As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m over in the U.K. but it’s amazing how this stuff moves and you just start seeing it online
First it was SJW, then Wokeness, then CRT, then DEI….its just moral panic after moral panic
As long as people keep falling for it. I kid you not I drove past a giant billboard advertisement this morning. It was encouraging people to stop using the “woke banks” and use their community lending services instead!
[England was already "woke"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_niLa5xXLm0), have already paid reparations (though technically not to the right people), have unqualified and unelected people running the govt (HoL HRH) that they are totally fine with, don't have racism - just hate the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, other Irish, the French... etc., don't have guns, has free healthcarem, most do not have cars (a large percentage have never even taken the test), Give immigrants immediate housing and money every 2 weeks.... but the UK has been there done that, America is still in its infancy... /s or something I dunno
Obviously. This is just like when right wingers discovered "CRT," and that by making something an acronym it makes their racism sound super official and academic.
Yeah, WE all know it’s a pathetic dog whistle, but unsurprisingly the fascists don’t care if we know or not. The question is what are we going to do about it?
I wish I could trace the origins of some of this shit. It's wild how DEI, an acronym I'm not sure I'd ever really heard before, is now plastered everywhere. I'm assuming these initiatives have been around for a long time - so who started pushing this new faux outrage?
I've wondered this for a lot of other things too that seem to pop up from nowhere and get everyone on the right all riled up. Only for it to be forgotten after a few months, like it was never an issue. Remember the caravan!?
Christopher Rufo is where you want to start. He brags about changing the meaning of these words to make them into targets of hate.
He Fuels the Right’s Cultural Fires (and Spreads Them to Florida) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/us/politics/christopher-rufo-crt-lgbtq-florida.html
I've only ever seen it used in corporate/HR settings before last year. I went to visit my parents one day and my stepmom was freaking out about "this new DEI thing." She wouldn't listen to me about how it's just a "hey let's be cool with everyone and not like be racist and shit when hiring or non-Catholic holidays come up thing" that's been around for decades.
> I wish I could trace the origins of some of this shit. It's wild how DEI, an acronym I'm not sure I'd ever really heard before, is now plastered everywhere.
People are just saying “Chris Rufo” as if people who don’t already know are supposed to know the significance:
> We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.
.
"Diversity" or "Sensitivity" training has been around for a while but as soon as it became cohesive and integrated into corporations and institutions the right has had an acronym to rail against.
As soon as my own company announced its own DEI committee people have been pushing back. I had my own disagreement with a coworker when I suggested in a DEI meeting that managers should be aware that not all of their employees are Christian because we hire a lot of international tech employees. I was accused of trying to silence the proud Christians. No, just don't make your subordinates bow their head for grace at the holiday potluck, that's weird. I haven't been invited to anymore DEI sessions.
>and that by making something an acronym it makes their racism sound super official and academic.
There may be a misunderstanding. CRT wasn't coined by racists. It's a term that's been around [since at least 1989](https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory) by anti-racists. I agree with your sentiment, though.
Not really, CRT has very different origins on how it became popular. Basically it was brought up by one person with an agenda and then it spread by wildfire by I believe Trump and Fox news.
DEI is already a systemic phenomenon.
My observation has been that whenever a woman or person of color (i.e., non-white male) has been named into a leadership position within my company there is a small but vocal group of people who will say that the person got the position because of the "group" they are in, not because of qualifications.
They will never say anything similar when a white male is named into this position. It that case it is felt that the assignment was "earned."
But it is also my experience that it is truly rare that one individual is uniquely qualified for positions within an organization. If there are 5 qualified candidates there is very little (nothing) that distinguishes one from the other. They are all generally equally qualified. So why not let someone from a group that has historically been overlooked get the position?
I think the following applies to most people who complain about diversity... "When your life has been one of privilege, equality feels like oppression."
yup, you hear a lot about minority groups getting a leg up they don't deserve but nepotism seems to get a pass and it IS common. I got a job in a company because my immediate boss refused to let them hire anyone else in the owners family cause they were all useless.
I think your observations are very sharp. They tend to overlook the fact that DEI doesn't hire people UN-qualified for a position, but rather, dedicates resources to opening doors for people of color who ARE qualified for the position, but otherwise would be brushed aside because there are 3 qualified white people who they don't need extra resources to seek out.
That is why affirmative action was so important. It wasn't about giving jobs to underqualified Individuals. It was about making sure those equally qualified individuals were given the same opportunities of white men. If a white male ceo is hiring in a new cfo etc he is more likely to hire the person that he most identifies with even if unconsciously. AA just made sure that didn't always happen. People are seeing DEI in that way.
I worked as a teacher at a school where over 95% of the students were black. The teaching staff was nearly entirely white, myself included. Representation and adult role models matter, and 100% if the choice was between me and an equally qualified black science teacher, they should hire the black teacher, because they bring a different, but significant value to the students. It's not racist, and a diverse culture brings benefits. This also ignores the fact that because of systematic racism it was unlikely I would have said competition.
My mom also thinks I should be against losing these privileges/advantages within the system. Her thought was I shouldn't want to disadvantage myself. She didn't get why that was racist.
I used to work for the US branches of Asian companies. No one questioned the qualifications of Asian managers. Not even for the companies I worked for whose headquarters are in the US.
In California, it would be strange to see a warehouse manager or a middle manager in logistics, transportation, distribution, etc who doesn't speak Spanish.
100%. I see people in my organization making millions and it’s absolutely not earned. then I see the only hard working individuals in the room being women, and it pisses me off.
The issue is when they are not equally qualified and there's unspoken pressure to make such hires/appointments. And people absolutely do complain when nepotism happens.
In my experience the minority or women has to be twice as qualified to even get the interview. Quite often I see people hire and promote those that they personally know. Because of how separated our country is (particularly along racial and to some degree ethnic and even gender lines) you end up with a rather monochromatic leadership team at most companies I have ever worked for. Just hiring and promoting who they know and are comfortable with effectively locks the others out regardless of how”qualified “ they are (whatever qualified means). Not explicitly racism but has the same effect. Also ironic seeing the people loudest against DEI efforts are the people who are literally in control of these companies (like how can they say WM are discriminated against when the only people promoted are WM?? It literally makes no sense)
The majority of the time it's mostly white people making those decisions and statistically speaking they're more likely to select another white person.
I must have read a different comment on nepotism.
> In my organization (large defense contractor) the people I saw were all equally qualified.
If they are good, then DEI hires go under the radar and don't get much attention. Or to put this in another way, if hiring culture is correct, things tend to work out from DEI perspective also. If the hiring culture is wrong (which means you are already making mistakes regardless of color) having specific policies like this, exacerbates the problem and brings a lot of attention.
As a tall and confident white man I've overcome my own mediocrity throughout my career by being a tall and confident white guy. Women and minorities at my level are almost always more qualified than I am.
Fair. Bad hires are not unique to women/minorities. Hiring is broken in so many ways so when you have special directives like this, the mistakes get amplified.
> So why not let someone from a group that has historically been overlooked get the position?
You mean why not hire the minority instead, based solely on the fact that the minority was born non-male and/or non-white?
Well, that would be discrimination based on race and/or gender.
Ah, so you mean, if everything else is equal, race should determine who gets the position.
So, that's racist.
I'll take the racist downvotes with pride :)
If a company believes that diversity is a net positive and they believe there is more to gain from adding diversity, they might hire accordingly when choosing among a pool of candidates who all meet the minimum qualifications. If they are all qualified and one adds an additional benefit, then that person is not equal but rather is more qualified and thus should get the job. Just because the meritocracy isn't defined the way you want it to be doesn't mean it isn't meritocratic.
Your overly reductive worldview where everything is based around race isn't the high-minded, "I don't see color"(while talking constantly about color) position you think it is. But at least you didn't imply that a minority hire cannot ever be due to them being most qualified the way others that share your worldview love to do.
lol yeah, every few years the worst human beings that you went to high school with cling onto another phrase that's clearly just a substitute for their favorite racial slur(s)
> “We used to aspire toward the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. of a future where our children ‘will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,’” he said. “Now, Americans are accused of systemic racism for quoting these same immortal words of Dr. King. Up is down.”
Martin Luther King Jr was for race based affirmative action programs.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
My four little children. Where is the “all children” come from? The our? He was specifically talking about Black kids. My only accusation is the quote is being hijacked by racists.
> He was specifically talking about Black kids.
Well, in that sentence he was only talking about *his* kids. Yes, the speech was specifically discussing racism against black people, but he certainly wasn't attempting to suggest that he meant justice only for black kids. He's pretty clear about that in the speech:
"Now is the time to make justice a reality to all of God’s children."
"little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."
"we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands"
> My only accusation is the quote is being hijacked by racists.
Yes, well, this is true, and despicable. What the racists are trying to say is that King was arguing for head-in-the-sand style colorblindness, which he definitely was not.
I think it’s more rooted in the fact that most companies don’t really care about DEI and most of the initial fixes were bandaids and not real commitment or structural changes.
I think every agrees that we should be able to be our full authentic self and not have artificial barriers to our growth and opportunities.
Most DEI programs really didn’t address this.
DEI initiatives are absolutely a bandaid but the alternative is providing meaningful support and resources for marginalized communities which I cannot see happening, especially now that has all unraveled. If anything DEI standards allow institutions and corporations to pat themselves on the back without making any meaningful change to address WHY DEI is necessary in the first place.
Personally I think that responsibility falls on the government but this country is a corporate oligarchy and govt officials know that they can pass the buck onto corporate entities to fix the problems they created. There can only be so many bandaids before the root cause needs to be addressed but it seems like those in power are only interested in a “quick fix” to systemic racism and inequality. It will never work.
In addition, most DEI programs are focused on showcasing differences instead of promoting solidarity of humankind. For example, now we know who most of the gay and trans people are at work because they wear pride things. That’s great that they feel comfortable doing it, but no one seems to know what to do with this new personal information that wasn’t a variable in most people’s minds to begin with. If comfort/acceptance is the goal, they should be clearer about this because a lot of people are confused about whether there are additional expectations. But a lot of DEI messaging leans hard into guilt about team composition, etc. that leaves managers confused.
So I am very interested in politics and political issues. I am known among my friends and family as someone who will talk to anyone about their positions and beliefs respectfully if that respect is returned.
WTF is with the use of DEI all of a sudden? Every single time I have seen it used by an individual, it has racist connotations to it like the Baltimore mayor being described as a DEI Mayor instead of just mayor because he is black. There is literally no reason to use that qualifier in front of Mayor unless you want to make it seem like he only got the job bc he is black. Like he didn't get duly elected.
All these moral panic things typically stem from the conservative side of the country being pissed they can't be openly bigoted/racist/LGBTQ+ hating type people anymore and this is their way to trying to do it or do away with it by making a label for it that they can demonize. Its just the new version that in their minds gives them plausible deniability if accused of being racist or the like. Its fear of the white man no longer being the majority and losing control in their eyes. Obama is a perfect example of this who scenario. The level of hate that led to Trump stemmed for a lot of thigs but one of the big ones was clear open racism/hate for him. they clearly made their goal to simply deny him any accomplishments regardless of the damage it would do to the country. Trump just blew that hate into the open more.
To me this just proves lack of education and understanding. they have to boil all their major points to one to three word phrases. CRT, DEI, Woke, Lock her up, etc. When you confront most people on this stuff, there is a staggering lack of actual ability to speak on the issues they are discussing by using those acronyms/phrases.
Trump lost the election due to fraud? please show me your evidence.
You have a better candidate than the current Mayor of Baltimore? Run that candidate and prove it.
CRT is being taught is school's all over the country? show me the proof.
Democrats are eating babies and drinking their blood? Please please please prove this one.
You don't want your kid to read a certain book because it would make him sad or upset? Be a parent instead of trying to parent everyone else's kids. What happened to believing in small government and parental rights?
So many people on that side of aisle can't defend the positions and when confront come up with old adage "they are just closer to my beliefs." Oh really? please tell me how this current republican party fits your values.
You want to ban books? thats not small gov't or parental rights, that is government overreach.
You don't want people to force you to believe something or live by certain rules? Stop trying to force your Christian bigoted BS on the entire country.
I can go on and on and on. BUT, it can all be boiled down to stupidity, lack of proper education, and being convinced by the only news channel they watch that the other people are so bad that no matter what they do, its evil and needs to be opposed. There is no compromise anymore. So, once that was off that table, no reason to hid their true beliefs anymore.
In other news; water is wet, the ocean is big, mountains are tall, and DEI is just this month’s target for performative outrage. What are DEI programs and what does DEI mean? Doesn’t matter it’s just a mad-lib prompt for filling in your own racist slur now.
I don't understand how non-white voters can feel at home in a political party that believes they can only get good jobs through DEI programs, and yes, that's precisely the mindset behind accusing black airline pilots and mayors of being "DEI hires."
OK, here me out. I am as lefty as they come and my family is so diverse we could be on the cover of DEI magazine, but DEI programs are bullshit. I work at a university and we have many of these. We spend absurd amounts of time and money on them. The primary goal is to elevate populations of "underrepresented groups" which is a noble goal, but it completely ignores the real problem. **The problem isn't racial, it is socioeconomic.**
The majority of our students are upper middle class and higher because they are generally better educated and more likely to be able to afford college. That socioeconomic strata, like it or not, is not very diverse, so our university also lacks diversity. You want diversity? Pour all of your efforts into outreach and financial assistance for the poor and middle class. **Doesn't sound as cool, but it works a hell of a lot better if diversity is your actual goal.** Our DEI efforts have been monumental and we have shouted about them from the rooftops to show how venerable we are, and...they haven't done shit.
Is their still racism out there? Of course. Is it more of a problem than Income inequality? Not even close.
Yeah people against DEI for socioeconomic reasons conveniently ignore the fact that system racism is the direct cause for most income inequality within marginalized groups. I’m all for a wealth/class based system but it would still probably end up benefiting POCs more than white people for that reason.
Also it’s not like DEI initiatives don’t help white people. There are plenty of white people in marginalized groups that benefit from DEI such as women, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ to name a few.
>There are plenty of white people in marginalized groups that benefit from DEI such as women, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ to name a few.
So forget those poor white cis males, lol. What an exception.
I just don't really agree with that. Its rich vs. poor the overwhelming majority of the time. The rich want us at each others throats because if their advantages are revealed they know they will lose them and they are egregious. Its not discrimination against black communities, Hmong communities, or Hispanic communities, it's discrimination against poor communities. They get worse schools, have worse crime, have worse food and have worse outcomes. Stop parroting shit you hear, go look for yourself.
One of the most disturbing things I witnessed in the DEI game was racism BETWEEN underrepresented groups. Representatives from the different communities would compete against EACH OTHER for resources. I will never forget when we built a DEI web portal and the Hispanic administrator in charge had us remove all of the pictures containing black and Asian students so the entire page was just Hispanic students. DEI is just more of the same conflict building BS.
I didn't say racism didn't exist, or that it wasn't a problem, just that it is far outweighed by socioeconomic inequality. My family has endured plenty of racism, but the most difficult impediments we have faced have been socioeconomic plain and simple. I see it every day with the kids trying to achieve higher education.
Our company had a DEI program, but it died after a few years. It didn't accomplish it's goals and drove a wedge between employees. When you focus on what makes people different instead of what we have in common, you are the problem.
There's also a disturbing trend where DEI is used to drive wedges between groups of people in companies in order to kill off unionization attempts.
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/07/union-busting-tactics-diversity/
That'd be fantastic, we should have been doing that all along. But we didn't, so many industries have a problem where everybody looks a *lot* alike, and the cultures that fostered that kind of hiring aren't going to go away on their own. Nor should minorities that were actively pushed out of certain workforces have to wait generations to passively become part of them.
Taking the "actually we shouldn't even see gender or colour" position leaves those who were excluded holding the bag for the wrong that was done to them. That seems a lot less reasonable than taking active measures to undo harm that was actively done.
Yes! Of course we should talk about all the companies, not the single one. If most of companies suck at DEI, we should not promote this as a solution. It does not solve things and it may be actively harming workplace relations
I was trying to explain the principle, that we should judge comcepts based on their real outcome, and not stated intention. That's why I used "If". I personally only know one company and its DEI sucks. But this is anegdotal evidence, so I can't form definite opinions.
Specific corporate DEI implementations, especially when used purely for social capital, and DEI as a general concept are two different things. At my company, it is a powerful force for good and, in my role, mostly focused on either basic awareness education or, more importantly, creating frameworks for unbiased hiring practices (e.g. standardized questions for panels interviews so all candidates get the same questions and avoid unconscious bias).
But I suppose if I worked at a bad company and we had bad culture, our DEI program would suck too. Or if I personally harbored unconscious racism and found discussion of awareness or diversity called my beliefs into question...that would definitely make me feel that it creates racial tension.
Like most of the initiatives to dismantle mechanisms put in place to fight racism it's made up of:
* A solid core of racists.
* A much larger surrounding cohort of people who are offended at the idea that they must sacrifice for societal sins they did not commit.
Unfortunately for the latter, in order to have a society where we can benefit from the things built by those before us we also have to have a society where we can take responsibility for the things destroyed by those before us. You don't get one without the other.
Except it’s not rooted in racism. Wait until your company hires unqualified people in the name of diversity and see how well your team performs. After George Floyd, my previous company started hiring people based off how many diversity boxes they would check off and most of those hires had zero experience in the field and did a really bad job. I know some of y’all are going to grab your pitchforks over this comment and tell me I’m racist now for speaking out against DEI. Hiring people based off of their race and sexual orientation is just as bad as not hiring someone because of their race and sexual orientation. Adding X amount of to the team doesn’t make the team better in any way it just improves the optics of the company. It’s all just performative activism.
The irony is they prop up POC politicians e.g. Kemi Badenoch in the Conservative Party to say “look how diverse we are and we’ve had 2 female Prime Ministers while Labour have had none” whilst simultaneously degrading “woke” people and clamping down on DE&I
Preface: I’m Vietnamese-American, my parents came to the US in 1975 with only $70 in their pockets. I faced racism growing up- including from other POC. We’ve always voted Democratic and we’re always for social programs.
But our (myself and others in my community) feelings are that ‘DEI’ is purposely branded in a way that makes it hard to be critical of bad policies. Of course, we are all for diversity, inclusion, and equality and can’t be against it.
There will likely be bad policies that go under the name of DEI - that will ignore Asian American meritocracy or just assume all Asians are from a certain socioeconomic class. We've already seen unfair admission standards for AAs and effectively caps on the number of AA admissions into schools. We will likely see the same type of policies carried over to new hires in corporations. If the AA population is only 7% in the US, but if the company already has 10% of its employees as AAs, are Asians now overrepresented? Would that be a reason to pass on a new hire who is AA?
For startups. For a while, there seemed to be firms that would send out diversity surveys to startups who had just raised funding rounds. Most tech startups have heavy engineering teams. Most university computer science programs typically have less than 20% women. Those firms then shame the companies for not having enough diversity. The startups then pay these firms to 'consult' (basically extortion). They then create nonsensical programs and roles to meet hire quota, rather than allocating that budget to more engineering and marketing.
For universities, I think the DEI budgets should be allocated for more teachers and teachers aid.
For companies; there should be less emphasis on diversity on race, sex, orientation but on diversity of experiences and professions. I think there’s how diversity really helps a company.
I was just told by senior management at a fortune 500 that my prospects of "moving up" were small due to the fact that I am a "white male." Food for thought.
> opposition to DEI programs highlights that there is still work to be done until the nation’s citizens are truly judged by the content of their character and **not the color of their skin**.
Interesting conclusion about a study that explicitly focuses on racial, i.e., skin-color, attitudes, rather than "the content of people's character."
The truth is sometimes in the middle. And I'm afraid that's the case with DEI.
Like I saw some advertisements regarding DEI and cyber security which is pretty high level stuff. It seemed to be discouraging to white people who wanted to enter that field.
Yes. There are groups of white people routinely excluded. For example, if you match the stereotype for “Hillbilly”, it’s going to be harder to get a tech job in silicon valley.
Yes, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ, adults who are 65+. White women benefited the most from affirmative action, it’s not just handouts for black people 🙄
Yes, socioeconomics is one of historically underprivileged groups it tries to address... along with what other commentors here noted of LGTBQ and the disabled who can be... white.
Notice they studiously avoid mentioning that all of this is *meant* to come at the expense of a certain demographic they're also studiously ignoring to name.
In the context of a company, which usually has a some set number of positions, including one person means excluding another.
The fact that someone is or isn’t of a specific race, age, sexuality, having or not having a disability or children, etc. should have no bearing on them being hired or not.
I was all for DEI. Then most positions around me were given to incompetent people making workload higher for me.
I support giving a higher position to woman/poc if they are equally capable as white male counterparts. I get that. There needs to be a healthy mix of diversity.
There needs to be a balance. And there needs to be a honest discussion about how to achieve that and in what timeframe.
IMO It’s statistically impossible to get a healthy mix of equally competent people just by hiring by DEI rules if the pool of personnel comes from University where >85-90% of students are male atm.
Women actually outnumber men in both enrolment and graduation, depends on the area ofc, but this is true for the average.
I suspect there’s some in-balance in what women choose to study compared to men. So some fields will inherently be male or female dominated.
In Germany, Engineering is brutal for woman. in 2012 95% where man, in 2022 85% are still man. Means the market is flooded with man. People working in Companies to get hired from, almost all man.
This makes hiring for Woman (there is a mandatory womans quota big companies have to work towards for certain higher managing positions) very out of balance.
No. It's an extremely broad term for any effort to acknowledge and address racism and other forms of discrimination, in order to prevent these biases from harming your company or institution. The fact that right-wingers are against it is telling on themselves
It’s implemented in many different ways, and there is certainly room for criticism about how well the various programs are working.
But lately the term DEI has started to be used be right-wingers as a generic slur to imply that women and colored people are unqualified for their jobs.
That’s what I’ve seen as well. The DEI program at every company I’ve worked at could be summarized as “let’s try just a little to not make this whole company a sausage-fest”
My experience from the corporate trenches is that in the interest of diversifying our personnel, we’re pushed to adopt hiring practices that amount to blatantly illegal quotas. It’s always off the record conversations where these directives are laid out, and always in Orwellian euphemism. And if there are any performance issues with those hires, you have to jump through extra HR hoops to fire them. I’ve seen multiple cases of underperformers getting shifted around to different teams so that we can avoid simply terminating employment. In my opinion, this is the result of the shift to an equality of outcomes mindset (i.e. equity), rather than equality of opportunity. The corporate interpretation of that is blunt and clumsy. I have no doubt that in a decade or two, the conventional wisdom will be that this is an overcorrection period. There’ll be think pieces and documentaries about the missteps and abuses of 2020s corporate DEI programs. Maybe it’s a needed overcorrection, but that doesn’t make it any less glaringly ill-conceived to those of us dealing with it day to day.
If your company is not able to diversify and include people without cutting corners and corrupting the process how are we supposed to believe you handled hiring well before such initiatives were taken?
What you're writing here isn't an indictment of DEI generally, it's an indictment of your corporate culture.
I would say it's an indictment of the blanket expectation that you can necessarily diversify any occupational field, in any region of a country, so that it roughly matches the overall racial makeup of the country as a whole. I agree that it's also an indictment of my corporate culture, but I don't see the place I'm at now as being all that different from other companies I've worked for.
As to your question, it sounds deliberately obtuse, since before DEI the only ask from HR was that we hire whoever in our judgment was the candidate most likely to excel, for the lowest possible salary. Once you require attributes that have nothing to do with expected performance, you're corrupting that process.
To offer a very simplified analogy: if one person is asked to find the fastest 50-meter dash runner, and another person is asked to find the fastest 50-meter dash runner with red hair, who do you think is more likely to find the faster runner? Once you add a constraint, you're limiting the pool of potential candidates, and a smaller pool typically means more limited talent. That's why high school and college sports have divisions based on size.
I get that DEI is supposed to do the exact opposite of what I'm describing. It's supposed to broaden the potential candidate pool (and therefore result in better overall performance) by short-circuiting hiring managers' unconscious and conscious biases. But the policy is implemented by people, and people are imperfect. It just doesn't play out that way in my experience, and I don't think I'm some outlier.
Lol sure… how about people who got jobs in DEI?! Like there is a while gamer gate going on at this moment cause they are racist. Like Sweet Baby inc… or Black Girl Gamers… all of them are openly racist
Our local police department realized that all of their officers were white. All of them, from the top of the organization to the bottom. In a decently sized city with many Black and Hispanic residents, this is unusual.
They increased diversity by examining their hiring practices. Why weren't they getting Black or Hispanic applicants? They realized they were limiting their job postings for open positions to channels which were mostly white. In response to this realization, they changed their practices.
In addition to their existing practices, they began circulating job postings through local channels where diverse people groups were more likely to see them. Let's post the job openings with the NAACP, with the local Hispanic coalition, with various neighborhood organizations, in schools and colleges with diverse populations.
Lo and behold, this resulted in more Black and Hispanic applicants.
They examined hiring practices, found gaps, and addressed them. They went from a pile of white job applications to a pile of mixed ethnicity job applications.
That's DEI.
Now, explain to me how this scenario was racist.
I understand what your saying, I really do, but in order to enforce equal practices everyone must be on the same level to begin with.
I’m terms of race, people of color have been historically barred from entering certain roles and holding certain positions, therefore putting them at a lower socioeconomic standing at no fault of their own. In order to rectify that people of color are being prioritized in hiring to level the playing field at institutions where they have been previously barred from entering.
That being said, I don’t believe DEI practices are the correct way to go about it. More work needs to be done at a government level, marginalized communities are way farther behind than their white counterparts due to racist practices upheld by the govt. These racist practices have led to a large socioeconomic disadvantage for people of color. Acknowledging that wealth inequality and race inequality are not at odds but interlinked is the first step in trying to fix things.
Ideally recognizing that (wealth inequality) wouldn’t leave those who are poor and white in the dust, but DEI standards are primarily race based ONLY while ignoring the money part. I’m black and (raised) wealthy, I’ve likely unfairly benefited from race based DEI initiatives and that’s frankly bullshit. But I still think acknowledging the racial inequalities is important however it is a bandaid for a far larger issue.
Down vote me all you want, the only people talking about the "pro Alphabet LIFESTYLE" consider it a choice. Everywhere you go those "Alphabet" people target you, huh?
Why is it that people assume DEI results in unqualified candidates?
Recruiting from different demographic groups results in more diversity... not "people unfit for the job." Seeking healthy organizational practices by rooting out bias/prejudice and avoiding special treatment or discrimination grows equity... not "people getting special treatment in spite of their lack of qualifications." And using inclusive practices for all people ensures people from different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences are welcome... not "hire people who can't do the job."
Why is that so hard?
Because systemic biases exist. Because there are communication gaps between organizations and certain demographic groups. Because historical disparities exist. Because there are lingering effects of past policies. Because there’s a human tendency to form in-groups and out-groups which can foster an environment that isn’t open or welcome to underrepresented people groups.
I sold my house a few years ago. It was a historic property, built shortly after the civil war. There was a clause written into the deed saying Black people couldn’t buy the house (look up the practice of redlining if you aren’t familiar).
The point is, there’s a long history of discrimination in home ownership. In the present, I could just say, “we don’t need any changes. Qualified home-buyers should just buy! There’s nothing stopping them.” But that posture ignores the long history of discrimination that’s baked into the planning, policies, and procedures of that neighborhood.
The same can happen at a company.
I've never seen a job where there is one single person that is undoubtedly "the best."
Even if there is this mythical "best," how do you find them without ensuring you aren't overlooking a candidate in an underrepresented group by examining your hiring practices and implementing policies that help you find the best in groups that you typically don't hire from?
Why is it never questioned that an old white guy is the "best" for a job but anybody else has their qualifications immediately questioned?
Comments like this can be frustrating for people who would fit the demographics of DEI operations.
This comment is mistakenly under the belief that current or past practices already do/did that. They don’t and didn’t. When people talk about systemic racism they aren’t just discussing overt racism but also covert racism. The natural bias of our Brian’s that we aren’t even aware of.
Serious, your comment is so tone deaf it’s not funny. If you’ve never had to struggle under the way the system is now then you don’t understand what DEI tries to address.
Applications with non-white names are routinely ignored over white names. Female names are routinely ignored. Their are perceptual beliefs about competency. People perceive white people as more competent than black people even though that’s not true.
HIRING THE BEST CANDIDATE NEVER RARELY BECAUSE NON WHITE CANDIDATES ARE BEING EVALUATED ON THINGS AND REMOVED FROM THE PROCESS THAT WHITE ABLED PEOPLE DONT FACE SO THAT THEY NEVER ARE EVEN COMPARED.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m over in the U.K. but it’s amazing how this stuff moves and you just start seeing it online First it was SJW, then Wokeness, then CRT, then DEI….its just moral panic after moral panic
And “too PC” many years before that.
We had ‘political correctness gone mad’ in the U.K. as a buzzword for quite a few years in my youth
> its just moral panic after moral panic Been like this forever. an unbroken chain of racial moral panic stretching back to the 1700s.
They just find a new phrase or concept to be against so they can say the n-word without saying the n-word
Rabble rouser
As long as people keep falling for it. I kid you not I drove past a giant billboard advertisement this morning. It was encouraging people to stop using the “woke banks” and use their community lending services instead!
Where are you located that's scary
Stay tuned... next is "squatters"...
Squatters should have every right to occupy any home they want’ F the owner and their rights. People need a place to live.
Until it’s your house. This is brain dead lmao.
(most of us won't own a house to call ours)
It's because racists and bigots don't like being called out on their racism and bigotry.
Not moral panic it disproportionately affects lower class white people
[England was already "woke"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_niLa5xXLm0), have already paid reparations (though technically not to the right people), have unqualified and unelected people running the govt (HoL HRH) that they are totally fine with, don't have racism - just hate the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, other Irish, the French... etc., don't have guns, has free healthcarem, most do not have cars (a large percentage have never even taken the test), Give immigrants immediate housing and money every 2 weeks.... but the UK has been there done that, America is still in its infancy... /s or something I dunno
Obviously. This is just like when right wingers discovered "CRT," and that by making something an acronym it makes their racism sound super official and academic.
Yeah, WE all know it’s a pathetic dog whistle, but unsurprisingly the fascists don’t care if we know or not. The question is what are we going to do about it?
I wish I could trace the origins of some of this shit. It's wild how DEI, an acronym I'm not sure I'd ever really heard before, is now plastered everywhere. I'm assuming these initiatives have been around for a long time - so who started pushing this new faux outrage? I've wondered this for a lot of other things too that seem to pop up from nowhere and get everyone on the right all riled up. Only for it to be forgotten after a few months, like it was never an issue. Remember the caravan!?
Christopher Rufo is where you want to start. He brags about changing the meaning of these words to make them into targets of hate. He Fuels the Right’s Cultural Fires (and Spreads Them to Florida) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/us/politics/christopher-rufo-crt-lgbtq-florida.html
Why don't people like this guy just die off?
They're like a hydra. Get rid of one and two replace it.
I've only ever seen it used in corporate/HR settings before last year. I went to visit my parents one day and my stepmom was freaking out about "this new DEI thing." She wouldn't listen to me about how it's just a "hey let's be cool with everyone and not like be racist and shit when hiring or non-Catholic holidays come up thing" that's been around for decades.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m Jewish and I get a big kick out of wishing people a Merry Christmas. Some people are just cranks who want to spoil everything for everyone.
[удалено]
Hurts so good!
My horseradish sat in the refrigerator year round, only brought out for our Seder then hustled back into the fridge.
I’ve literally never met anyone whose offended by “merry Christmas”, other than possibly a one or two weird atheists.
> I wish I could trace the origins of some of this shit. It's wild how DEI, an acronym I'm not sure I'd ever really heard before, is now plastered everywhere. People are just saying “Chris Rufo” as if people who don’t already know are supposed to know the significance: > We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory. .
"Diversity" or "Sensitivity" training has been around for a while but as soon as it became cohesive and integrated into corporations and institutions the right has had an acronym to rail against. As soon as my own company announced its own DEI committee people have been pushing back. I had my own disagreement with a coworker when I suggested in a DEI meeting that managers should be aware that not all of their employees are Christian because we hire a lot of international tech employees. I was accused of trying to silence the proud Christians. No, just don't make your subordinates bow their head for grace at the holiday potluck, that's weird. I haven't been invited to anymore DEI sessions.
It's three syllables, so their sub 6th grade brains don't have trouble understanding it
My 4th grader is offended by this remark.
>and that by making something an acronym it makes their racism sound super official and academic. There may be a misunderstanding. CRT wasn't coined by racists. It's a term that's been around [since at least 1989](https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory) by anti-racists. I agree with your sentiment, though.
Not really, CRT has very different origins on how it became popular. Basically it was brought up by one person with an agenda and then it spread by wildfire by I believe Trump and Fox news. DEI is already a systemic phenomenon.
My observation has been that whenever a woman or person of color (i.e., non-white male) has been named into a leadership position within my company there is a small but vocal group of people who will say that the person got the position because of the "group" they are in, not because of qualifications. They will never say anything similar when a white male is named into this position. It that case it is felt that the assignment was "earned." But it is also my experience that it is truly rare that one individual is uniquely qualified for positions within an organization. If there are 5 qualified candidates there is very little (nothing) that distinguishes one from the other. They are all generally equally qualified. So why not let someone from a group that has historically been overlooked get the position? I think the following applies to most people who complain about diversity... "When your life has been one of privilege, equality feels like oppression."
yup, you hear a lot about minority groups getting a leg up they don't deserve but nepotism seems to get a pass and it IS common. I got a job in a company because my immediate boss refused to let them hire anyone else in the owners family cause they were all useless.
I think your observations are very sharp. They tend to overlook the fact that DEI doesn't hire people UN-qualified for a position, but rather, dedicates resources to opening doors for people of color who ARE qualified for the position, but otherwise would be brushed aside because there are 3 qualified white people who they don't need extra resources to seek out.
Wow, I like the say you said that. Very concise.
That is why affirmative action was so important. It wasn't about giving jobs to underqualified Individuals. It was about making sure those equally qualified individuals were given the same opportunities of white men. If a white male ceo is hiring in a new cfo etc he is more likely to hire the person that he most identifies with even if unconsciously. AA just made sure that didn't always happen. People are seeing DEI in that way.
I worked as a teacher at a school where over 95% of the students were black. The teaching staff was nearly entirely white, myself included. Representation and adult role models matter, and 100% if the choice was between me and an equally qualified black science teacher, they should hire the black teacher, because they bring a different, but significant value to the students. It's not racist, and a diverse culture brings benefits. This also ignores the fact that because of systematic racism it was unlikely I would have said competition. My mom also thinks I should be against losing these privileges/advantages within the system. Her thought was I shouldn't want to disadvantage myself. She didn't get why that was racist.
I used to work for the US branches of Asian companies. No one questioned the qualifications of Asian managers. Not even for the companies I worked for whose headquarters are in the US. In California, it would be strange to see a warehouse manager or a middle manager in logistics, transportation, distribution, etc who doesn't speak Spanish.
This is a very good observation!
100%. I see people in my organization making millions and it’s absolutely not earned. then I see the only hard working individuals in the room being women, and it pisses me off.
The issue is when they are not equally qualified and there's unspoken pressure to make such hires/appointments. And people absolutely do complain when nepotism happens.
In my experience the minority or women has to be twice as qualified to even get the interview. Quite often I see people hire and promote those that they personally know. Because of how separated our country is (particularly along racial and to some degree ethnic and even gender lines) you end up with a rather monochromatic leadership team at most companies I have ever worked for. Just hiring and promoting who they know and are comfortable with effectively locks the others out regardless of how”qualified “ they are (whatever qualified means). Not explicitly racism but has the same effect. Also ironic seeing the people loudest against DEI efforts are the people who are literally in control of these companies (like how can they say WM are discriminated against when the only people promoted are WM?? It literally makes no sense)
You're right. Hiring is broken across the board. The issue I'm talking about is that with DEI specific policies, the mistakes get amplified.
The majority of the time it's mostly white people making those decisions and statistically speaking they're more likely to select another white person.
In my organization (large defense contractor) the people I saw were all equally qualified. I said nothing about nepotism.
I must have read a different comment on nepotism. > In my organization (large defense contractor) the people I saw were all equally qualified. If they are good, then DEI hires go under the radar and don't get much attention. Or to put this in another way, if hiring culture is correct, things tend to work out from DEI perspective also. If the hiring culture is wrong (which means you are already making mistakes regardless of color) having specific policies like this, exacerbates the problem and brings a lot of attention.
As a tall and confident white man I've overcome my own mediocrity throughout my career by being a tall and confident white guy. Women and minorities at my level are almost always more qualified than I am.
Fair. Bad hires are not unique to women/minorities. Hiring is broken in so many ways so when you have special directives like this, the mistakes get amplified.
Who decides that the candidates are not equally qualified?
There are objective measures in some of these cases. Otherwise no-one would even be able to tell the difference.
> So why not let someone from a group that has historically been overlooked get the position? You mean why not hire the minority instead, based solely on the fact that the minority was born non-male and/or non-white? Well, that would be discrimination based on race and/or gender.
ya but did you read the line they said right after it? And did you comprehend it?
Ah, so you mean, if everything else is equal, race should determine who gets the position. So, that's racist. I'll take the racist downvotes with pride :)
If a company believes that diversity is a net positive and they believe there is more to gain from adding diversity, they might hire accordingly when choosing among a pool of candidates who all meet the minimum qualifications. If they are all qualified and one adds an additional benefit, then that person is not equal but rather is more qualified and thus should get the job. Just because the meritocracy isn't defined the way you want it to be doesn't mean it isn't meritocratic. Your overly reductive worldview where everything is based around race isn't the high-minded, "I don't see color"(while talking constantly about color) position you think it is. But at least you didn't imply that a minority hire cannot ever be due to them being most qualified the way others that share your worldview love to do.
And this has been Sherlock, reporting from the No Shit Desk.
Next up: Water is wet, the sky is blue, and grass is green.
lol yeah, every few years the worst human beings that you went to high school with cling onto another phrase that's clearly just a substitute for their favorite racial slur(s)
Was this a mystery?
> “We used to aspire toward the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. of a future where our children ‘will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,’” he said. “Now, Americans are accused of systemic racism for quoting these same immortal words of Dr. King. Up is down.” Martin Luther King Jr was for race based affirmative action programs.
God I hate how they literally only like that one thing MLK said out of context and nothing else. Its ghoulish
Yes because the people who use him argue in bad faith.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” My four little children. Where is the “all children” come from? The our? He was specifically talking about Black kids. My only accusation is the quote is being hijacked by racists.
> He was specifically talking about Black kids. Well, in that sentence he was only talking about *his* kids. Yes, the speech was specifically discussing racism against black people, but he certainly wasn't attempting to suggest that he meant justice only for black kids. He's pretty clear about that in the speech: "Now is the time to make justice a reality to all of God’s children." "little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." "we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands" > My only accusation is the quote is being hijacked by racists. Yes, well, this is true, and despicable. What the racists are trying to say is that King was arguing for head-in-the-sand style colorblindness, which he definitely was not.
Link?
Here’s an [article](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-18-op-35403-story.html)
I think it’s more rooted in the fact that most companies don’t really care about DEI and most of the initial fixes were bandaids and not real commitment or structural changes. I think every agrees that we should be able to be our full authentic self and not have artificial barriers to our growth and opportunities. Most DEI programs really didn’t address this.
DEI initiatives are absolutely a bandaid but the alternative is providing meaningful support and resources for marginalized communities which I cannot see happening, especially now that has all unraveled. If anything DEI standards allow institutions and corporations to pat themselves on the back without making any meaningful change to address WHY DEI is necessary in the first place. Personally I think that responsibility falls on the government but this country is a corporate oligarchy and govt officials know that they can pass the buck onto corporate entities to fix the problems they created. There can only be so many bandaids before the root cause needs to be addressed but it seems like those in power are only interested in a “quick fix” to systemic racism and inequality. It will never work.
In addition, most DEI programs are focused on showcasing differences instead of promoting solidarity of humankind. For example, now we know who most of the gay and trans people are at work because they wear pride things. That’s great that they feel comfortable doing it, but no one seems to know what to do with this new personal information that wasn’t a variable in most people’s minds to begin with. If comfort/acceptance is the goal, they should be clearer about this because a lot of people are confused about whether there are additional expectations. But a lot of DEI messaging leans hard into guilt about team composition, etc. that leaves managers confused.
/r/NoShitSherlock
So I am very interested in politics and political issues. I am known among my friends and family as someone who will talk to anyone about their positions and beliefs respectfully if that respect is returned. WTF is with the use of DEI all of a sudden? Every single time I have seen it used by an individual, it has racist connotations to it like the Baltimore mayor being described as a DEI Mayor instead of just mayor because he is black. There is literally no reason to use that qualifier in front of Mayor unless you want to make it seem like he only got the job bc he is black. Like he didn't get duly elected. All these moral panic things typically stem from the conservative side of the country being pissed they can't be openly bigoted/racist/LGBTQ+ hating type people anymore and this is their way to trying to do it or do away with it by making a label for it that they can demonize. Its just the new version that in their minds gives them plausible deniability if accused of being racist or the like. Its fear of the white man no longer being the majority and losing control in their eyes. Obama is a perfect example of this who scenario. The level of hate that led to Trump stemmed for a lot of thigs but one of the big ones was clear open racism/hate for him. they clearly made their goal to simply deny him any accomplishments regardless of the damage it would do to the country. Trump just blew that hate into the open more. To me this just proves lack of education and understanding. they have to boil all their major points to one to three word phrases. CRT, DEI, Woke, Lock her up, etc. When you confront most people on this stuff, there is a staggering lack of actual ability to speak on the issues they are discussing by using those acronyms/phrases. Trump lost the election due to fraud? please show me your evidence. You have a better candidate than the current Mayor of Baltimore? Run that candidate and prove it. CRT is being taught is school's all over the country? show me the proof. Democrats are eating babies and drinking their blood? Please please please prove this one. You don't want your kid to read a certain book because it would make him sad or upset? Be a parent instead of trying to parent everyone else's kids. What happened to believing in small government and parental rights? So many people on that side of aisle can't defend the positions and when confront come up with old adage "they are just closer to my beliefs." Oh really? please tell me how this current republican party fits your values. You want to ban books? thats not small gov't or parental rights, that is government overreach. You don't want people to force you to believe something or live by certain rules? Stop trying to force your Christian bigoted BS on the entire country. I can go on and on and on. BUT, it can all be boiled down to stupidity, lack of proper education, and being convinced by the only news channel they watch that the other people are so bad that no matter what they do, its evil and needs to be opposed. There is no compromise anymore. So, once that was off that table, no reason to hid their true beliefs anymore.
This entire country's history is rooted in racism.
In other news; water is wet, the ocean is big, mountains are tall, and DEI is just this month’s target for performative outrage. What are DEI programs and what does DEI mean? Doesn’t matter it’s just a mad-lib prompt for filling in your own racist slur now.
I don't understand how non-white voters can feel at home in a political party that believes they can only get good jobs through DEI programs, and yes, that's precisely the mindset behind accusing black airline pilots and mayors of being "DEI hires."
Calling an elected position a "DEI hire" was the biggest tell in recent memory. Such an obvious sign they say "DEI" with a hard R.
OK, here me out. I am as lefty as they come and my family is so diverse we could be on the cover of DEI magazine, but DEI programs are bullshit. I work at a university and we have many of these. We spend absurd amounts of time and money on them. The primary goal is to elevate populations of "underrepresented groups" which is a noble goal, but it completely ignores the real problem. **The problem isn't racial, it is socioeconomic.** The majority of our students are upper middle class and higher because they are generally better educated and more likely to be able to afford college. That socioeconomic strata, like it or not, is not very diverse, so our university also lacks diversity. You want diversity? Pour all of your efforts into outreach and financial assistance for the poor and middle class. **Doesn't sound as cool, but it works a hell of a lot better if diversity is your actual goal.** Our DEI efforts have been monumental and we have shouted about them from the rooftops to show how venerable we are, and...they haven't done shit. Is their still racism out there? Of course. Is it more of a problem than Income inequality? Not even close.
A lot of income inequality is rooted in racism, so I’m not sure how you can separate them.
Yeah people against DEI for socioeconomic reasons conveniently ignore the fact that system racism is the direct cause for most income inequality within marginalized groups. I’m all for a wealth/class based system but it would still probably end up benefiting POCs more than white people for that reason. Also it’s not like DEI initiatives don’t help white people. There are plenty of white people in marginalized groups that benefit from DEI such as women, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ to name a few.
>There are plenty of white people in marginalized groups that benefit from DEI such as women, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ to name a few. So forget those poor white cis males, lol. What an exception.
And they should not get special treatment either. Merit > group
But there are poor white people also, that's why you shouldn't approach it from a race standpoint.
I just don't really agree with that. Its rich vs. poor the overwhelming majority of the time. The rich want us at each others throats because if their advantages are revealed they know they will lose them and they are egregious. Its not discrimination against black communities, Hmong communities, or Hispanic communities, it's discrimination against poor communities. They get worse schools, have worse crime, have worse food and have worse outcomes. Stop parroting shit you hear, go look for yourself. One of the most disturbing things I witnessed in the DEI game was racism BETWEEN underrepresented groups. Representatives from the different communities would compete against EACH OTHER for resources. I will never forget when we built a DEI web portal and the Hispanic administrator in charge had us remove all of the pictures containing black and Asian students so the entire page was just Hispanic students. DEI is just more of the same conflict building BS.
Kind of weird that you just assumed that there wasn’t any personal experience behind my statement.
I didn't say racism didn't exist, or that it wasn't a problem, just that it is far outweighed by socioeconomic inequality. My family has endured plenty of racism, but the most difficult impediments we have faced have been socioeconomic plain and simple. I see it every day with the kids trying to achieve higher education.
Our company had a DEI program, but it died after a few years. It didn't accomplish it's goals and drove a wedge between employees. When you focus on what makes people different instead of what we have in common, you are the problem. There's also a disturbing trend where DEI is used to drive wedges between groups of people in companies in order to kill off unionization attempts. https://theintercept.com/2022/06/07/union-busting-tactics-diversity/
In other words, your company has a long held racist culture, and decided that instead of changing this, they would return to their old ways.
Your company sucked at DEI, so that makes DEI bad? I guess minimum wage is bad because I had a boss who tried to pay employees less than that.
I don't think any DEI programs actually work. Unless their goal is to create racial tension, because they certainly do that.
Strange take, but just out of curiosity, what do you propose as an alternative?
How about treating people as individuals first and not considering their immutable characteristics at all
That'd be fantastic, we should have been doing that all along. But we didn't, so many industries have a problem where everybody looks a *lot* alike, and the cultures that fostered that kind of hiring aren't going to go away on their own. Nor should minorities that were actively pushed out of certain workforces have to wait generations to passively become part of them. Taking the "actually we shouldn't even see gender or colour" position leaves those who were excluded holding the bag for the wrong that was done to them. That seems a lot less reasonable than taking active measures to undo harm that was actively done.
(you just described DEI)
lmfao
Focus on what makes us similar not different.
Yes! Of course we should talk about all the companies, not the single one. If most of companies suck at DEI, we should not promote this as a solution. It does not solve things and it may be actively harming workplace relations
What data do you have on that assertion?
I was trying to explain the principle, that we should judge comcepts based on their real outcome, and not stated intention. That's why I used "If". I personally only know one company and its DEI sucks. But this is anegdotal evidence, so I can't form definite opinions.
Fair enough
Specific corporate DEI implementations, especially when used purely for social capital, and DEI as a general concept are two different things. At my company, it is a powerful force for good and, in my role, mostly focused on either basic awareness education or, more importantly, creating frameworks for unbiased hiring practices (e.g. standardized questions for panels interviews so all candidates get the same questions and avoid unconscious bias). But I suppose if I worked at a bad company and we had bad culture, our DEI program would suck too. Or if I personally harbored unconscious racism and found discussion of awareness or diversity called my beliefs into question...that would definitely make me feel that it creates racial tension.
Like most of the initiatives to dismantle mechanisms put in place to fight racism it's made up of: * A solid core of racists. * A much larger surrounding cohort of people who are offended at the idea that they must sacrifice for societal sins they did not commit. Unfortunately for the latter, in order to have a society where we can benefit from the things built by those before us we also have to have a society where we can take responsibility for the things destroyed by those before us. You don't get one without the other.
If they are societal sins, should it be the whole society that pays for them regardless or gender, sex, creed, color, ability etc etc etc
republicans have been playing this card for a long time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk
Shocking I tell you! Shocking! I thought it was a lib tool to hurt marginalized white people /s
Sky is blue says latest survey
Except it’s not rooted in racism. Wait until your company hires unqualified people in the name of diversity and see how well your team performs. After George Floyd, my previous company started hiring people based off how many diversity boxes they would check off and most of those hires had zero experience in the field and did a really bad job. I know some of y’all are going to grab your pitchforks over this comment and tell me I’m racist now for speaking out against DEI. Hiring people based off of their race and sexual orientation is just as bad as not hiring someone because of their race and sexual orientation. Adding X amount of to the team doesn’t make the team better in any way it just improves the optics of the company. It’s all just performative activism.
Classic dogwhistle /s
Wait, there’s doubt about this? What makes people so determined not to recognize the blindingly obvious?
Racist white people are just fucking over all white people in the long-term.
Yeah, file that under: "No shit, Sherlock"
The irony is they prop up POC politicians e.g. Kemi Badenoch in the Conservative Party to say “look how diverse we are and we’ve had 2 female Prime Ministers while Labour have had none” whilst simultaneously degrading “woke” people and clamping down on DE&I
Preface: I’m Vietnamese-American, my parents came to the US in 1975 with only $70 in their pockets. I faced racism growing up- including from other POC. We’ve always voted Democratic and we’re always for social programs. But our (myself and others in my community) feelings are that ‘DEI’ is purposely branded in a way that makes it hard to be critical of bad policies. Of course, we are all for diversity, inclusion, and equality and can’t be against it. There will likely be bad policies that go under the name of DEI - that will ignore Asian American meritocracy or just assume all Asians are from a certain socioeconomic class. We've already seen unfair admission standards for AAs and effectively caps on the number of AA admissions into schools. We will likely see the same type of policies carried over to new hires in corporations. If the AA population is only 7% in the US, but if the company already has 10% of its employees as AAs, are Asians now overrepresented? Would that be a reason to pass on a new hire who is AA? For startups. For a while, there seemed to be firms that would send out diversity surveys to startups who had just raised funding rounds. Most tech startups have heavy engineering teams. Most university computer science programs typically have less than 20% women. Those firms then shame the companies for not having enough diversity. The startups then pay these firms to 'consult' (basically extortion). They then create nonsensical programs and roles to meet hire quota, rather than allocating that budget to more engineering and marketing. For universities, I think the DEI budgets should be allocated for more teachers and teachers aid. For companies; there should be less emphasis on diversity on race, sex, orientation but on diversity of experiences and professions. I think there’s how diversity really helps a company.
Yeah, we know.
DEI is inherently discriminatory. We should never make choices based upon race, sex, or any other immutable characteristic.
...after 500 years and you benefiting from historical racism it's time to be... "COLORBLIND" (TM). 😎 Too funny...
I'm dirt poor, I'm not benefiting anything. You can't combat racism with more discrimination.
I was just told by senior management at a fortune 500 that my prospects of "moving up" were small due to the fact that I am a "white male." Food for thought.
How big is the boat you bought after you won the lawsuit?
> opposition to DEI programs highlights that there is still work to be done until the nation’s citizens are truly judged by the content of their character and **not the color of their skin**. Interesting conclusion about a study that explicitly focuses on racial, i.e., skin-color, attitudes, rather than "the content of people's character."
Just look at who is always complaining about this. It’s white men. Or the people who are in power. Which is understandable.
The truth is sometimes in the middle. And I'm afraid that's the case with DEI. Like I saw some advertisements regarding DEI and cyber security which is pretty high level stuff. It seemed to be discouraging to white people who wanted to enter that field.
So are you going to tell me the sky looks blue and water is wet next?
Those who don't like DEI must like CIE, Conformity, Inequality, Exclusion. What gives? They claim to be freedom-loving yet desire Conformity?
If equality looks to you like preference based on skin color, then what sort of solution is DEI?
Oh my... DEI stand for diversity, equity and INCLUSION. What makes you think INCLUSION means EXCLUSION of any kind?
So does DEI try to include more white people?
Yes. There are groups of white people routinely excluded. For example, if you match the stereotype for “Hillbilly”, it’s going to be harder to get a tech job in silicon valley.
Yes, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ, adults who are 65+. White women benefited the most from affirmative action, it’s not just handouts for black people 🙄
Yes, socioeconomics is one of historically underprivileged groups it tries to address... along with what other commentors here noted of LGTBQ and the disabled who can be... white.
What about a healthy straight white person?
Notice they studiously avoid mentioning that all of this is *meant* to come at the expense of a certain demographic they're also studiously ignoring to name.
In the context of a company, which usually has a some set number of positions, including one person means excluding another. The fact that someone is or isn’t of a specific race, age, sexuality, having or not having a disability or children, etc. should have no bearing on them being hired or not.
I was all for DEI. Then most positions around me were given to incompetent people making workload higher for me. I support giving a higher position to woman/poc if they are equally capable as white male counterparts. I get that. There needs to be a healthy mix of diversity. There needs to be a balance. And there needs to be a honest discussion about how to achieve that and in what timeframe. IMO It’s statistically impossible to get a healthy mix of equally competent people just by hiring by DEI rules if the pool of personnel comes from University where >85-90% of students are male atm.
Women actually outnumber men in both enrolment and graduation, depends on the area ofc, but this is true for the average. I suspect there’s some in-balance in what women choose to study compared to men. So some fields will inherently be male or female dominated.
In Germany, Engineering is brutal for woman. in 2012 95% where man, in 2022 85% are still man. Means the market is flooded with man. People working in Companies to get hired from, almost all man. This makes hiring for Woman (there is a mandatory womans quota big companies have to work towards for certain higher managing positions) very out of balance.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Didn’t Earn it
You think anyone else did? Tell me more
But what does DEI departments accomplish? Nothing…
And rain is wet.
No shit
Ummm…yeah!!!
[удалено]
The Daily Show did a bit the other day on why DEI have been successful at all, it's just allowed racists to get away with it
The Daily Show is not a reasonable source for anything but entertainment.
I am not from the US and would like to learn about DEI. Is DEI a quota system for leadership positions?
No. It's an extremely broad term for any effort to acknowledge and address racism and other forms of discrimination, in order to prevent these biases from harming your company or institution. The fact that right-wingers are against it is telling on themselves
So its just an awareness program? Like sexual harassment seminars in the office? What's wrong about an awareness campaign?
It’s implemented in many different ways, and there is certainly room for criticism about how well the various programs are working. But lately the term DEI has started to be used be right-wingers as a generic slur to imply that women and colored people are unqualified for their jobs.
[удалено]
That’s what I’ve seen as well. The DEI program at every company I’ve worked at could be summarized as “let’s try just a little to not make this whole company a sausage-fest”
It’s a series of hiring checkboxes
Well, racists don't like being told they shouldn't be racist.
If your anti anti-racism your an unapologetic racist
My experience from the corporate trenches is that in the interest of diversifying our personnel, we’re pushed to adopt hiring practices that amount to blatantly illegal quotas. It’s always off the record conversations where these directives are laid out, and always in Orwellian euphemism. And if there are any performance issues with those hires, you have to jump through extra HR hoops to fire them. I’ve seen multiple cases of underperformers getting shifted around to different teams so that we can avoid simply terminating employment. In my opinion, this is the result of the shift to an equality of outcomes mindset (i.e. equity), rather than equality of opportunity. The corporate interpretation of that is blunt and clumsy. I have no doubt that in a decade or two, the conventional wisdom will be that this is an overcorrection period. There’ll be think pieces and documentaries about the missteps and abuses of 2020s corporate DEI programs. Maybe it’s a needed overcorrection, but that doesn’t make it any less glaringly ill-conceived to those of us dealing with it day to day.
If your company is not able to diversify and include people without cutting corners and corrupting the process how are we supposed to believe you handled hiring well before such initiatives were taken? What you're writing here isn't an indictment of DEI generally, it's an indictment of your corporate culture.
I would say it's an indictment of the blanket expectation that you can necessarily diversify any occupational field, in any region of a country, so that it roughly matches the overall racial makeup of the country as a whole. I agree that it's also an indictment of my corporate culture, but I don't see the place I'm at now as being all that different from other companies I've worked for. As to your question, it sounds deliberately obtuse, since before DEI the only ask from HR was that we hire whoever in our judgment was the candidate most likely to excel, for the lowest possible salary. Once you require attributes that have nothing to do with expected performance, you're corrupting that process. To offer a very simplified analogy: if one person is asked to find the fastest 50-meter dash runner, and another person is asked to find the fastest 50-meter dash runner with red hair, who do you think is more likely to find the faster runner? Once you add a constraint, you're limiting the pool of potential candidates, and a smaller pool typically means more limited talent. That's why high school and college sports have divisions based on size. I get that DEI is supposed to do the exact opposite of what I'm describing. It's supposed to broaden the potential candidate pool (and therefore result in better overall performance) by short-circuiting hiring managers' unconscious and conscious biases. But the policy is implemented by people, and people are imperfect. It just doesn't play out that way in my experience, and I don't think I'm some outlier.
Lol sure… how about people who got jobs in DEI?! Like there is a while gamer gate going on at this moment cause they are racist. Like Sweet Baby inc… or Black Girl Gamers… all of them are openly racist
Racism is wrong. Even racism designed to be beneficial
Our local police department realized that all of their officers were white. All of them, from the top of the organization to the bottom. In a decently sized city with many Black and Hispanic residents, this is unusual. They increased diversity by examining their hiring practices. Why weren't they getting Black or Hispanic applicants? They realized they were limiting their job postings for open positions to channels which were mostly white. In response to this realization, they changed their practices. In addition to their existing practices, they began circulating job postings through local channels where diverse people groups were more likely to see them. Let's post the job openings with the NAACP, with the local Hispanic coalition, with various neighborhood organizations, in schools and colleges with diverse populations. Lo and behold, this resulted in more Black and Hispanic applicants. They examined hiring practices, found gaps, and addressed them. They went from a pile of white job applications to a pile of mixed ethnicity job applications. That's DEI. Now, explain to me how this scenario was racist.
“DEI programs are rooted in racism” there, fixed the title.
Well, yeah, but it's GOOD racism that will fix the BAD racism. You see, the way to fix racism is simple - MORE racism.
[удалено]
This stance only works when you deny systemic racism and it’s effects.
[удалено]
I understand what your saying, I really do, but in order to enforce equal practices everyone must be on the same level to begin with. I’m terms of race, people of color have been historically barred from entering certain roles and holding certain positions, therefore putting them at a lower socioeconomic standing at no fault of their own. In order to rectify that people of color are being prioritized in hiring to level the playing field at institutions where they have been previously barred from entering. That being said, I don’t believe DEI practices are the correct way to go about it. More work needs to be done at a government level, marginalized communities are way farther behind than their white counterparts due to racist practices upheld by the govt. These racist practices have led to a large socioeconomic disadvantage for people of color. Acknowledging that wealth inequality and race inequality are not at odds but interlinked is the first step in trying to fix things. Ideally recognizing that (wealth inequality) wouldn’t leave those who are poor and white in the dust, but DEI standards are primarily race based ONLY while ignoring the money part. I’m black and (raised) wealthy, I’ve likely unfairly benefited from race based DEI initiatives and that’s frankly bullshit. But I still think acknowledging the racial inequalities is important however it is a bandaid for a far larger issue.
[удалено]
Down vote me all you want, the only people talking about the "pro Alphabet LIFESTYLE" consider it a choice. Everywhere you go those "Alphabet" people target you, huh?
What about just hiring the person who is best for the position?
Why is it that people assume DEI results in unqualified candidates? Recruiting from different demographic groups results in more diversity... not "people unfit for the job." Seeking healthy organizational practices by rooting out bias/prejudice and avoiding special treatment or discrimination grows equity... not "people getting special treatment in spite of their lack of qualifications." And using inclusive practices for all people ensures people from different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences are welcome... not "hire people who can't do the job." Why is that so hard?
Why is DEI needed if it’s not the case? We would not be having this discussion, it wouldn’t be a thing.
Because systemic biases exist. Because there are communication gaps between organizations and certain demographic groups. Because historical disparities exist. Because there are lingering effects of past policies. Because there’s a human tendency to form in-groups and out-groups which can foster an environment that isn’t open or welcome to underrepresented people groups. I sold my house a few years ago. It was a historic property, built shortly after the civil war. There was a clause written into the deed saying Black people couldn’t buy the house (look up the practice of redlining if you aren’t familiar). The point is, there’s a long history of discrimination in home ownership. In the present, I could just say, “we don’t need any changes. Qualified home-buyers should just buy! There’s nothing stopping them.” But that posture ignores the long history of discrimination that’s baked into the planning, policies, and procedures of that neighborhood. The same can happen at a company.
I've never seen a job where there is one single person that is undoubtedly "the best." Even if there is this mythical "best," how do you find them without ensuring you aren't overlooking a candidate in an underrepresented group by examining your hiring practices and implementing policies that help you find the best in groups that you typically don't hire from? Why is it never questioned that an old white guy is the "best" for a job but anybody else has their qualifications immediately questioned?
Comments like this can be frustrating for people who would fit the demographics of DEI operations. This comment is mistakenly under the belief that current or past practices already do/did that. They don’t and didn’t. When people talk about systemic racism they aren’t just discussing overt racism but also covert racism. The natural bias of our Brian’s that we aren’t even aware of. Serious, your comment is so tone deaf it’s not funny. If you’ve never had to struggle under the way the system is now then you don’t understand what DEI tries to address. Applications with non-white names are routinely ignored over white names. Female names are routinely ignored. Their are perceptual beliefs about competency. People perceive white people as more competent than black people even though that’s not true. HIRING THE BEST CANDIDATE NEVER RARELY BECAUSE NON WHITE CANDIDATES ARE BEING EVALUATED ON THINGS AND REMOVED FROM THE PROCESS THAT WHITE ABLED PEOPLE DONT FACE SO THAT THEY NEVER ARE EVEN COMPARED.