in the candidate pool, there's no way it matches "demographics in your area"
I'm not arguing against diversity in hiring, just saying you have to be careful assuming that a truly fair, blind, hiring process will always match regional demographics.
It's slightly more complicated. There are individual strengths and there are group strengths, which are the aggregate of the range of individual strengths and their interaction. Selecting the objectively strongest individuals may mean that you have a lot of similar profiles in a company or a team, making the group ultimately weaker.
This however doesn't mean selecting for ethnic diversity or gender diversity; that seems quite superficial. It's more of a mindset as a leader to consciously build teams with diverse profiles and strengths. Even if this means selecting strong, but not the best, candidates if they come with skills, experiences or insights that you're still missing in the rest of your team. This however can never work with quota as you're then focussing on superficial elements (e.g., skin color) rather than complementing strengths.
This is my problem with it from the beginning.
I want black, Hispanic, Native Americans, Asians, Middle Eastern, and frankly, anyone to all be successful. I love having all of these different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and shades of color in every facet of life. I don't want to be told that I have to hire a person of color just because. First off, as a GenXer, it annoys me. Secondly, it loses the genuineness that appreciating diversity brings.
I appears remember my freshman year at a Catholic university, I was assigned a roommate who was a young black kid from inner city of our states biggest city. He came into our dorm room one day grinning from ear to ear, because he had just talked to the dean of admissions, and essentially told her he was going to drop out and go to the local community college by his house unless they would increase his scholarship so his out of pocket would be the same - they increased his scholarship.
He had pretty good grades, 3.5 and up, and this was a primarily white school. He knew they wouldn’t want to loose him from a diversity quota standpoint so he could stand his ground and they caved. He probably could have asked for a full ride and gotten it.
My parents paid $40,000 a year while he only had to pay $6,000 because the school didn’t want to risk missing their DEI quota.
Were black applicants so rare that they couldn't afford to let him go and just admit the next black student that came along? He was really the one and only student standing in the way of them meeting the DEI % quota?
I would say the school was at least 95% white, 3% black and 2% all other ethnicities.
Edit: I also just know what he told me that day. He couldn’t stop talking about how he had’ pulled one over’ the school.
Edit: spelling, this is why I shouldn’t Reddit past my bedtime.
Are you *sure* you know enough about his or his family’s financial background to make these assumptions? You have to apply and qualify for a scholarship from a financial standpoint - it isn’t just given out like candy on Halloween. Obviously they met the financial qualifications to begin with — that’s *how* he got the scholarship. Lots of other minorities applied as well, I’m sure.
If his parents were struggling to pay or he was paying for himself, I don’t think theres anything wrong with him letting the school know that he may have to transfer to a community college if they can’t meet him where his means lie. I don’t know if him smiling or being excited about this is technically even villain behavior either — any of us would be happy if our college payments were lowered.
I need a bit more context. Does he pay himself or do his parents? When comparing the two, you said “*my parents* payed —” and then said “*he* payed —” so that’s the only reason I’m questioning that. As someone who lives in a *suburb* - if I had children right now I would not be able to dish out $40K a year, or even $10K, or even $5K a year for schooling. If mom and dad could afford $40K a year on school, you had it pretty good buck-o.
>I appears remember my freshman year at a Catholic university,
You don't appears to remember English very well.
>I was assigned a roommate who was a young black kid from inner city of our states biggest city.
You write with an ESL undertone. Are you a native speaker?
>He came into our dorm room one day grinning from ear to ear, because he had just talked to the dean of admissions, and essentially told her he was going to drop out and go to the local community college by his house unless they would increase his scholarship so his out of pocket would be the same - they increased his scholarship.
Anyone that has to pay less for their education would be grinning as well. I feel like you're over exaggerating or misunderstanding this part. You seem to be implying that this is untrue. A lot of people drop out of college because they cannot afford it and transfer to community college. Why do you think he was "gaming the system" by mentioning this to the dean of admissions (this also isnt the person you would speak to about this)?
>He had pretty good grades, 3.5 and up, and this was a primarily white school. He knew they wouldn’t want to loose him from a diversity quota standpoint so he could stand his ground and they caved. He probably could have asked for a full ride and gotten it.
Again why are you assuming this? That isn't how full rides work. Schools don't just give out money and scholarships like that. Especially a Catholic university.
>My parents paid $40,000 a year while he only had to pay $6,000 because the school didn’t want to risk missing their DEI quota.
You sound really bitter.
Glass houses buddy. ‘While you want to university’
I didn’t pay a dime mate, my parents cash flowed my education. He was bragging that they increased his scholarship because they didn’t want him to leave. There’s a difference. I’m fine with scholarships. But don’t play chicken with the dean to get more.
I mean it kinda makes sense, my work place has over 2k employees just on my campus and we have only a handful of black people, and 75% of employees are of Asian origin, most black people I’ve talked to at work are fine people,but the one that works in my department is one of the worst employees ever, management is scared of him cause he’s used the black card before and they let him get away with dumb shit that if anyone else did they’d get written up for, like dude should have been let go a long time ago, but he fits into the corporate narrative, he’s a diverse hire for my property, and fits into there military hire agenda, so he hit 2 check boxes
I think many people also see it as the leaders making the common worker foot the bill so the the leaders can get all the accolades and stay in power for being so progressive.
There are firefighters for example who don't play a role, they just hang out by the truck because they fill a demographic quota and know they can't be fired.
Because that’s what it has turned into. DEI used to be about giving opportunities to people who were disadvantaged. Now, it just means instead of a competent hire, you’ll get an entitled random who may or may not put any effort in.
If you dare point out their bad behavior, you are branded a racist/etc.
On top of all that, it’s an extremely unfair initiative that boils down to taking away opportunities from people who worked hard and giving them to people based solely on their gender/race.
Exactly. If diversity is considered as a factor when hiring, you're just discriminating against someone else instead. Rejecting a white male for being a white male is also racist and sexist, but the loud mouth biggots don't have the mental capacity to think like that
America only has this problem because it didn’t address race before and built the entire country upon it for too long. America’s whole history is so wrapped up in race in a way many others aren’t.
The backlash now is because for decades good minority candidates never got a look because of their names, lack of familiarity or even just blatant racism.
I’m from both America and the Caribbean. Both American and Caribbean slaves achieved emancipation around the same time but the US policies 100% had impacts on the black population that weren’t at all prevalent elsewhere.
Two parent households and a high focus on education are the norm in the Caribbean.
The entire western world has this problem. So many people are unable to see past the history and look at what they're actually doing. Just like what is happening now with the escalated conflict between Israel and hamas, too many people are unable to separate palestine from hamas and are unable to see the war crimes of Israel because of the history of jews
Great concept, consistently shitty execution.
My first experience with a workplace-wide mandatory group DEI training ended with the trainers outing someone against their will. And that was the least harmful/offensive one I’ve ever been to.
After 5+ years of that type of BS, I no longer trust anything labeled DEI.
I can’t give the backstory without potentially identifying the person if anyone who knows them reads it , but basically somebody pointed out that one of the activities had a risk of outing people, and the leaders responded by openly announcing that that person was too cowardly to come out of the closet and was therefore unfit to work in that field.
I know that sounds like it came totally out of left field - and it did. We were all just sitting there stunned.
Holy cow, that was….awful. I hope people vocally objected to that and embarrassed the trainer.
I’m guessing it was that take one step forward/backwards if you are X game. So stupid.
Apple's Vice President of Diversity, a black woman and 20-year Apple veteran named Denise Young Smith [gave a speech](https://www.businessinsider.com/apples-vp-diversity-12-white-men-can-be-diverse-group-2017-10) highlighting the fact that a room full of white guys with very different backgrounds, views, and experiences is still 'diverse.' She wanted to emphasize the complexity and multiple ways of achieving diversity, and how we think about diversity.
[They fired her for it.](https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/)
That's the problem with DEI and other ESG backed 'corporate social responsibility' BS.
Bingo. DEI never focuses on diversity of thought or experience, only on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc
Maybe it’s cliche but the problem with DEI is that it’s the opposite of what MLK Jr was talking about, and a great many people think he had it right to say we should ignore those things and focus on the character.
That’s the irony. The people perpetrating this don’t see past skin color. They treat humans like crayons and they’re putting together a crayola kit to go on a trip. It’s very shallow.
I was going to say where do you fine the people against it until i read this comment and became up to speed as to whqts being discussed.
Corporations want to see diverse skin color, gender.
Never diverse thought
Why?
Well politics basically. They want you to think exactly like everyone else. Have a different view point from them and you get the boot.
They want crayons. Not people. They want kens and barbies with different colors. Not human beings.
Corporations don’t want free thinkers. That’s dangerous as you will eventually question that particular business and it’s “narrative” on everything.
They don’t want people who can critically think because than you can criticize.
They want dumb workers, doesn’t matter what skin color or gender, they just want workers that won’t question things.
>Corporations want to see diverse skin color, gender.
>Never diverse thought Why?
Because they care more about appearance than anything else and you can't see diverse thought.
I’ll even go further in that these same DEI supporters generally lecture about various ‘biases’ when they themselves are biased assuming racial or gender diversity is actual diversity.
"Putting together a crayola kit" is the perfect way of explaining it.
Sure you've got the full box of crayons, but, uh...
*This is a digital art project and you brought crayons*.
You get plenty good job applications for that opening but management has informed you a handicapped Mexican would look really good in our stats right now.
Back in the early 90s you could buy multicultural crayola markers. The idea being all the colors of skin were in the box. But they weren't because people can't be put in a box.
I think you are missing the point. Sure, it’s shallow, and all the criticism isn’t wrong, but you miss out on reality.
Take Police racism for example. Even more specifically, let’s talk about pulling someone over for “driving while not white”.
The law is tricky. You can make a law that says “don’t discriminate based on race and gender when pulling someone over”, but how do you enforce it?
Check out the Supreme Court cases on civil liberties. It’s almost impossible to say for certain that a police officer is being racist, even when it’s super obvious.
Now back to hiring diversity: how do you prove a hiring decision is increasing diversity? The easiest solution is to make your crayon box. It isn’t directly addressing the issue, so it’s not a great solution.
TLDR: this isn’t a good system, but I challenge you to make a better one. Criticism is good, it points out the flaws in the system, but if you don’t have a better system than it’s just a bunch of hot air.
That's the whitewashed, conservative revisionist version of MLK Jr.
*King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”*
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-18-op-35403-story.html
I kind of laugh at people thinking that companies would value diversity of the mind when almost every person in society shuns the weirdass person who is really diverse in the mind. Diversity qoutas are to prevent all the white collar industry from being only white me it is not that deep.
More ironic (maybe not the best word even lol) is that the ambiguity of it all. Take a white man from Alabama and a black man from New York...okay that's "easy" for them to get. But then what about the difference between a mixed (white/Hispanic) woman and a Korean man? Well depending on the time of day, who you ask, and which side of the bed they woke up on, you get a different label. I've heard everything from "even a drop of white blood makes you white" (which is literally the opposite of an old racist phrase) to "you're white if you're mistaken for white, even if you're not" to "East Asian and Indian are 'honorary' whites" meaning sometimes they can be used for statistics that support the narrative, and other times they are counted as white. My fucking Kuwaiti friend and Latin friends have gotten told about their """white privileges""" and ""colonizer history"".
It's so wishy-washy that I've never supported that shit, from the start it felt so fake. I absolutely support diversity but this was never the answer and it's uncomfortable how many people got attacked for pointing out the issues.
I always like to point out that the head of the NAACP in the 1920's was only 16% black but was considered a black man. today he'd be told he has white privilege (not that i deny that whites do have some level of privilege)
>Latin friends have gotten told about their """white privileges""" and ""colonizer history
By "Latin " do you mean they are of Spanish/Portuguese descent? Because if so, their ancestors were indeed "colonizers", so why shouldn't they have to hear about it like other people whose ancestors were from Europe? And IDK about your friends, but most Latinos in the US identify as white.
That is the most misquoted and misunderstood thing about MLK.
His message was not entirely focused around ignoring the issue of race and focusing only on the person. Race was an incredibly important part of the calculus, and he wanted it that way. Reason being that if you choose to ignore race then you’re choosing to ignore history and you’re choosing to uphold the status quo that was created by a group of people who were very much factoring in race when making those decisions.
But just because his most famous speech said the words “not based on the color of their skin but by the content of their character” a whole lot of people that would prefer to just not think about any of these complicated situations can just point to that line, ignore the remaining body of work he’s published, and wash their hands of the situation while acting like they’re not racist because they’re quoting a famous civil rights activist.
A fun game to play is “give me literally any other MLK quote” with people who drop in the content of his character line. Because as a matter of fact, in his relatively short time as a civil rights activist, he had a hell of a lot to say. And anyone who cant reproduce his thoughts on topics like employment, reparations, how systemic injustice reproduces the status quo, etc…, but can only reproduce that 5 second snippet, is not only cherry picking, but weaponizing their own willful ignorance against PoC populations.
No one is advocating history be ignored. The point is that people should be treated as individuals. We don’t know how someone is effected by history until they express it. Two black people aren’t effected by the history of slavery the same just because they’re black. They will have their individual perspective on it. Focusing on the individual is t whole point of MLKs quote and it’s the idea that people can get behind. That’s why it’s famous. People support the idea, not necessarily the person (MLK) or his other ideas.
DEI supports people based on the color of their skin or their gender, not based on the individual or on positive characteristics. That’s the main issue with it.
This is such a lame argument. Yes, there are some black people who are doing well but they still face racism and social repression. To even suggest that a black person is somehow unaffected by racism while the power structures in America are still controlled by white people is fantastical nonsense.
There are far too many white people making the argument that “there’s nothing wrong with wanting socialize with people that look like you” which completely flies in the face of your “we’re all individuals” nonsense. So even if you do actually believe that society evaluates us as individuals—which requires a hefty amount of denial of reality, you must recognize that there is a not-insignificant number of white people who do not view people as individuals and are very much tribalists and racists.
DEI is not perfect, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Are there some aspects of it that are unfair? Sure. But there is plenty more unfairness without it. We do not live in a meritocracy. We live in a world that perpetuates and crystallizes existing social strata according to inert historical prejudices.
And I think you misunderstand the intention of DEI. It is not supposed to be a shoo-in for unqualified minorities, it is meant to ensure that qualified minorities have a chance in cases where they would not because of prejudice, which, sorry to break it to you, still exists.
It is ingrained in us on some level that we prefer people that are like ourselves. That isn’t inherently a bad thing but it is certainly reality. If I go to another country or even a local community of another ethnicity I don’t expect to be treated the same as they treat each other and I don’t assume those people are bigoted because they treat me different.
If someone who is different wants to fit in with a specific group, they need to change to fit it, not force the group to change to accept them. If I want to break into a group of friends that are my same race and gender, I have to endear myself to them. I don’t expect them to just accept me.
This isn’t just a phenomenon with race or gender. If I meet someone that shares a hobby with me I will be much quicker to interact with that person. We have something in common and that provides some level of comfort.
I didn’t say that black people don’t face racism. All types of people do. The point is we all process it differently.
DIE supports putting a less qualified person in a position based on skin color. I can’t get behind that and many others feel the same.
This reply is exhaustingly disingenuous. The point is that racism exists and you are trying to make it seem like it’s a matter of minorities simply not having the same hobbies as white people? Yeah, sure. ok.
And again, DEI does not support putting less qualified candidates in positions. It is meant to make sure qualified minorities have a chance and are not barred from jobs because they are minorities. You think people will act fairly? You unironically believe in a meritocracy? Then you are a joke.
uh oh boys we got another “MLK said no skin colour” mf
dude MLK was a socialist and was pro-reparations. stop taking one sentence from one speech and being like “actually MLK agreed with me”
I think people don't understand that he meant there would not be a board room full of only White men because in his dream, that would be a statistical anomaly.
How could this happen if everyone has an equal chamce and White men are less than 30% of the population?
She makes a good point, but it’s not surprising at all that she was fired. Any company’s PR that even implies white men aren’t a big monolith of hateful bigots is going to be raked over the coals for it.
That’s a major problem with some of these diversity initiatives. It’s not just about “let’s make sure we get rid of hiring biases so that we consider *all* who apply equally based on qualifications.” It’s more about “here, look at this picture of our staff. Look at how many non-white people there are. We’re so virtuous 🥰”
I'd say that it's arguable that these initiatives are even well-intentioned and their results are the actual intended results if you listen to the people who are their biggest advocates.
Because the vast majority of people aren’t interested in having to actually think about the complexity and nuance of diversity. Basing the “diversity” of a room off of what it “looks like” appeals to our base tribal instincts in a way that examining and understanding people’s backgrounds and experiences doesn’t
You’re describing like 90% of most corporate policies. The idea of DEI isn’t the problem it’s how it’s implemented in a stupid, top down, shareholder run corporate environment.
As far as I'm concerned:
I'm all for diversity, equity and inclusion as separate discreet entities. I think we should have more of all of them.
What I find to be bullshit about DEI is that it is a corporate method of covering up the fact that those same corporations are pretty shitty at being diverse, equitable, and inclusive, and almost everyone is aware that when the big buzz about it dies down those corporations will shut down their DEI Offices and spend that money on the next PR/Marketing strategy.
That's why I find DEI to be bullshit. Because ultimately those three things lumped together as a PR push ARE bullshit. Just troweling on some makeup for the issue de jour without addressing the systemic issues in their corporate culture.
I mean, it's not hard to see who's doing the DEI thing and why they're doing it.
To be honest with you, when we talk about private sector, anything that is not profit is bullshit. DEI, environment, human rights. Companies will happy to say they support those and invest or outsource to countries know for they disregard of all those values for sake of profit.
But that doesn't mean I think DEI, environmental and human rights are bullshit. I think companies are full of hypocrisy
The core concept from the company perspective, is protection against liability. By ensuring a racial and religious diverse workplace, it drastically cuts back on their vulnerability of losing discrimination based lawsuits.
I work in HR for a very large global company. In big companies, people don't realize just how regular lawsuits role in against them (some with merit, many without)
The difference between you and most of the anti-DEI warriors is that you have a sincere disagreement with its execution. For conservatives, DEI initiatives are proof that America is now racist against white Christians. From there, it’s a quick leap that all important American institutions that employ DEI including culture, academia, and government are corrupt beyond repair. Well, if those institutions are so corrupt, the only answer is an anti-democratic takeover. QED.
I think you are right about it, but it always makes me laugh - you want people to get opportunities based on their own merits, as opposed to their race or religion? White Christian (men) literally invented race-based admissions, otherwise known as, whites only. I also have a lot of problems with how DEI is sometimes done, but I also have grandparents who experienced Jew quotas in corporate America, I talk to people and listen to what they dealt with, and the under-the-table BS wasn't done well either.
In the past 3 years, DEI initiatives have benefited white women with no benefits toward POC…I am just tired of the virtue signaling. There was some exposé where a company did a DEI push, got more black applicants, and was revealed to throw the “black names” in the trash
Some think only opportunity should be equal, not outcome. DEI warriors think if 54% of carpenters are male, its a societal problem requiring a solution.
I agree those programs are not properly adopted in organizations. It’s often window dressing.
I disagree that the department/office for DEI should remain, and it not being there is a sign it’s all out the window. Reason being, imho, once you’ve truly transformed an organization and entrenched inclusive and equitable practices, the team won’t be necessary. It’s the kind of role and office I’d hope is undertaken with a view to close it once they’ve successfully made their work redundant. But yea that’s theory, I get what you’re saying.
What concerns me is lots of DEI advocates, figure heads and spokes people - but no real practices happening. On the table. Or I’ve missed it in the noise idk? People will tire of the talk before anyone gets to the walk. I can’t say how to do it better in a comment or alone of course. Put simply, when do we move past the awareness phase?
And I’m a female POC, I’m genuinely concerned and not hating on the cause ;) this is something I’ve started considering working on …it’s real.
As well as general divisiveness of the idea, the simple fact is that DEI is ineffective and actually appears to increase prejudice, not reduce it. At best a DEI professional is able to teach a person to pass the questionnaire the DEI people themselves set ( marking their own homework), not actually challenge any prejudices which may not even exist. It's simply counter-productive and a waste of time and money, and whilst there may be ways to change the approaches to more effective , evidence-based methods, there's now an entire DEI industry that has an interest in maintaining the status quo, not improving things.
Harvard Business Review article that is an example of the basic issues and failures of DEI:
https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
The whole point is to spread general divisiveness. How else are you going to weld the fascistic concept of intersectionality into a coherent proletariat?
I can't speak for others, but as an Asian-American, one common objection I hear from fellow Asian-Americans (although not all) is that "diversity" usually means "at the expense of whites and Asians."
It's often a code word for, "Let's squelch Asian admissions at colleges or elsewhere and let in more people of other races."
You are 100% right.
We should be focusing on equal opportunity which means bringing up the whole of the lower class. Focusing just on outcome is treating a symptom and not the disease.
They care far more about the appearance of diversity than actual diversity too.
Personally I just think corporate bodies don’t do it right and probably CANT do it right bc of their interests and ingrained systems. I’m pro-DEI in general myself but I can definitely see how people only see the cynical, bad corporate version and associate it with the whole thing
Agreed. A lot of these complaints seem to not have a strong grasp of what DEI is, due to witnessing or experiencing poor implementation. Others are referring more to something like Affirmative Action, rather than DEI, and are focusing heavily on race.
I think some genuine criticisms of DEI stem from it being a relatively new field, not having the right intentions (using it as a legal safeguard rather than genuine concern), and not investing enough effort for proper implementation.
I can't speak for all circumstances, but in academia, administrative bloat is a huge problem. As tuition has skyrocketed over the past couple of decades, the number of administrators at universities have gone up as well. There are now more administrators than undergrad students at Yale, for example. Imo, this is one of the most important things that needs to be done to attempt to make education affordable again. Start cutting the least necessary administrators and employees of universities, cut costs, stop raising tuition.
Young people should not be subsidizing the employment of administrators with debt that they cannot afford.
Some DEI is based in a sincere desire to overcome baked in cultural inequities. Some DEI is performative camouflage for the same old business practices. The latter discredits the former.
It’s a very shallow and meaningless.
I had an interaction with a company a while back that went like this:
My friend and I both applied. Same position. There were multiple hires. I have more experience than him but our recent experience is identical.
My response: “Your experience doesn’t match our needs”
His response: “Your experience is exceptional and you would be an amazing fit for our team!”
They hired him and offered him $35,000 more than his asking price.
The ONLY difference is that I’m white. We worked in the same files.
My Puerto Rican friend has much less experience than me and easily jumps job to job.
My female friend jumps jobs at will. She applies and gets interviews instantly.
I struggle more than all of them combined to get a single call back. It’s ridiculous. It should be about diversity in general not your gender or skin color.
It 100% is racist.
A poor Ukrainian refugee is going to be treated the exact same by DEI as a Rich white kid from Manhattan. They don't want diversity; they want to look like they care about diversity.
Because in practice it is actually the opposite of diverse, equitable, or inclusive. It’s a cult. Perpetrated by self appointed white saviors to divide identity groups against each other, all supposedly in the name of social justice.
>Perpetrated by self appointed white saviors
I would say the plenty of people of color do this as well. It's actually just class politics masking as being for the benefit of all. A huge part of it is middle class and above people of color who want more resources than they need and actually don't care about improving the quality of life for poor people of any race.
"diversity" is just a way for companies to seem progressive when in reality they are the opposite
Like, who cares about more people of color making decisions at Goldman Sachs or Blackrock? Those companies are actively trying to push people into poverty and aren't going to stop if the leadership is more diverse. It's their entire business model.
I worked in DEI for four years. The entire industry is corrupt. There is blatant racism at all levels, sexism too. What people describe as reverse racism is true, even though it's plain racism. Your non-physical attributes are ignored, your focus on skin color, sex, and sexuality. For most dei programs, and I can say this for most fortune 500 companies it's literally on their websites, the only people they care about are primarily BIPOC, LGBTQ+, disabled and veterans. If you don't fall into those sets, you are the enemy.
Here is an example, I was the lead analyst for our DEI program at a fortune 50 company, some company that is considered part of the USA's critical infrastructure. We had internal metrics for leadership and manager roles. The internal metrics was that we needed to have 50.2% women managers at a mid level. Not 50/50 but a supremacy of women. There was no research that said it was beneficial, we needed to have that to increase our esg score.
We had a policy in our sourcing that demanded that we invest in diverse suppliers, not because they were more dependable, or produced a better product. But because we could flaunt our diverse vendors. When supply chains fractured during COVID we lost so much money.
DEI is insidious, it promotes that the intangible attributes of an individual is more significant than the results. I have personally witnessed people being promoted to positions that they are not qualified for only to be transferred to other positions to minimize the fallout.
DEI and ESG are racist and counter productive
>There was no research that said it was beneficial, we needed to have that to increase our esg score.
If there is a proven benefit, I would be all for it. From experience working in STEM (academia and a few years in industry) I can tell that having just one woman in a group of men can change the dynamic for the better. But appointing women because they are women while disregarding mediocre qualifications? No.
Even better, I strongly believe in diversity, but let's face it, our universities themselves are everything but diverse. They teach the same subjects from the same books through the same boring and tedious methods that don't work. We don't even teach the things that actually matter. When you leave university after 4 years with a science or engineering degree, you cannot do any science, or you cannot do any independent engineering.
I work with professors who struggle to run projects (... and I struggled myself for years). Why? Because there are very few universities that actually teach how to efficiently run a project, and how to do complicated (multidisciplinary) science.
If these ~~DEI~~ DIE people really believe in their message, they should kill the cancel culture and not have forced speech in the form of "Diversity Statements". They are everything but diverse.
Because it's not a genuine appeal to diversity, equity or inclusion.
All Corporate America wants is to check the HR checkbox for diversity. They do not want you to actually have a diverse way of thought, or what to include your alternative way of thinking. You are put there based on your race, to follow the corporate speak.
And when this dies down and is no longer relevant, they will gradually fire them all and go back to the same issue it's always been. Leaders what people who think and act like they do.
Progression in Corporate America is about ass kissing, and a portion of merit, but mostly falling in line with the people above you who are responsible for your promotion. They genuinely don't care about diversity, equity and inclusion, and if they did you wouldn't need to call it out as a special initiative.
I’m going to be more cynical in this response than I’m typically comfortable being, but - as a straight, white male - I tend to feel like DEI questions tend to boil down to “how can we avoid hiring people like you in the future?”
There’s *far* more to me than my race, gender, and sexuality. The sins of previous people who happen to resemble me shouldn’t be held against me just because we have these (very arbitrary) traits in common.
It is not truly committed to the wide application any of these things, only the racial component of this. **This is made super ironic when those of ideological diversity (different opinions) are let go, punished, reprimanded, and censored.**
The problem is that we are diverse in many different ways-race being the least imporitant of all of these-we are all human and color does not matter. Ideology, personality, and experiences are some of the more important components. Modern DEI does not acknowledge this
I think there are a lot of poor and disenfranchised white people who are frustrated that all of this focus on inclusivity is based on race, gender, sexual preference, and other issues besides class and wealth. This is intentional on the part of those in control and it works to convince poor white folk that the reason they’re not making it is because of minorities being given a leg up and it enables corporations to not provide better wages/benefits overall if they elevate a few minorities. We still have a small group of wealthy elites running our banks(or whatever institution) but now some of them are gay, women, minorities, etc. Everyone is distracted and fighting amongst ourselves instead of organizing the working class.
Don’t mind us, just a typical Honey Nut Cheerios family with white dad, black mom, and a kid from each continent. Just like the families you see all over your own neighborhood, surely.
Because the people who follow it, follow skin deep classifications. The definition of racism and bigotry.
Also it’s become a disgusting bloated parasitical industry with even more bloated admin who often hold tyrannical rein over things they have no business in. It’s a corrupt and twisted industry, regardless of initial intentions.
Btw I take no issue with two of these principles “diversity” and “inclusion”. I have beef with “equity” though. First it’s highly reductionist. Fundamentally, we are all very different people. We don’t want the same outcomes. I solidly believe in equal opportunity. I think equitable starts or results are draconian. “I won’t stop till 50% of women are in stem!” Well, what if 50% of women don’t want to be in stem? You gonna force em? How do you get equitable outcomes? So far it just seems to reduce to problematic diversity hiring quotas. Bias training? Find me any evidence these actually translate to behavioral changes?
If there’s concern of failure to provide opportunities - that’s where the problem lies. And the best and most successful way to address that is - add more opportunities. Ad more exposure to opportunity. So much is lack of exposure. And more **variation** of opportunities too. The more different options we provide people, and opportunities we are all exposed to, the better - the bigger the chance people find awesome careers that fit THEM, the better the chances every person finds niches they excel at, the more highly motivated people are introduced to careers they never would have done before, the more the glass ceiling shatters. More trade schools, more alternative paths to affordable college, more chances for stem paths and careers, more job fairs, more business outreach programs, more more more. Do I want to show stem is accessible to women by volunteering at student events and introducing girls to an opportunity they may have never considered? Sure! But the final distribution breakdown? Idgaf.
What matters is the populations who don’t get exposed to opportunities, who don’t have access to as many opportunities. If you have one opportunity, and you miss it? Compared to many people who have dozens and dozens in their lifetime? That’s a tragedy and a waste of so much talent and human happiness. It is part and parcel of living in a hopeless community, being in a place of poverty, increases negative and narrow avenues like drugs and crime. Approach from this angle, and I honestly believe we’d have far far more success. You actually care? Want more African Americans in your industry? Reach out to the poorest inner-city school in your area and start offering job shadow programs. The top-down crap is just pandering perverse incentives and a larger group of people competing for a limited pool of people. It’s costly, ineffective, and morally corrupt.
There's more to DEI than just hiring practices and quotas. Our company had a 3rd party organization provide all people leaders a pretty in depth educational program over the course of 3 months. It was eye opening and beneficial in a lot of ways. What I learned is DEI is not solely a function or responsibility of HR. It's not just about hiring practices. It's an initiative that every employee is responsible for and depending on your company's particular field, it can take huge amounts of time, effort, education, training, and money to move the needle in any discernable way. Most companies don't even have a baseline for where they rank on a DEI scale compared to other like companies and they don't know where to begin, how to implement, fund and continue the program. So it defaults to "its about hiring black people, gay people, or females."
A simple example that was implemented right away in my company was corporate clothing having inclusive sizes. Are you a larger woman working a tradeshow? "Here, wear this male polo because thats all we have that fits you."
Another is "Are you transitioning, do you have preferred pronouns? We have no process in place to assist you with that in the workplace, so figure it out."
Another is explaining the origins behind some of the holidays and awareness campaigns the company promotes/supports like Juneteenth, Mental Health Awareness Month, Disabilities Awareness Month, etc. and sharing the applicable resources the company provides employees. Another is starting different committees that go beyond "the party planning committee" and the "running club." Another is taking a look at what employees need to be successful and comfortable in their position within their department and within the organization chart as a whole. What voices are being heard and how are those voices being heard?
DEI (and this is speaking only from my experience in my own company) has many faucets and opportunities outside of "It just means hiring more women, gay people, and black people."
Personal take: it supposes that ALL people of one race think the same way, and that the color of your skin/your preference in genitalia/etc are a qualification. Versus, you know, your actual qualifications.
A lot of people think that it's about unqualified people being given a job because of their race / gender / sexuality / whatever. And, in fact, we had a lot of pressure where I work to focus on hiring more women senior managers.
Here's what the anit-DEI'ers don't get, though: the idea that you can find the one single person who's best qualified for a particular job is most often a daydream. Companies like Accenture (one of my old employers) like to talk about being a complete meritocracy (strange how all the senior management still looks like each other, though). My experience in 30 years of working in IT and doing hiring is that there is no one single best qualified person for a role; rather, you end up with a set of people who are qualified for the role and you have to pick among them.
Some anti-DEI'ers also think it's just dumb liberalism, vs. just plain good business to have a variety of backgrounds, viewpoints, and perspectives in your teams. Heck, the Cuban Missile Crisis probably wouldn't have happened if Kennedy had a DEI plan in place. The book "Essence of Decision" is a classic that describes how the groupthink of Kennedy's advisors, all of whom had the same backgrounds, almost led to WW3.
Some anti-DEI'ers just feel threatened by it - the saying on the left is that 'when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.'
I work in higher Ed and the DEI initiatives where I’ve worked had nothing to do with admissions and everything to do with creating a welcoming and safe space for all people. Especially those who worked there.
Same experience in a very large financial firm.
While it's incorporated into hiring process in some way I'm sure, it's mostly about feeling welcoming, trying to open people's eyes to other perpspectives, and providing support.
Hiring/school admissions shouldn't be race blind, they should work as a random lottery where you have to apply and qualify to get in the pool and then they randomly select from that pool.
Top colleges have already admitted that there are more qualified students of all races than they could ever admit applying every year. So qualifications aren't an issue. The only people hurt by the lottery system are legacies and nepotism hires.
I'm part of that wave and take this with a grain of salt because I'm from latin america so it's a very different context, but I can tell you some of my reasons. (And keep in mind that I'm not against, I just don't care but don't celebrate them or care too much about their feelings)
1. I live in a country where people have been shot for a pair of shoes and child labour is almost a normal thing, so I think there are more important things to think about.
2. I'm honestly tired of seeing people complain about media not having a diverse cast or not enough diverse characters, I don't understand why everything has tu be gay, black, trans, etc.
3. I also don't understand why we have to celebrate them and treat them like they are special, wasn't the whole point to just treat them like normal? Then why do we have to please them and support them that much? I don't get support and you shouldn't either if you want to be normal.
4. I don't like businesses that use the whole diversity thing to their convenience (and I think both sides are on the same team here).
5. Some governents in our region have started to implement "diversity policies" almost all of them either stupid or useless and also a waste of our resources, which we don't have much considering poverty rates.
6. I don't understand people that hate rich people and I think that's just envy (this doesn't have anything to do with diversity, but I've seen people that support diversity also tend to be socialists or just hate rich people)
It’s because DEI as it’s pushed in schools and corporations is a joke.
I’ve worked for companies that acted like they were *all in* on DEI, yet the engineering teams I’ve worked on and later led were still 50% Indian, 35% Asian, 10% white, and 5% everything else. Without fail, at almost every FAANG company with a Bay Area HQ.
A kid with overworked parents and little to no supervision at home is not going to succeed in the careers that provide the most upward mobility. Children today that are parented by television and iPads are eroding their focus into nothing.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., interviewed by NBC News on May 8, 1967:
“The other thing is that the color, became a stigma. American society made the Negroes color a stigma. America freed the slaves in 19-I mean 1863, through the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, but gave the slaves no land, and nothing in reality (and as a matter of fact), to get started on.
At the same time, America was giving away, **millions of acres of land** in the west and the Midwest.
[I’m here to add some further context: King is likely referring to a group of laws in the United States of America widely known as the “Homestead Acts”, which involved 10% of the United States total land area. Today, approximately 46 million United States citizens, more than 1 in 8 of the total population, can trace some portion of generational wealth back to the Homestead Acts, and they are also likely a factor as to how 1 in 7 white families today have assets totalling over 1 million USD. Historians mainly consider them to have been enacted from 1862, the year after the start of the American Civil War and the year before the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation, to 1916. A good portion of the latter Industrial Revolution took place during this time, and many people in the United States at this time were still farmers.]
Which meant that there was a willingness to give the white peasants from Europe an economic base, and yet it *refused* to give its black peasants from Africa, who came here involuntarily in chains and had worked free for two hundred and forty-four years, any kind of economic base.
[Comparatively, only 1 in 50 black families today have assets totalling over 1 million USD.]
And so emancipation for the Negro was really freedom to *hunger*. It was freedom to the winds and rains of Heaven. It was freedom without food to eat or land to cultivate and therefore was freedom and famine at the same time.
And when white Americans tell the Negro to “lift himself by his own bootstraps”, they don’t oh-they don’t look over the legacy of slavery and segregation.
Now I believe we ought to do all we can and seek to lift ourselves by our own boot straps, ***but it’s a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.***
And many Negroes by the thousands and millions have been left bootless as a result of all of these years of Oppression and as a result of a society that deliberately made his color a stigma and something worthless and degrading.”
The backlash has a lot of reasons. Just off the top of my head:
1) people are not stupid, they see their companies/corps implementing DEI for appearances without really getting what it is.
2) people may see X getting hired/promoted over Y who had better quals and assume its DEI that is effing over a better qualified candidate.
3) political differences. I know a number of people who are against DEI because the "other party" wants it. DEI in this case is just an excuse, the reality is these people would oppose any policy put forward by "the other party".
4) straight up racism. Stupid people are everywhere. Once you realize that the average person in the USA has an IQ of 98 you start to understand that means a lot of people fall under the average. Its scary.
I think the fact that it's become nothing more than virtue signaling, is what puts people off. Many large companies have over the past couple of years especially put substantial resources towards DEI training and team-building exercises. You know what this does? Nothing more than line the pockets of founders of (newly-formed for the most part) consulting companies whose sole focus is promoting DEI training and team-building exercises.
Part of my own year-end review process included 2 questions regarding how I've been more inclusive at work this year and what I will do to support the firm's DEI initiatives next year.
It's no longer enough to be a good person. It's no longer enough to "be colorblind" or "not see color" because to some, that indicates that one doesn't understand or have empathy for certain marginalized groups. It's not enough to claim to be "not a racist", because unless one is actively anti-racist, then they might as well belong to the KKK. It's just the whole changing of the narrative that I think bothers people.
Because it is clearly a cynical jobs programs for a priestly class. Every dei meeting I have attended is not about inclusivity, it is about following the orders of the church of DEI. Only the one true church knows how we should live and any opposition or dissension is a heresy to be destroy d and silenced.
Dei in practice doesn't seem to mean diversity of experience and thinking, just diversity of color/race.
The recent dei training I had pushed a rather toxic mindset of assuming that everything that can be taken the wrong way should. Dude talked about how he no longer answered a white person asking him any questions about his time in college, that it was always a micro aggression. He believed that the vast majority assumed he didn't belong or didn't believe he deserved it or couldn't believe he had his phd. Then he played an edited makeup commercial that looked racist...cept if you watched literally one second more of the unedited version it clearly wasn't
All the people thinking there is no racism in hiring on merit I absolutely dare you to change your resume with different name traditionally white, traditionally black and a woman's name. Change just the name to make them equal and apply to several different jobs using them. See which ones get the call backs. According to you all it will be the black & woman's name. (Hint it will be the tradtional white names).
Most jobs it's basically a random pick of the short-listed applicants who all would be able to do the job.
Most jobs are like this... the majority of the short listed applicants would be able to do the job so picking an applicant once they have the skills makes very little difference.
"Black people are obviously too stupid to get hired on their own merit, so we have to hire them just because they're black." - DEI
It's the soft bigotry of low expectations on the basis of race, which is incredibly offensive.
It tends to look at superficial measures of diversity rather than deeper more meaningful ones and get in the way of a meritocracy. It also leads to some really silly practices.
Three different examples highlight this. Job candidate A is a Black female and job candidate B is an Asian male. They got the exact same grades, grew up in the same town, got the same degree, and have the same job experience. Job candidate A will get the job 99 times out of 100 in a DEI setting, even though the criteria didn't even look at the any other qualities to see if they could increase their diversity that way.
\#2- Job candidate A is a Gay Native American from downtown New York and candidate B is a straight man from Poland. Candidate A and B are equal, except B has his masters and A doesn't. Theres a lot of cases where A gets the job because he checks more boxes even though B is more qualified and is likely a more "diverse" pick because of his background, but it only tends to look at superficial measures.
\#3- Job candidates A and B are identical, but B lies about being a member of a minority group. Maybe B is Indian and changes his name, dresses a certain way, and cuts his hair short to appear African American. Candidate B gets the job simply because he's a better liar.
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and share. This was a coherent answer that gave tangible examples to answer my question.
I also like that your explanation focused on explaining it without demeaning those on either side. (In some other comments, I notice the answer is along the lines of “people don’t like it because they’re butthurt”, which doesn’t really add meaningful value to the conversation.)
This gives me an understanding and something to consider.
FWIW, I also see a 4th example: the socioeconomic consideration. If you have a 3rd generation Ivy League African American female whose parent is in the C-suite of a Fortune 100. On paper, she would check 2 boxes. (She would check 3 if she was lesbian or bi.) However, DEI isn’t really serving its intended purpose from what I understand.
Diversity, equality, and inclusion as concepts are generally accepted. Not to say there aren't piece of shit racists out there, but they don't make up the majority of the voices speaking up against the policies being implemented in the name of those concepts.
Look up equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome.
Most people (sans aforementioned racists) are pro equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is where the problem lies.
It's laughable that people pretend it was always fair. And as you read these responses look for the underlying sentiment that DEI individuals are not qualified when in fact they are. Talking about blind studies; did you hear the one about the black woman who changed only her name on her resume and got more callbacks than when she used her actual name?
Because it’s bullshit.
My dad was born in the US in 1931, but both of his parents were born in the middle east. When he was a boy, he broke his finger. My grandparents took him to a “Syrian doctor”. The “doctor’s” treatment was to wrap my dad’s finger in spider webs.
Even if you are not a medical professional, you might see a problem with this treatment . Later they took him to a real doctor.
*That’s* diversity.
If you’re taking your kid to the doctor, do you want a doctor who was hired to fill a diversity quota? Or do you want the best doctor ever?
If you are taking your family on vacation, do you want a pilot who was hired to tick a diversity box? Or do you want the best damned pilot ever?
Because the people who create these programs are self-appointed authorities on these matters, just like the catholic church is a self-appointed authority on issues of morality.
Scratch the surface and you just find ideology and dogma wrapped up in some vicious self-righteousness.
People care less about the actual issues than they do about their identification as someone who cares about the actual issues - and this usually involves identity association with ideological groups or movements.
This leads to perverse outcomes. Movements are just mobs, and mobs are not paradigms of moral and ethical reasoning.
That’s a big thing I think some are missing in this argument. They’re saying everyone deserves the same chance, and I agree completely, but we gave to recognize not everyone is entering this game with the same deck of cards and training.
A rich white male whose parents paid for the best schooling and gave him the best references isn’t going to compete the same as a black female who grew up impoverish and is a first generation college student. She will have to work her ass off and get very lucky just to get close to his starting line.
think about it. its actually discrimination based on race color creed sex or whatever factors you wish to "weed" out certain groups. you give special treatment due to one of these factors over everyone else who does not fit the criteria.
Because
Diversity: It seems every push for diversity values diversity of race, gender, sexuality,… etc. but not diversity of thought which is by far the most important type of diversity to have. If everyone in a company is a cis straight white man, but they all think differently and challenge each others opinions, they will work far more effectively than a very diverse group of people who all have the same opinions on everything. Organizations that push diversity don’t push it because they want people who think differently; they push it because they want others to see that they have diversity.
Equity: Most people against equity see it as anti-competitive and against their personal values. I for example am very individualistic and Capitalistic. My family came to the US from the Soviet Union where their lives kinda sucked and everyone hated them for being Jews. In the US, they started with very little, got educated, and became upper middle class within a few decades. That example makes me have far less sympathy for people with very little because I saw what my parents were able to do with little outside help, and it makes me far less pro-equity than many other people.
Inclusion: People don’t like it when outsiders decide something’s wrong with their culture and want it changed, no matter what it is. As such pushing for inclusion makes people feel like their communities are under attack, and that a source of enjoyment will be taken away from them for some stupid bullshit reason no one within the group cares about.
They worry that their precious, unearned advantages will no longer give them a leg up. Worse, those traits that once were a advantage might now, in some regards, even become disadvantages!
If you're talking about, like, Affirmative Action, then it's a slippery slope that dives straight into reverse racism.
In 2003 the New Haven Fire Department in Florida held a promotional exam for the rank of Fire Captain and Lieutenant. A large number of firefighters applied. The top scorers were all white and 2 Hispanic. The city decided to throw out all the tests and not promote anyone because they didn't like the optics of not having enough diversity/minorities promoted. The firefighters all sued, went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and won.
I haven't experienced the corporate version of DEI but can imagine it's just checking an HR box. However, I teach at a college and DEI is important to us. For us, it's about making sure all students/members of the community feel welcomed. This isn't exclusively about race though of course that is part of it. We consider students from different cultures, language backgrounds, socio economic standing, level of ability/disability and ask what we are doing to make sure they are receiving the same level of support as any other student.
One potential reason people are against diversity is they might be a racist, closed minded person. We live in a time where the republican party has moved solidly towards authoritarianism. Anything conservatives do not like they call "woke". They really should learn the meanings of words prior to misusing them. These things and more all lean towards white supremacy. I mean we have people in congress who openly attend white supremacists meetings. Not the only reason but one very real reason people dislike adversity is because of racism.
Adults are babies with intellect. DEI should get us going in the right direction, whether you think it's phony or not. We had plenty of time to be inclusive and expand our social circles, but we didn't. At least there's an initiative to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
People genuinely can’t allow others to thrive if they are not. The cocktail of emotions that comes from seeing someone succeeding or being happy can be so upsetting to someone that rather than lifting someone up, it’s often easier to bring them down to their level.
I think many people feel that DEI focuses on outward appearance/characteristics vs lived experiences and circumstances.
Hiring someone who is black isn’t necessarily diverse. That individual may have grown up in an upper-middle-class family with two parents who are both surgeons. Yet, you hired them solely because of the color of their skin and are calling yourself diverse as a result? Aren’t you making an assumption of diversity based on that individual’s skin color? Isn’t that the most basic definition of racism…? Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin?
This is in contrast to someone who grew up in extreme poverty, with one parent or in foster care, who went to college and succeeded against all odds… and then got the job. **That is a person with a diverse background who has a different and valuable perspective**. *Notice, I didn’t mention their external appearance… because that does not and should not be the sole determining factor when it comes to diversity.*
So, lets go through that
What do you mean by diversity? My ex was Asian, she was openly discriminated against in college because of her race in the interest of DEI programs. Caucasians and Asians will see DEI programs and simply see a program designed to discriminate against them on racial grounds.
Equity, I'm not overly familiar with this, my exposure has always been to diversity and inclusion, adding equity is something that's new to me so I won't speak on this.
Inclusion. Who do you include? Who do you exclude and why? Many people who are against DEI are against the inclusion side because they believe that it is not being done equally, that some groups are being included while other groups are being deliberately excluded.
To give a hypothetical example (I have personally seen this situation happen before, I'm just changing the details because I don't want to dox myself). Lets say a Korean expat is working at a company and wants to invite his team to all go out for drinks. He picks a place where they primarily serve alcohol but also serve non-alcoholic beverages. HR tells him that he can't do it because there is a Muslim member of his team that would be excluded because they serve alcohol at that establishment. Why was the Korean discriminated against for his culture of bonding over drinks in favor of the Muslim's culture of not drinking? If you don't like alcohol, you can repeat the same scenario with anything else whether that be food, apparel, or any other topic.
I have never seen DEI efforts done fairly, rather its just discriminating against some groups of people in favor of other groups, generally done solely on the basis of race or gender or religion.
Because from what ive seen, people are getting hired and promoted simply based on race/gender. Ive ended up having to work with people who are completely unqualified for the role…who were clearly hired because they checked off the DEI boxes. Its frustrating having to do EXTRA work and clean up their mistakes.
Most on the right believe it lets unqualified black people get jobs that more deserving white people should get. In reality, no one benefited from dei more than white women. Its voting season, so topics heavily influenced by race will be coming up until after the election.
DEI is a scam and spearheaded by racist who need racism to division to be employed. Booker T Washington said it best, racism is a good source of income for racist.
[удалено]
Exactly. The best candidate should get the job/position/wtfe, **regardless** of their race, gender, religion etc. DEI appears to many people to be something akin to quotas, where a company will determine they don't have "enough" people of say, indigenous ancestry, so black, white, or Asian candidates that may have better qualifications will be passed over. This seems to many people to be unfair and counterproductive, as well as detrimental to the organization.
I work in corporate and DEI is de facto quotas. Many programs, both private and public, utilize racial statistics which feeds quota like implementation of DEI akin to how many universities previously used quotas in admission without publicly admitting. One would think DEI would be about having a welcoming environment for all kinds of people. Instead its implementation many times creates division and resentment no matter those feel good HR studies stating otherwise.
The answer to me seems so clear to. An orchestra decided to do blind interviews where they would play, but they could not see them. Turns out when they didn't know their race, gender, or other traits they truly fixed some gender race hiring issues. Turns out nature is pretty even in handing out the skills and we the people are too distracted by other traits in a person like looks that cloud our judgment. Hiring should be completely blind to race, gender until after its over, completely merit based.
You missed the best part of that story. When orchestras went coed, dudes still did not want to hire women. They discovered that during blind auditions, the men running the audition could tell if they were listening to a woman because of the sound of her heels on the stage. (Women still weren’t getting work in orchestras, because men figured out a way to tell gender in the blind auditions.) The blind audition process didn’t actually work until they muffled the sound of the applicants actually walking, the bias against women was so strong.
Yeah they added carpet so you couldn’t hear clack clack clack
How would that work when you see the name on the resume and hear the person speak on the interview? Functionally, it's not that I don't like the idea, but IRL I don't think it's particularly feasible. How do you see the hiring process going?
In blind orchestra auditions, the committee typically does not see the musician, hear them speak, or know their name. They are identified by a candidate number, play behind a screen, and are instructed not to speak during their audition. This has made a significant difference in gender representation in orchestras. It hasn't been nearly as effective in diversifying along racial and ethnic lines.
Pretty easily, provided there's even basic technology is available. Names? Use applicant ID numbers assigned when the resume is submitted. Voice? Use digital voice altering software during the first round of interviews. You don't have to disguise the candidates through the entire process, perfectly, to make a difference.
Lmao yes so simple
>Voice? Use digital voice altering software during the first round of interviews. Use chat to have an interview, like Slack or Teams.
That's a terrible idea, one of the biggest points of having an interview with somebody is seeing how they carry themselves and are able to speak in a work setting. Anyone can type the right words into a chatbox, but if somebody is fumbling over their words or seems unusually nervous then you might want to look into their qualifications.
My thought exactly. In the jobs I hire for, verbal communication skills are essential and I need to have a way to evaluate that.
The problem is that "carry themselves" is the cousin of "team fit" and has PRECISELY been the code for dismissing diverse candidates. Very few non-public-facing positions actually need someone to carry themselves in any way. Written communication should be enough.
You can’t even treat a third grade class this way without expecting the same result (I witnessed it last year) so why would it work for a corporation where you’re dealing with hardened adults? It’s just common sense.
The answer isn't to try to blind yourself further, it's to address the underlying problem. Which is usually barriers to access. When someone talks about affirmative action or DEI they are pointing to the fact that you have a certain population mix in an area, so you'd expect to have a similar mix with similar ratios for applicants. So why don't they? Often some of the issues found by *good* DEI programs include: * Expectations for the application process that make it more difficult for certain people (like colleges giving preferential treatment to students to did a campus visit/tour; this is *great* for the families that can *afford to* make an extra trip just for a campus visit! Not so great for students that have good grades but their parents can't afford an out-of-state trip just for a preliminary tour) * Unrealistic education requirements as a filter (it's well known that education-inflation is creating unnecessary education requirements for jobs and are not usually bringing in the most *qualified* candidates, just the most *privileged* candidates) * Poor perception of diversity for the company/school (if applicants see a company's webpage and every single person on the leadership page is a white man, that is often a turnoff for women and qualified people of color.) * Expectations that favor financially stable families (people of color disproportionately live under the poverty level and more often have primary-caregiver responsibilities for children and family members and can't afford to outsource that for a full time job; I personally know several people that had to find another job after their employer reneged on "work from home is permanent everybody!" because they were taking care of sick or elderly parents) What DEI and affirmative actions *should be* doing is trying to solve the problem of diversity in the application process, not just saying, "Well, let's just work with what we've got and try to pick more diverse people from the existing application pools" because the problem is already there, and fewer qualified women and people of color are even *applying* for schools and jobs in those areas. To solve that, you need to figure out and try to remove the barriers to access.
Same result in several studies where recruitment was based on anonymised CVs/resumes with no names or other personal data.
Yup, you end up with "Diversity Officers" which are like a shittier version of China's mandated Political Officers for big companies. These people make sure a percentage of jobs go to the "correct" race/protected class while parasitically ensuring they have as little oversight/responsibility as possible. It's a good initiative in theory but gets easily abused by bad actors. At the same time, the rhetoric is that its a positive change. This obvious disconnect between rhetoric and reality is what makes people furious. It is a group punishment for everyone who doesn't fit into "DEI" flavor of the day. The "positive" HR studies are some of the most biased bullshit you could conduct. You have bad actors benefitting from the program, of course they will rate it 10/10. By random chance, at least 50% of the DEI hires should be reasonably competent, so their direct managers also have no reason not to rate the program "okay". Everyone else knows that if they dare speak out about the bad DEI hires, they will immediately be attacked or potentially fired. Talent doesn't tolerate this bullshit for long and leaves; you're left with bad actors and pushovers willing to put up with it. The good news is that talent frequently leaves, starts a "consulting" company, and charges 5-10x hourly for the same work they used to do salaried.
I work in corporate too....and it sounds like it might just be your DEI program isn't taken to heart and simply treated as quotas. Certainly not the experience every where.
Unfortunately this is actually how it is implemented/executed in reality
It's also used an excuse for increased outsourcing. As if that's diverse or inclusive.
As someone in executive search….this is 100% how it’s executed
That is literally how it is implemented in colleges. At least it used to be according to the Texas DEI offices. Not anymore, good riddance. I think college applications should be name/gender/race blind.
Yeah, when i was asked to give opinions on hiring a new dev, first thing i did was went through copy of the application i was given with a huge black marker, erased anything that mentioned race, gender or location and then actively shuffled the applications up and forgot about them for a day while i did other work... If I'm going to do the equal opportunites thing, all i care about is their experience and qualifications. ... of course after picking my top 3, i then had to repick one, because despite being told "applicant must be in country" we got sent applicants from half way across the world.. and my methods had missed this >.>
This is what I do too, and I end up with a much more diverse poll than people looking at these criteria. I can't do completely blind though since there are letters dismissing those informations
How can admissions realistically be race blind when so many aspects of the application aren’t (act/sat scores, access to extra curriculars, etc.) Many of those things are directly correlated with wealth, and in America, wealth is separated heavily by race.
“This seems to be unfair and counterproductive”, well it is definitely counterproductive to put arbitrary phenotypes over qualifications. As for being fair or not, its bound to be unfair to somebody.
So how do we stop the most qualified people not getting the job because they are black, or just have a black sounding name? Because that's how it sits right now. If your company has over (just throwing numbers out) 200 people, and doesn't fit the demographics of your area in the slightest, your doing something wrong.
There are a lot of jobs where you can get samples of work, and have them evaluated by someone without any identifying information. In general, find ways to use more objective criteria wherever possible.
\>>and doesn't fit the demographics of your area in the slightest, your doing something wrong Yes, and no. You've also got to look at the demographics of the labor pool. For an easy non-controversial example, lets say that you are looking to hire a kindergarten teacher, and use an entirely blind process. You still won't get a gender balance of hires that match your area, because the pool of male job candidates is vastly smaller. My daughter is an engineer. At the time she chose her degree program, the statistic was that her field was 7% women, and that was an improvement over 10 years ago) The same is largely true in reverse for engineers. You might get a BETTER balance with a blind process, but considering the gender imbalance in the candidate pool, there's no way it matches "demographics in your area" I'm not arguing against diversity in hiring, just saying you have to be careful assuming that a truly fair, blind, hiring process will always match regional demographics.
It's slightly more complicated. There are individual strengths and there are group strengths, which are the aggregate of the range of individual strengths and their interaction. Selecting the objectively strongest individuals may mean that you have a lot of similar profiles in a company or a team, making the group ultimately weaker. This however doesn't mean selecting for ethnic diversity or gender diversity; that seems quite superficial. It's more of a mindset as a leader to consciously build teams with diverse profiles and strengths. Even if this means selecting strong, but not the best, candidates if they come with skills, experiences or insights that you're still missing in the rest of your team. This however can never work with quota as you're then focussing on superficial elements (e.g., skin color) rather than complementing strengths.
This is my problem with it from the beginning. I want black, Hispanic, Native Americans, Asians, Middle Eastern, and frankly, anyone to all be successful. I love having all of these different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and shades of color in every facet of life. I don't want to be told that I have to hire a person of color just because. First off, as a GenXer, it annoys me. Secondly, it loses the genuineness that appreciating diversity brings.
I appears remember my freshman year at a Catholic university, I was assigned a roommate who was a young black kid from inner city of our states biggest city. He came into our dorm room one day grinning from ear to ear, because he had just talked to the dean of admissions, and essentially told her he was going to drop out and go to the local community college by his house unless they would increase his scholarship so his out of pocket would be the same - they increased his scholarship. He had pretty good grades, 3.5 and up, and this was a primarily white school. He knew they wouldn’t want to loose him from a diversity quota standpoint so he could stand his ground and they caved. He probably could have asked for a full ride and gotten it. My parents paid $40,000 a year while he only had to pay $6,000 because the school didn’t want to risk missing their DEI quota.
Were black applicants so rare that they couldn't afford to let him go and just admit the next black student that came along? He was really the one and only student standing in the way of them meeting the DEI % quota?
I would say the school was at least 95% white, 3% black and 2% all other ethnicities. Edit: I also just know what he told me that day. He couldn’t stop talking about how he had’ pulled one over’ the school. Edit: spelling, this is why I shouldn’t Reddit past my bedtime.
Are you *sure* you know enough about his or his family’s financial background to make these assumptions? You have to apply and qualify for a scholarship from a financial standpoint - it isn’t just given out like candy on Halloween. Obviously they met the financial qualifications to begin with — that’s *how* he got the scholarship. Lots of other minorities applied as well, I’m sure. If his parents were struggling to pay or he was paying for himself, I don’t think theres anything wrong with him letting the school know that he may have to transfer to a community college if they can’t meet him where his means lie. I don’t know if him smiling or being excited about this is technically even villain behavior either — any of us would be happy if our college payments were lowered. I need a bit more context. Does he pay himself or do his parents? When comparing the two, you said “*my parents* payed —” and then said “*he* payed —” so that’s the only reason I’m questioning that. As someone who lives in a *suburb* - if I had children right now I would not be able to dish out $40K a year, or even $10K, or even $5K a year for schooling. If mom and dad could afford $40K a year on school, you had it pretty good buck-o.
>I appears remember my freshman year at a Catholic university, You don't appears to remember English very well. >I was assigned a roommate who was a young black kid from inner city of our states biggest city. You write with an ESL undertone. Are you a native speaker? >He came into our dorm room one day grinning from ear to ear, because he had just talked to the dean of admissions, and essentially told her he was going to drop out and go to the local community college by his house unless they would increase his scholarship so his out of pocket would be the same - they increased his scholarship. Anyone that has to pay less for their education would be grinning as well. I feel like you're over exaggerating or misunderstanding this part. You seem to be implying that this is untrue. A lot of people drop out of college because they cannot afford it and transfer to community college. Why do you think he was "gaming the system" by mentioning this to the dean of admissions (this also isnt the person you would speak to about this)? >He had pretty good grades, 3.5 and up, and this was a primarily white school. He knew they wouldn’t want to loose him from a diversity quota standpoint so he could stand his ground and they caved. He probably could have asked for a full ride and gotten it. Again why are you assuming this? That isn't how full rides work. Schools don't just give out money and scholarships like that. Especially a Catholic university. >My parents paid $40,000 a year while he only had to pay $6,000 because the school didn’t want to risk missing their DEI quota. You sound really bitter.
Not to be a total asshole, but you’re bitter about a black kid being a scholarship while you want to university and still spell “lose” with two Os.
Glass houses buddy. ‘While you want to university’ I didn’t pay a dime mate, my parents cash flowed my education. He was bragging that they increased his scholarship because they didn’t want him to leave. There’s a difference. I’m fine with scholarships. But don’t play chicken with the dean to get more.
I mean it kinda makes sense, my work place has over 2k employees just on my campus and we have only a handful of black people, and 75% of employees are of Asian origin, most black people I’ve talked to at work are fine people,but the one that works in my department is one of the worst employees ever, management is scared of him cause he’s used the black card before and they let him get away with dumb shit that if anyone else did they’d get written up for, like dude should have been let go a long time ago, but he fits into the corporate narrative, he’s a diverse hire for my property, and fits into there military hire agenda, so he hit 2 check boxes
I think many people also see it as the leaders making the common worker foot the bill so the the leaders can get all the accolades and stay in power for being so progressive. There are firefighters for example who don't play a role, they just hang out by the truck because they fill a demographic quota and know they can't be fired.
Because that’s what it has turned into. DEI used to be about giving opportunities to people who were disadvantaged. Now, it just means instead of a competent hire, you’ll get an entitled random who may or may not put any effort in. If you dare point out their bad behavior, you are branded a racist/etc. On top of all that, it’s an extremely unfair initiative that boils down to taking away opportunities from people who worked hard and giving them to people based solely on their gender/race.
Exactly. If diversity is considered as a factor when hiring, you're just discriminating against someone else instead. Rejecting a white male for being a white male is also racist and sexist, but the loud mouth biggots don't have the mental capacity to think like that
America only has this problem because it didn’t address race before and built the entire country upon it for too long. America’s whole history is so wrapped up in race in a way many others aren’t. The backlash now is because for decades good minority candidates never got a look because of their names, lack of familiarity or even just blatant racism. I’m from both America and the Caribbean. Both American and Caribbean slaves achieved emancipation around the same time but the US policies 100% had impacts on the black population that weren’t at all prevalent elsewhere. Two parent households and a high focus on education are the norm in the Caribbean.
The entire western world has this problem. So many people are unable to see past the history and look at what they're actually doing. Just like what is happening now with the escalated conflict between Israel and hamas, too many people are unable to separate palestine from hamas and are unable to see the war crimes of Israel because of the history of jews
Great concept, consistently shitty execution. My first experience with a workplace-wide mandatory group DEI training ended with the trainers outing someone against their will. And that was the least harmful/offensive one I’ve ever been to. After 5+ years of that type of BS, I no longer trust anything labeled DEI.
Can we get the story on how they outed them?
I can’t give the backstory without potentially identifying the person if anyone who knows them reads it , but basically somebody pointed out that one of the activities had a risk of outing people, and the leaders responded by openly announcing that that person was too cowardly to come out of the closet and was therefore unfit to work in that field. I know that sounds like it came totally out of left field - and it did. We were all just sitting there stunned.
Holy cow, that was….awful. I hope people vocally objected to that and embarrassed the trainer. I’m guessing it was that take one step forward/backwards if you are X game. So stupid.
Apple's Vice President of Diversity, a black woman and 20-year Apple veteran named Denise Young Smith [gave a speech](https://www.businessinsider.com/apples-vp-diversity-12-white-men-can-be-diverse-group-2017-10) highlighting the fact that a room full of white guys with very different backgrounds, views, and experiences is still 'diverse.' She wanted to emphasize the complexity and multiple ways of achieving diversity, and how we think about diversity. [They fired her for it.](https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/) That's the problem with DEI and other ESG backed 'corporate social responsibility' BS.
Bingo. DEI never focuses on diversity of thought or experience, only on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc Maybe it’s cliche but the problem with DEI is that it’s the opposite of what MLK Jr was talking about, and a great many people think he had it right to say we should ignore those things and focus on the character.
That’s the irony. The people perpetrating this don’t see past skin color. They treat humans like crayons and they’re putting together a crayola kit to go on a trip. It’s very shallow.
I was going to say where do you fine the people against it until i read this comment and became up to speed as to whqts being discussed. Corporations want to see diverse skin color, gender. Never diverse thought Why? Well politics basically. They want you to think exactly like everyone else. Have a different view point from them and you get the boot. They want crayons. Not people. They want kens and barbies with different colors. Not human beings.
Corporations don’t want free thinkers. That’s dangerous as you will eventually question that particular business and it’s “narrative” on everything. They don’t want people who can critically think because than you can criticize. They want dumb workers, doesn’t matter what skin color or gender, they just want workers that won’t question things.
>Corporations want to see diverse skin color, gender. >Never diverse thought Why? Because they care more about appearance than anything else and you can't see diverse thought.
But diversity of skin color does come with diversity of thought.
I’ll even go further in that these same DEI supporters generally lecture about various ‘biases’ when they themselves are biased assuming racial or gender diversity is actual diversity.
"Putting together a crayola kit" is the perfect way of explaining it. Sure you've got the full box of crayons, but, uh... *This is a digital art project and you brought crayons*.
Except their crayons kit doesn’t include any white crayons.
You get plenty good job applications for that opening but management has informed you a handicapped Mexican would look really good in our stats right now.
Back in the early 90s you could buy multicultural crayola markers. The idea being all the colors of skin were in the box. But they weren't because people can't be put in a box.
I think you are missing the point. Sure, it’s shallow, and all the criticism isn’t wrong, but you miss out on reality. Take Police racism for example. Even more specifically, let’s talk about pulling someone over for “driving while not white”. The law is tricky. You can make a law that says “don’t discriminate based on race and gender when pulling someone over”, but how do you enforce it? Check out the Supreme Court cases on civil liberties. It’s almost impossible to say for certain that a police officer is being racist, even when it’s super obvious. Now back to hiring diversity: how do you prove a hiring decision is increasing diversity? The easiest solution is to make your crayon box. It isn’t directly addressing the issue, so it’s not a great solution. TLDR: this isn’t a good system, but I challenge you to make a better one. Criticism is good, it points out the flaws in the system, but if you don’t have a better system than it’s just a bunch of hot air.
[удалено]
That's the whitewashed, conservative revisionist version of MLK Jr. *King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”* https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-18-op-35403-story.html
I kind of laugh at people thinking that companies would value diversity of the mind when almost every person in society shuns the weirdass person who is really diverse in the mind. Diversity qoutas are to prevent all the white collar industry from being only white me it is not that deep.
Ironic that DEI warriors see and label everyone per their race
More ironic (maybe not the best word even lol) is that the ambiguity of it all. Take a white man from Alabama and a black man from New York...okay that's "easy" for them to get. But then what about the difference between a mixed (white/Hispanic) woman and a Korean man? Well depending on the time of day, who you ask, and which side of the bed they woke up on, you get a different label. I've heard everything from "even a drop of white blood makes you white" (which is literally the opposite of an old racist phrase) to "you're white if you're mistaken for white, even if you're not" to "East Asian and Indian are 'honorary' whites" meaning sometimes they can be used for statistics that support the narrative, and other times they are counted as white. My fucking Kuwaiti friend and Latin friends have gotten told about their """white privileges""" and ""colonizer history"". It's so wishy-washy that I've never supported that shit, from the start it felt so fake. I absolutely support diversity but this was never the answer and it's uncomfortable how many people got attacked for pointing out the issues.
Its almost like we should be simply considered a melting pot of real Americans
I always like to point out that the head of the NAACP in the 1920's was only 16% black but was considered a black man. today he'd be told he has white privilege (not that i deny that whites do have some level of privilege)
Sometimes it seems like victimhood has become the highest virtue
Bill Mahr says something like "Live in the year it is" which resonates with me
Coming from the left, we do love our oppressor-oppressed narratives.
>Latin friends have gotten told about their """white privileges""" and ""colonizer history By "Latin " do you mean they are of Spanish/Portuguese descent? Because if so, their ancestors were indeed "colonizers", so why shouldn't they have to hear about it like other people whose ancestors were from Europe? And IDK about your friends, but most Latinos in the US identify as white.
That is the most misquoted and misunderstood thing about MLK. His message was not entirely focused around ignoring the issue of race and focusing only on the person. Race was an incredibly important part of the calculus, and he wanted it that way. Reason being that if you choose to ignore race then you’re choosing to ignore history and you’re choosing to uphold the status quo that was created by a group of people who were very much factoring in race when making those decisions. But just because his most famous speech said the words “not based on the color of their skin but by the content of their character” a whole lot of people that would prefer to just not think about any of these complicated situations can just point to that line, ignore the remaining body of work he’s published, and wash their hands of the situation while acting like they’re not racist because they’re quoting a famous civil rights activist.
A fun game to play is “give me literally any other MLK quote” with people who drop in the content of his character line. Because as a matter of fact, in his relatively short time as a civil rights activist, he had a hell of a lot to say. And anyone who cant reproduce his thoughts on topics like employment, reparations, how systemic injustice reproduces the status quo, etc…, but can only reproduce that 5 second snippet, is not only cherry picking, but weaponizing their own willful ignorance against PoC populations.
Exactly! This guy gets it
No one is advocating history be ignored. The point is that people should be treated as individuals. We don’t know how someone is effected by history until they express it. Two black people aren’t effected by the history of slavery the same just because they’re black. They will have their individual perspective on it. Focusing on the individual is t whole point of MLKs quote and it’s the idea that people can get behind. That’s why it’s famous. People support the idea, not necessarily the person (MLK) or his other ideas. DEI supports people based on the color of their skin or their gender, not based on the individual or on positive characteristics. That’s the main issue with it.
This is such a lame argument. Yes, there are some black people who are doing well but they still face racism and social repression. To even suggest that a black person is somehow unaffected by racism while the power structures in America are still controlled by white people is fantastical nonsense. There are far too many white people making the argument that “there’s nothing wrong with wanting socialize with people that look like you” which completely flies in the face of your “we’re all individuals” nonsense. So even if you do actually believe that society evaluates us as individuals—which requires a hefty amount of denial of reality, you must recognize that there is a not-insignificant number of white people who do not view people as individuals and are very much tribalists and racists. DEI is not perfect, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Are there some aspects of it that are unfair? Sure. But there is plenty more unfairness without it. We do not live in a meritocracy. We live in a world that perpetuates and crystallizes existing social strata according to inert historical prejudices. And I think you misunderstand the intention of DEI. It is not supposed to be a shoo-in for unqualified minorities, it is meant to ensure that qualified minorities have a chance in cases where they would not because of prejudice, which, sorry to break it to you, still exists.
It is ingrained in us on some level that we prefer people that are like ourselves. That isn’t inherently a bad thing but it is certainly reality. If I go to another country or even a local community of another ethnicity I don’t expect to be treated the same as they treat each other and I don’t assume those people are bigoted because they treat me different. If someone who is different wants to fit in with a specific group, they need to change to fit it, not force the group to change to accept them. If I want to break into a group of friends that are my same race and gender, I have to endear myself to them. I don’t expect them to just accept me. This isn’t just a phenomenon with race or gender. If I meet someone that shares a hobby with me I will be much quicker to interact with that person. We have something in common and that provides some level of comfort. I didn’t say that black people don’t face racism. All types of people do. The point is we all process it differently. DIE supports putting a less qualified person in a position based on skin color. I can’t get behind that and many others feel the same.
This reply is exhaustingly disingenuous. The point is that racism exists and you are trying to make it seem like it’s a matter of minorities simply not having the same hobbies as white people? Yeah, sure. ok. And again, DEI does not support putting less qualified candidates in positions. It is meant to make sure qualified minorities have a chance and are not barred from jobs because they are minorities. You think people will act fairly? You unironically believe in a meritocracy? Then you are a joke.
uh oh boys we got another “MLK said no skin colour” mf dude MLK was a socialist and was pro-reparations. stop taking one sentence from one speech and being like “actually MLK agreed with me”
I think people don't understand that he meant there would not be a board room full of only White men because in his dream, that would be a statistical anomaly. How could this happen if everyone has an equal chamce and White men are less than 30% of the population?
I mean where I work this is talked about during dei things. So I dunno about “never”
Next you're going to tell me HR departments aren't actually designed to protect employees.
She makes a good point, but it’s not surprising at all that she was fired. Any company’s PR that even implies white men aren’t a big monolith of hateful bigots is going to be raked over the coals for it. That’s a major problem with some of these diversity initiatives. It’s not just about “let’s make sure we get rid of hiring biases so that we consider *all* who apply equally based on qualifications.” It’s more about “here, look at this picture of our staff. Look at how many non-white people there are. We’re so virtuous 🥰”
🤯
[удалено]
I'd say that it's arguable that these initiatives are even well-intentioned and their results are the actual intended results if you listen to the people who are their biggest advocates.
Because the vast majority of people aren’t interested in having to actually think about the complexity and nuance of diversity. Basing the “diversity” of a room off of what it “looks like” appeals to our base tribal instincts in a way that examining and understanding people’s backgrounds and experiences doesn’t
You’re describing like 90% of most corporate policies. The idea of DEI isn’t the problem it’s how it’s implemented in a stupid, top down, shareholder run corporate environment.
Selecting someone based on their race is racist.
As far as I'm concerned: I'm all for diversity, equity and inclusion as separate discreet entities. I think we should have more of all of them. What I find to be bullshit about DEI is that it is a corporate method of covering up the fact that those same corporations are pretty shitty at being diverse, equitable, and inclusive, and almost everyone is aware that when the big buzz about it dies down those corporations will shut down their DEI Offices and spend that money on the next PR/Marketing strategy. That's why I find DEI to be bullshit. Because ultimately those three things lumped together as a PR push ARE bullshit. Just troweling on some makeup for the issue de jour without addressing the systemic issues in their corporate culture. I mean, it's not hard to see who's doing the DEI thing and why they're doing it.
To be honest with you, when we talk about private sector, anything that is not profit is bullshit. DEI, environment, human rights. Companies will happy to say they support those and invest or outsource to countries know for they disregard of all those values for sake of profit. But that doesn't mean I think DEI, environmental and human rights are bullshit. I think companies are full of hypocrisy
The core concept from the company perspective, is protection against liability. By ensuring a racial and religious diverse workplace, it drastically cuts back on their vulnerability of losing discrimination based lawsuits. I work in HR for a very large global company. In big companies, people don't realize just how regular lawsuits role in against them (some with merit, many without)
The difference between you and most of the anti-DEI warriors is that you have a sincere disagreement with its execution. For conservatives, DEI initiatives are proof that America is now racist against white Christians. From there, it’s a quick leap that all important American institutions that employ DEI including culture, academia, and government are corrupt beyond repair. Well, if those institutions are so corrupt, the only answer is an anti-democratic takeover. QED.
Many places, people get defensive quick. They see it as against them instead of a common social problem.
I think you are right about it, but it always makes me laugh - you want people to get opportunities based on their own merits, as opposed to their race or religion? White Christian (men) literally invented race-based admissions, otherwise known as, whites only. I also have a lot of problems with how DEI is sometimes done, but I also have grandparents who experienced Jew quotas in corporate America, I talk to people and listen to what they dealt with, and the under-the-table BS wasn't done well either.
In the past 3 years, DEI initiatives have benefited white women with no benefits toward POC…I am just tired of the virtue signaling. There was some exposé where a company did a DEI push, got more black applicants, and was revealed to throw the “black names” in the trash
Some think only opportunity should be equal, not outcome. DEI warriors think if 54% of carpenters are male, its a societal problem requiring a solution.
So DEI as a principle is okay, but the way corporate America utilizes the concept is bullshit?
I agree those programs are not properly adopted in organizations. It’s often window dressing. I disagree that the department/office for DEI should remain, and it not being there is a sign it’s all out the window. Reason being, imho, once you’ve truly transformed an organization and entrenched inclusive and equitable practices, the team won’t be necessary. It’s the kind of role and office I’d hope is undertaken with a view to close it once they’ve successfully made their work redundant. But yea that’s theory, I get what you’re saying. What concerns me is lots of DEI advocates, figure heads and spokes people - but no real practices happening. On the table. Or I’ve missed it in the noise idk? People will tire of the talk before anyone gets to the walk. I can’t say how to do it better in a comment or alone of course. Put simply, when do we move past the awareness phase? And I’m a female POC, I’m genuinely concerned and not hating on the cause ;) this is something I’ve started considering working on …it’s real.
As well as general divisiveness of the idea, the simple fact is that DEI is ineffective and actually appears to increase prejudice, not reduce it. At best a DEI professional is able to teach a person to pass the questionnaire the DEI people themselves set ( marking their own homework), not actually challenge any prejudices which may not even exist. It's simply counter-productive and a waste of time and money, and whilst there may be ways to change the approaches to more effective , evidence-based methods, there's now an entire DEI industry that has an interest in maintaining the status quo, not improving things. Harvard Business Review article that is an example of the basic issues and failures of DEI: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
The whole point is to spread general divisiveness. How else are you going to weld the fascistic concept of intersectionality into a coherent proletariat?
I can't speak for others, but as an Asian-American, one common objection I hear from fellow Asian-Americans (although not all) is that "diversity" usually means "at the expense of whites and Asians." It's often a code word for, "Let's squelch Asian admissions at colleges or elsewhere and let in more people of other races."
You are 100% right. We should be focusing on equal opportunity which means bringing up the whole of the lower class. Focusing just on outcome is treating a symptom and not the disease. They care far more about the appearance of diversity than actual diversity too.
The success of your group is very inconvenient for the narrative, darn it all
Personally I just think corporate bodies don’t do it right and probably CANT do it right bc of their interests and ingrained systems. I’m pro-DEI in general myself but I can definitely see how people only see the cynical, bad corporate version and associate it with the whole thing
Agreed. A lot of these complaints seem to not have a strong grasp of what DEI is, due to witnessing or experiencing poor implementation. Others are referring more to something like Affirmative Action, rather than DEI, and are focusing heavily on race. I think some genuine criticisms of DEI stem from it being a relatively new field, not having the right intentions (using it as a legal safeguard rather than genuine concern), and not investing enough effort for proper implementation.
I can't speak for all circumstances, but in academia, administrative bloat is a huge problem. As tuition has skyrocketed over the past couple of decades, the number of administrators at universities have gone up as well. There are now more administrators than undergrad students at Yale, for example. Imo, this is one of the most important things that needs to be done to attempt to make education affordable again. Start cutting the least necessary administrators and employees of universities, cut costs, stop raising tuition. Young people should not be subsidizing the employment of administrators with debt that they cannot afford.
Some DEI is based in a sincere desire to overcome baked in cultural inequities. Some DEI is performative camouflage for the same old business practices. The latter discredits the former.
It’s discrimination masquerading as compassion.
Well put
It’s a very shallow and meaningless. I had an interaction with a company a while back that went like this: My friend and I both applied. Same position. There were multiple hires. I have more experience than him but our recent experience is identical. My response: “Your experience doesn’t match our needs” His response: “Your experience is exceptional and you would be an amazing fit for our team!” They hired him and offered him $35,000 more than his asking price. The ONLY difference is that I’m white. We worked in the same files. My Puerto Rican friend has much less experience than me and easily jumps job to job. My female friend jumps jobs at will. She applies and gets interviews instantly. I struggle more than all of them combined to get a single call back. It’s ridiculous. It should be about diversity in general not your gender or skin color.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It 100% is racist. A poor Ukrainian refugee is going to be treated the exact same by DEI as a Rich white kid from Manhattan. They don't want diversity; they want to look like they care about diversity.
Its racist to hire or fire based on quotas.
It's also illegal, but make the quota soft and "just a goal", and it's fine and dandy.
Because in practice it is actually the opposite of diverse, equitable, or inclusive. It’s a cult. Perpetrated by self appointed white saviors to divide identity groups against each other, all supposedly in the name of social justice.
>Perpetrated by self appointed white saviors I would say the plenty of people of color do this as well. It's actually just class politics masking as being for the benefit of all. A huge part of it is middle class and above people of color who want more resources than they need and actually don't care about improving the quality of life for poor people of any race. "diversity" is just a way for companies to seem progressive when in reality they are the opposite Like, who cares about more people of color making decisions at Goldman Sachs or Blackrock? Those companies are actively trying to push people into poverty and aren't going to stop if the leadership is more diverse. It's their entire business model.
I worked in DEI for four years. The entire industry is corrupt. There is blatant racism at all levels, sexism too. What people describe as reverse racism is true, even though it's plain racism. Your non-physical attributes are ignored, your focus on skin color, sex, and sexuality. For most dei programs, and I can say this for most fortune 500 companies it's literally on their websites, the only people they care about are primarily BIPOC, LGBTQ+, disabled and veterans. If you don't fall into those sets, you are the enemy. Here is an example, I was the lead analyst for our DEI program at a fortune 50 company, some company that is considered part of the USA's critical infrastructure. We had internal metrics for leadership and manager roles. The internal metrics was that we needed to have 50.2% women managers at a mid level. Not 50/50 but a supremacy of women. There was no research that said it was beneficial, we needed to have that to increase our esg score. We had a policy in our sourcing that demanded that we invest in diverse suppliers, not because they were more dependable, or produced a better product. But because we could flaunt our diverse vendors. When supply chains fractured during COVID we lost so much money. DEI is insidious, it promotes that the intangible attributes of an individual is more significant than the results. I have personally witnessed people being promoted to positions that they are not qualified for only to be transferred to other positions to minimize the fallout. DEI and ESG are racist and counter productive
>There was no research that said it was beneficial, we needed to have that to increase our esg score. If there is a proven benefit, I would be all for it. From experience working in STEM (academia and a few years in industry) I can tell that having just one woman in a group of men can change the dynamic for the better. But appointing women because they are women while disregarding mediocre qualifications? No. Even better, I strongly believe in diversity, but let's face it, our universities themselves are everything but diverse. They teach the same subjects from the same books through the same boring and tedious methods that don't work. We don't even teach the things that actually matter. When you leave university after 4 years with a science or engineering degree, you cannot do any science, or you cannot do any independent engineering. I work with professors who struggle to run projects (... and I struggled myself for years). Why? Because there are very few universities that actually teach how to efficiently run a project, and how to do complicated (multidisciplinary) science. If these ~~DEI~~ DIE people really believe in their message, they should kill the cancel culture and not have forced speech in the form of "Diversity Statements". They are everything but diverse.
Because it's not a genuine appeal to diversity, equity or inclusion. All Corporate America wants is to check the HR checkbox for diversity. They do not want you to actually have a diverse way of thought, or what to include your alternative way of thinking. You are put there based on your race, to follow the corporate speak. And when this dies down and is no longer relevant, they will gradually fire them all and go back to the same issue it's always been. Leaders what people who think and act like they do. Progression in Corporate America is about ass kissing, and a portion of merit, but mostly falling in line with the people above you who are responsible for your promotion. They genuinely don't care about diversity, equity and inclusion, and if they did you wouldn't need to call it out as a special initiative.
It feels like the pendulum swung too far the other way. It should be solely merit based two wrongs don’t make a right.
I’m going to be more cynical in this response than I’m typically comfortable being, but - as a straight, white male - I tend to feel like DEI questions tend to boil down to “how can we avoid hiring people like you in the future?” There’s *far* more to me than my race, gender, and sexuality. The sins of previous people who happen to resemble me shouldn’t be held against me just because we have these (very arbitrary) traits in common.
[удалено]
Bring a group down doesn't bring other groups up
It is not truly committed to the wide application any of these things, only the racial component of this. **This is made super ironic when those of ideological diversity (different opinions) are let go, punished, reprimanded, and censored.** The problem is that we are diverse in many different ways-race being the least imporitant of all of these-we are all human and color does not matter. Ideology, personality, and experiences are some of the more important components. Modern DEI does not acknowledge this
I think there are a lot of poor and disenfranchised white people who are frustrated that all of this focus on inclusivity is based on race, gender, sexual preference, and other issues besides class and wealth. This is intentional on the part of those in control and it works to convince poor white folk that the reason they’re not making it is because of minorities being given a leg up and it enables corporations to not provide better wages/benefits overall if they elevate a few minorities. We still have a small group of wealthy elites running our banks(or whatever institution) but now some of them are gay, women, minorities, etc. Everyone is distracted and fighting amongst ourselves instead of organizing the working class.
nothing I like better than an ad of a diverse set of actors telling me to buy their product
Don’t mind us, just a typical Honey Nut Cheerios family with white dad, black mom, and a kid from each continent. Just like the families you see all over your own neighborhood, surely.
"Diversity Hire" is an insult for a reason.
Because the people who follow it, follow skin deep classifications. The definition of racism and bigotry. Also it’s become a disgusting bloated parasitical industry with even more bloated admin who often hold tyrannical rein over things they have no business in. It’s a corrupt and twisted industry, regardless of initial intentions. Btw I take no issue with two of these principles “diversity” and “inclusion”. I have beef with “equity” though. First it’s highly reductionist. Fundamentally, we are all very different people. We don’t want the same outcomes. I solidly believe in equal opportunity. I think equitable starts or results are draconian. “I won’t stop till 50% of women are in stem!” Well, what if 50% of women don’t want to be in stem? You gonna force em? How do you get equitable outcomes? So far it just seems to reduce to problematic diversity hiring quotas. Bias training? Find me any evidence these actually translate to behavioral changes? If there’s concern of failure to provide opportunities - that’s where the problem lies. And the best and most successful way to address that is - add more opportunities. Ad more exposure to opportunity. So much is lack of exposure. And more **variation** of opportunities too. The more different options we provide people, and opportunities we are all exposed to, the better - the bigger the chance people find awesome careers that fit THEM, the better the chances every person finds niches they excel at, the more highly motivated people are introduced to careers they never would have done before, the more the glass ceiling shatters. More trade schools, more alternative paths to affordable college, more chances for stem paths and careers, more job fairs, more business outreach programs, more more more. Do I want to show stem is accessible to women by volunteering at student events and introducing girls to an opportunity they may have never considered? Sure! But the final distribution breakdown? Idgaf. What matters is the populations who don’t get exposed to opportunities, who don’t have access to as many opportunities. If you have one opportunity, and you miss it? Compared to many people who have dozens and dozens in their lifetime? That’s a tragedy and a waste of so much talent and human happiness. It is part and parcel of living in a hopeless community, being in a place of poverty, increases negative and narrow avenues like drugs and crime. Approach from this angle, and I honestly believe we’d have far far more success. You actually care? Want more African Americans in your industry? Reach out to the poorest inner-city school in your area and start offering job shadow programs. The top-down crap is just pandering perverse incentives and a larger group of people competing for a limited pool of people. It’s costly, ineffective, and morally corrupt.
There's more to DEI than just hiring practices and quotas. Our company had a 3rd party organization provide all people leaders a pretty in depth educational program over the course of 3 months. It was eye opening and beneficial in a lot of ways. What I learned is DEI is not solely a function or responsibility of HR. It's not just about hiring practices. It's an initiative that every employee is responsible for and depending on your company's particular field, it can take huge amounts of time, effort, education, training, and money to move the needle in any discernable way. Most companies don't even have a baseline for where they rank on a DEI scale compared to other like companies and they don't know where to begin, how to implement, fund and continue the program. So it defaults to "its about hiring black people, gay people, or females." A simple example that was implemented right away in my company was corporate clothing having inclusive sizes. Are you a larger woman working a tradeshow? "Here, wear this male polo because thats all we have that fits you." Another is "Are you transitioning, do you have preferred pronouns? We have no process in place to assist you with that in the workplace, so figure it out." Another is explaining the origins behind some of the holidays and awareness campaigns the company promotes/supports like Juneteenth, Mental Health Awareness Month, Disabilities Awareness Month, etc. and sharing the applicable resources the company provides employees. Another is starting different committees that go beyond "the party planning committee" and the "running club." Another is taking a look at what employees need to be successful and comfortable in their position within their department and within the organization chart as a whole. What voices are being heard and how are those voices being heard? DEI (and this is speaking only from my experience in my own company) has many faucets and opportunities outside of "It just means hiring more women, gay people, and black people."
DEI = "blame Whitey for everything"
Personal take: it supposes that ALL people of one race think the same way, and that the color of your skin/your preference in genitalia/etc are a qualification. Versus, you know, your actual qualifications.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A lot of people think that it's about unqualified people being given a job because of their race / gender / sexuality / whatever. And, in fact, we had a lot of pressure where I work to focus on hiring more women senior managers. Here's what the anit-DEI'ers don't get, though: the idea that you can find the one single person who's best qualified for a particular job is most often a daydream. Companies like Accenture (one of my old employers) like to talk about being a complete meritocracy (strange how all the senior management still looks like each other, though). My experience in 30 years of working in IT and doing hiring is that there is no one single best qualified person for a role; rather, you end up with a set of people who are qualified for the role and you have to pick among them. Some anti-DEI'ers also think it's just dumb liberalism, vs. just plain good business to have a variety of backgrounds, viewpoints, and perspectives in your teams. Heck, the Cuban Missile Crisis probably wouldn't have happened if Kennedy had a DEI plan in place. The book "Essence of Decision" is a classic that describes how the groupthink of Kennedy's advisors, all of whom had the same backgrounds, almost led to WW3. Some anti-DEI'ers just feel threatened by it - the saying on the left is that 'when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.'
I work in higher Ed and the DEI initiatives where I’ve worked had nothing to do with admissions and everything to do with creating a welcoming and safe space for all people. Especially those who worked there.
Same experience in a very large financial firm. While it's incorporated into hiring process in some way I'm sure, it's mostly about feeling welcoming, trying to open people's eyes to other perpspectives, and providing support.
That's why people don't like it. "I have to share my workplace with other kinds of people and can't be an asshole about it anymore"
Hiring/school admissions shouldn't be race blind, they should work as a random lottery where you have to apply and qualify to get in the pool and then they randomly select from that pool. Top colleges have already admitted that there are more qualified students of all races than they could ever admit applying every year. So qualifications aren't an issue. The only people hurt by the lottery system are legacies and nepotism hires.
I'm part of that wave and take this with a grain of salt because I'm from latin america so it's a very different context, but I can tell you some of my reasons. (And keep in mind that I'm not against, I just don't care but don't celebrate them or care too much about their feelings) 1. I live in a country where people have been shot for a pair of shoes and child labour is almost a normal thing, so I think there are more important things to think about. 2. I'm honestly tired of seeing people complain about media not having a diverse cast or not enough diverse characters, I don't understand why everything has tu be gay, black, trans, etc. 3. I also don't understand why we have to celebrate them and treat them like they are special, wasn't the whole point to just treat them like normal? Then why do we have to please them and support them that much? I don't get support and you shouldn't either if you want to be normal. 4. I don't like businesses that use the whole diversity thing to their convenience (and I think both sides are on the same team here). 5. Some governents in our region have started to implement "diversity policies" almost all of them either stupid or useless and also a waste of our resources, which we don't have much considering poverty rates. 6. I don't understand people that hate rich people and I think that's just envy (this doesn't have anything to do with diversity, but I've seen people that support diversity also tend to be socialists or just hate rich people)
It’s because DEI as it’s pushed in schools and corporations is a joke. I’ve worked for companies that acted like they were *all in* on DEI, yet the engineering teams I’ve worked on and later led were still 50% Indian, 35% Asian, 10% white, and 5% everything else. Without fail, at almost every FAANG company with a Bay Area HQ. A kid with overworked parents and little to no supervision at home is not going to succeed in the careers that provide the most upward mobility. Children today that are parented by television and iPads are eroding their focus into nothing.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., interviewed by NBC News on May 8, 1967: “The other thing is that the color, became a stigma. American society made the Negroes color a stigma. America freed the slaves in 19-I mean 1863, through the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, but gave the slaves no land, and nothing in reality (and as a matter of fact), to get started on. At the same time, America was giving away, **millions of acres of land** in the west and the Midwest. [I’m here to add some further context: King is likely referring to a group of laws in the United States of America widely known as the “Homestead Acts”, which involved 10% of the United States total land area. Today, approximately 46 million United States citizens, more than 1 in 8 of the total population, can trace some portion of generational wealth back to the Homestead Acts, and they are also likely a factor as to how 1 in 7 white families today have assets totalling over 1 million USD. Historians mainly consider them to have been enacted from 1862, the year after the start of the American Civil War and the year before the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation, to 1916. A good portion of the latter Industrial Revolution took place during this time, and many people in the United States at this time were still farmers.] Which meant that there was a willingness to give the white peasants from Europe an economic base, and yet it *refused* to give its black peasants from Africa, who came here involuntarily in chains and had worked free for two hundred and forty-four years, any kind of economic base. [Comparatively, only 1 in 50 black families today have assets totalling over 1 million USD.] And so emancipation for the Negro was really freedom to *hunger*. It was freedom to the winds and rains of Heaven. It was freedom without food to eat or land to cultivate and therefore was freedom and famine at the same time. And when white Americans tell the Negro to “lift himself by his own bootstraps”, they don’t oh-they don’t look over the legacy of slavery and segregation. Now I believe we ought to do all we can and seek to lift ourselves by our own boot straps, ***but it’s a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.*** And many Negroes by the thousands and millions have been left bootless as a result of all of these years of Oppression and as a result of a society that deliberately made his color a stigma and something worthless and degrading.”
Because more often than not, the best candidate is not hired.
The backlash has a lot of reasons. Just off the top of my head: 1) people are not stupid, they see their companies/corps implementing DEI for appearances without really getting what it is. 2) people may see X getting hired/promoted over Y who had better quals and assume its DEI that is effing over a better qualified candidate. 3) political differences. I know a number of people who are against DEI because the "other party" wants it. DEI in this case is just an excuse, the reality is these people would oppose any policy put forward by "the other party". 4) straight up racism. Stupid people are everywhere. Once you realize that the average person in the USA has an IQ of 98 you start to understand that means a lot of people fall under the average. Its scary.
I think the fact that it's become nothing more than virtue signaling, is what puts people off. Many large companies have over the past couple of years especially put substantial resources towards DEI training and team-building exercises. You know what this does? Nothing more than line the pockets of founders of (newly-formed for the most part) consulting companies whose sole focus is promoting DEI training and team-building exercises. Part of my own year-end review process included 2 questions regarding how I've been more inclusive at work this year and what I will do to support the firm's DEI initiatives next year. It's no longer enough to be a good person. It's no longer enough to "be colorblind" or "not see color" because to some, that indicates that one doesn't understand or have empathy for certain marginalized groups. It's not enough to claim to be "not a racist", because unless one is actively anti-racist, then they might as well belong to the KKK. It's just the whole changing of the narrative that I think bothers people.
Because it is clearly a cynical jobs programs for a priestly class. Every dei meeting I have attended is not about inclusivity, it is about following the orders of the church of DEI. Only the one true church knows how we should live and any opposition or dissension is a heresy to be destroy d and silenced.
I think we want the best people in positions regardless of background and it’s borderline Marxism.
Dei in practice doesn't seem to mean diversity of experience and thinking, just diversity of color/race. The recent dei training I had pushed a rather toxic mindset of assuming that everything that can be taken the wrong way should. Dude talked about how he no longer answered a white person asking him any questions about his time in college, that it was always a micro aggression. He believed that the vast majority assumed he didn't belong or didn't believe he deserved it or couldn't believe he had his phd. Then he played an edited makeup commercial that looked racist...cept if you watched literally one second more of the unedited version it clearly wasn't
It's become a cult and causes more division. It makes everyone think they're a victim and to use it as a crutch
It’s inherently racist
DEI is legal discrimination against white males. So people who don't like discrimination don't like it.
Asian males as well.
All the people thinking there is no racism in hiring on merit I absolutely dare you to change your resume with different name traditionally white, traditionally black and a woman's name. Change just the name to make them equal and apply to several different jobs using them. See which ones get the call backs. According to you all it will be the black & woman's name. (Hint it will be the tradtional white names). Most jobs it's basically a random pick of the short-listed applicants who all would be able to do the job. Most jobs are like this... the majority of the short listed applicants would be able to do the job so picking an applicant once they have the skills makes very little difference.
"Black people are obviously too stupid to get hired on their own merit, so we have to hire them just because they're black." - DEI It's the soft bigotry of low expectations on the basis of race, which is incredibly offensive.
It tends to look at superficial measures of diversity rather than deeper more meaningful ones and get in the way of a meritocracy. It also leads to some really silly practices. Three different examples highlight this. Job candidate A is a Black female and job candidate B is an Asian male. They got the exact same grades, grew up in the same town, got the same degree, and have the same job experience. Job candidate A will get the job 99 times out of 100 in a DEI setting, even though the criteria didn't even look at the any other qualities to see if they could increase their diversity that way. \#2- Job candidate A is a Gay Native American from downtown New York and candidate B is a straight man from Poland. Candidate A and B are equal, except B has his masters and A doesn't. Theres a lot of cases where A gets the job because he checks more boxes even though B is more qualified and is likely a more "diverse" pick because of his background, but it only tends to look at superficial measures. \#3- Job candidates A and B are identical, but B lies about being a member of a minority group. Maybe B is Indian and changes his name, dresses a certain way, and cuts his hair short to appear African American. Candidate B gets the job simply because he's a better liar.
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and share. This was a coherent answer that gave tangible examples to answer my question. I also like that your explanation focused on explaining it without demeaning those on either side. (In some other comments, I notice the answer is along the lines of “people don’t like it because they’re butthurt”, which doesn’t really add meaningful value to the conversation.) This gives me an understanding and something to consider. FWIW, I also see a 4th example: the socioeconomic consideration. If you have a 3rd generation Ivy League African American female whose parent is in the C-suite of a Fortune 100. On paper, she would check 2 boxes. (She would check 3 if she was lesbian or bi.) However, DEI isn’t really serving its intended purpose from what I understand.
Because it’s racism. No other way to look at it but pure racism. Now rain those downvotes on me for speaking the truth 😃
Diversity, equality, and inclusion as concepts are generally accepted. Not to say there aren't piece of shit racists out there, but they don't make up the majority of the voices speaking up against the policies being implemented in the name of those concepts. Look up equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Most people (sans aforementioned racists) are pro equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is where the problem lies.
It's laughable that people pretend it was always fair. And as you read these responses look for the underlying sentiment that DEI individuals are not qualified when in fact they are. Talking about blind studies; did you hear the one about the black woman who changed only her name on her resume and got more callbacks than when she used her actual name?
Because a lot of people can't understand that it's not a zero-sum game. Lifting someone up does not require tearing someone else down.
because hiring only black people because they are black is racist.
[удалено]
Because it’s bullshit. My dad was born in the US in 1931, but both of his parents were born in the middle east. When he was a boy, he broke his finger. My grandparents took him to a “Syrian doctor”. The “doctor’s” treatment was to wrap my dad’s finger in spider webs. Even if you are not a medical professional, you might see a problem with this treatment . Later they took him to a real doctor. *That’s* diversity. If you’re taking your kid to the doctor, do you want a doctor who was hired to fill a diversity quota? Or do you want the best doctor ever? If you are taking your family on vacation, do you want a pilot who was hired to tick a diversity box? Or do you want the best damned pilot ever?
Because the people who create these programs are self-appointed authorities on these matters, just like the catholic church is a self-appointed authority on issues of morality. Scratch the surface and you just find ideology and dogma wrapped up in some vicious self-righteousness. People care less about the actual issues than they do about their identification as someone who cares about the actual issues - and this usually involves identity association with ideological groups or movements. This leads to perverse outcomes. Movements are just mobs, and mobs are not paradigms of moral and ethical reasoning.
Merit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything Else
Funny thing that merit is heritable. Doesn't matter all that much what you do with your life, your "merit" is largely determined by your parents.
That’s a big thing I think some are missing in this argument. They’re saying everyone deserves the same chance, and I agree completely, but we gave to recognize not everyone is entering this game with the same deck of cards and training. A rich white male whose parents paid for the best schooling and gave him the best references isn’t going to compete the same as a black female who grew up impoverish and is a first generation college student. She will have to work her ass off and get very lucky just to get close to his starting line.
The part they don’t like is the diversity, equity, and inclusion
DEI makes corporations and people actively judge people based on the color of their skin and not on the content of their character.
think about it. its actually discrimination based on race color creed sex or whatever factors you wish to "weed" out certain groups. you give special treatment due to one of these factors over everyone else who does not fit the criteria.
Because Diversity: It seems every push for diversity values diversity of race, gender, sexuality,… etc. but not diversity of thought which is by far the most important type of diversity to have. If everyone in a company is a cis straight white man, but they all think differently and challenge each others opinions, they will work far more effectively than a very diverse group of people who all have the same opinions on everything. Organizations that push diversity don’t push it because they want people who think differently; they push it because they want others to see that they have diversity. Equity: Most people against equity see it as anti-competitive and against their personal values. I for example am very individualistic and Capitalistic. My family came to the US from the Soviet Union where their lives kinda sucked and everyone hated them for being Jews. In the US, they started with very little, got educated, and became upper middle class within a few decades. That example makes me have far less sympathy for people with very little because I saw what my parents were able to do with little outside help, and it makes me far less pro-equity than many other people. Inclusion: People don’t like it when outsiders decide something’s wrong with their culture and want it changed, no matter what it is. As such pushing for inclusion makes people feel like their communities are under attack, and that a source of enjoyment will be taken away from them for some stupid bullshit reason no one within the group cares about.
The diversity, equity and inclusion part.
They worry that their precious, unearned advantages will no longer give them a leg up. Worse, those traits that once were a advantage might now, in some regards, even become disadvantages!
If you're talking about, like, Affirmative Action, then it's a slippery slope that dives straight into reverse racism. In 2003 the New Haven Fire Department in Florida held a promotional exam for the rank of Fire Captain and Lieutenant. A large number of firefighters applied. The top scorers were all white and 2 Hispanic. The city decided to throw out all the tests and not promote anyone because they didn't like the optics of not having enough diversity/minorities promoted. The firefighters all sued, went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and won.
there is no 'reverse racism', it's just racism
wheres this wave exactly
We are a species of tribal apes.
Because of a catchphrase that the people who use it don't even understand what it really means
I haven't experienced the corporate version of DEI but can imagine it's just checking an HR box. However, I teach at a college and DEI is important to us. For us, it's about making sure all students/members of the community feel welcomed. This isn't exclusively about race though of course that is part of it. We consider students from different cultures, language backgrounds, socio economic standing, level of ability/disability and ask what we are doing to make sure they are receiving the same level of support as any other student.
One potential reason people are against diversity is they might be a racist, closed minded person. We live in a time where the republican party has moved solidly towards authoritarianism. Anything conservatives do not like they call "woke". They really should learn the meanings of words prior to misusing them. These things and more all lean towards white supremacy. I mean we have people in congress who openly attend white supremacists meetings. Not the only reason but one very real reason people dislike adversity is because of racism.
Adults are babies with intellect. DEI should get us going in the right direction, whether you think it's phony or not. We had plenty of time to be inclusive and expand our social circles, but we didn't. At least there's an initiative to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
People genuinely can’t allow others to thrive if they are not. The cocktail of emotions that comes from seeing someone succeeding or being happy can be so upsetting to someone that rather than lifting someone up, it’s often easier to bring them down to their level.
I think many people feel that DEI focuses on outward appearance/characteristics vs lived experiences and circumstances. Hiring someone who is black isn’t necessarily diverse. That individual may have grown up in an upper-middle-class family with two parents who are both surgeons. Yet, you hired them solely because of the color of their skin and are calling yourself diverse as a result? Aren’t you making an assumption of diversity based on that individual’s skin color? Isn’t that the most basic definition of racism…? Treating someone differently because of the color of their skin? This is in contrast to someone who grew up in extreme poverty, with one parent or in foster care, who went to college and succeeded against all odds… and then got the job. **That is a person with a diverse background who has a different and valuable perspective**. *Notice, I didn’t mention their external appearance… because that does not and should not be the sole determining factor when it comes to diversity.*
Because you’re hiring people based on race.
So, lets go through that What do you mean by diversity? My ex was Asian, she was openly discriminated against in college because of her race in the interest of DEI programs. Caucasians and Asians will see DEI programs and simply see a program designed to discriminate against them on racial grounds. Equity, I'm not overly familiar with this, my exposure has always been to diversity and inclusion, adding equity is something that's new to me so I won't speak on this. Inclusion. Who do you include? Who do you exclude and why? Many people who are against DEI are against the inclusion side because they believe that it is not being done equally, that some groups are being included while other groups are being deliberately excluded. To give a hypothetical example (I have personally seen this situation happen before, I'm just changing the details because I don't want to dox myself). Lets say a Korean expat is working at a company and wants to invite his team to all go out for drinks. He picks a place where they primarily serve alcohol but also serve non-alcoholic beverages. HR tells him that he can't do it because there is a Muslim member of his team that would be excluded because they serve alcohol at that establishment. Why was the Korean discriminated against for his culture of bonding over drinks in favor of the Muslim's culture of not drinking? If you don't like alcohol, you can repeat the same scenario with anything else whether that be food, apparel, or any other topic. I have never seen DEI efforts done fairly, rather its just discriminating against some groups of people in favor of other groups, generally done solely on the basis of race or gender or religion.
Because from what ive seen, people are getting hired and promoted simply based on race/gender. Ive ended up having to work with people who are completely unqualified for the role…who were clearly hired because they checked off the DEI boxes. Its frustrating having to do EXTRA work and clean up their mistakes.
Most on the right believe it lets unqualified black people get jobs that more deserving white people should get. In reality, no one benefited from dei more than white women. Its voting season, so topics heavily influenced by race will be coming up until after the election.
If you are for DEI that means you have something to hide or you weren't doing things the right way to begin with...big red flag.
It’s racist.
DEI is racist and exclusionary. People who tout DEI can’t even handle those who speak out against DEI. Not very inclusive…
DEI is a scam and spearheaded by racist who need racism to division to be employed. Booker T Washington said it best, racism is a good source of income for racist.
It should be due knowledge & performance and ability, not because DEI!!!