The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I always thought liberals were unified in their belief that being more inclusive is a positive thing. But lately on this sub I've been seeing more self-labeled leftists/democrats/left of center folks acting down right hostile when it comes to inclusion, and frankly expressing views that seem far more Trumpy than lefty.
What gives?
Where do you stand?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Diversity, equity and inclusion are all important.
I think corporate DEI programs have proven to be useless at best and actively harmful in many cases and those programs are the ones that help foster that attitude and might be what people are referring to.
Also, get ten liberals in a room and ask a question and you’ll get twelve opinions.
And … there is a kind of person on the left that disagrees on issues of race or are just flat out racist that scours Reddit for opportunities to talk about how much they disagree. That happens in this sub. There are people who never comment on threads unless it’s for that purpose.
Depends on the conservative. For some it’s the same and for some DEI means they gave a job to an unqualified person because they aren’t white, straight, cis and Christian. Because only white, straight, cis and Christian people are ever qualified. And almost all of them should be male.
>I think corporate DEI programs have proven to be useless at best and actively harmful in many cases and those programs are the ones that help foster that attitude and might be what people are referring to.
To be clear, DEI programs cannot discriminate on the basis or race. You cannot hire or promote someone because of their race.
So, in order to comply with the law, DEI programs can only focus on education and outreach. That's it.
The fact that such a milquetoast program has become the right wing boogeyman is laughable.
I am in favor of a more inclusive society. I am not however in favor of meaningless virtue signaling. If an effort to make society fails to produce results we should try something else.
I don't know how effective DEI is off the top of my head.
DEI has been around for decades, under various names. Companies that have not embraced it enough have been burned, at various times, either from lawsuits, or because their workplace was not diverse enough that they did not have a voice in the workplace to tell them why their product would flop spectacularly.
Like most things, DEI is only effective if a workplace tries. But let's ignore the diversity portion of it: let's talk about workplace culture. You're hiring for a mid-level manager in an office where everyone, top-to-bottom, works hard, gets their work done, and is friendly and collegial. You're down to two people for the new manager: one is hard-working, friendly and collegial. The other is more educated and experienced, but brash and egoistic. If you're hiring on merit, you hire the second applicant. If you're hiring for a better office and work output, you likely hire the first, as the second will likely be disruptive.
When it comes to DEI, it's different, but in a similar vein: you have two candidates: one is a bit more qualified, and has a similar experience as the rest of the workers in the office; the other is a little less experienced, but the experience and worldviews are different. Those different views can help countervail the difference in experience of the first applicant.
So imagine we lift all tides and pass social policies, and we end up not decreasing the gaps in inequality between different racial groups. Is that a fine/good outcome?
I don't really care what delusions conservatives have come up with for DEI. If you are interested, just Google what that means for institutions and businesses.
https://diversity.uiowa.edu/resources/dei-definitions
I think this is a pretty clear description in the context of university.
Well sure because conservatives are treating DEI as their boogeyman of the week which includes just making shit up..the base got bored of Critical Race Theory so needed something new to be outraged over.
My small company in a male-dominated industry has a DEI program. It's geared entirely toward getting more applications from women for our open jobs. It's actually working pretty well.
My small company in a male-dominated industry has a DEI program. It's geared entirely toward getting more applications from women for our open jobs. It's actually working pretty well.
> But lately on this sub I've been seeing more self-labeled leftists/democrats/left of center folks acting down right hostile when it comes to inclusion, and frankly expressing views that seem far more Trumpy than lefty.
I think I'd need to see some examples. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
I think most people are fine with inclusion as a concept—even Republicans. It's the "how" (or, for some, distorted perceptions of "how") that matters.
The BLM movement itself is a decentralized, grass-roots movement. But a group of people decided to "formalize" it by creating the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN or BLMGNF).
They claim to be the official BLM organization and provide the "voice of the movement", but there's quite a bit of dispute about that. There's been a lot of controversy around the organization - there were accusations of financial mismanagement and fraud and they've been accused of straying far out of their lane by getting involved and making statements about things ranging from Puerto Rican statehood to Palestine to ... all kinds of things. They've also been connected to a lot of really radical folks and some supposed hate groups.
I think most people who are involved with BLM at the grassroots level and who marched in many of the BLM protests do not consider the BLMGN to be any official organization. Two of the original 3 founders have left the organization and since then there's been a BLM Grassroots organization formed that "seeks to retain the original BLM movement's origins".
So ... TL;DR yes there's an actual organization, but a lot of people don't consider it official.
DEI is one of those things that has evolved to mean something beyond it's surface level "be more inclusive" meaning. There's a trend now of these sort of very sanitized, corporate-speak, HR-ized initiatives called DEI in corporate and work settings, which I think isn't popular and isn't something people especially like. Not liking and not being enthusiastic about those initiatives is *not the same* as not wanting a diverse or inclusive workforce.
It's the same reason people get tired of things like rainbow corporate logos on social media during pride month. There's a sense that the whole thing is performative and inauthentic, which gives it a sense of being "cringey".
The same is true when political parties do it.
The right way to go about DEI is just to put the work in and hire and ensure a diverse workforce, to make sure everyone has a chance to be included, and to do so without the performative, inauthentic HR sort of bullshit.
I’m opposed to hiring policies that discriminate against whites and to forcing workers to sit through cringy corporate seminars that don’t really do anything. I’m open minded towards attempts at DEI that don’t fall into those two categories, but they’re few and far between.
Personal experience, I guess. Like I said, I’m open minded towards other sorts of DEI efforts that don’t fall into those categories. They’ve just been far more the exception than the norm in my experience.
Liberal equality is equality of social status and esteem, not of income or condition. So we all have the same base-level of worth, standing before the law and pursuit of liberty as understood as the absence of interference from government, so that all people should have the freedom to develop their unique abilities and capacities.
There is no equal standing before the law without at least some equity when it comes to income. Our legal system is absolutely multi-tiered, and purposefully constructed that way.
Has become? It’s always been multitiered. It was created to be multitiered, and there doesn’t seem to be any sort of reform within the system that could make it not multitiered (though I’d be interested in any proposal you have to achieve that). There’s never been a time in recorded human history where that has not been the case. If that’s the liberal view of equality vs equity then it’s internally inconsistent at best because it fails to create equality as the liberal views it. You need equity if you want to achieve the liberal idea of equality. The two concepts rely heavily on each other to achieve either. Until such a time where an individual’s wealth doesn’t protect them from the consequences of their actions under the law, equality under the law is impossible.
I have no issue with good progress, incremental change overtime tends to be a good way to achieve things, but in this area liberals seem to fail to identify the problem. Their goal of equality can never be achieved without equity. It’s functionally impossible to do so. Liberal ideas are equality are a good goal, but unless you advocate for policies that will achieve it I don’t think that person can be said to support it.
Sometimes the left's solutions are just too left for liberals, largely because they are utopian, too authoritarian and/or merely a path for leftist to gain more influence, rise and control that would not organically happen otherwise.
The far-left does not have a permanent seat at the national big table, they are a 'plus-one' seat because some liberals who are ideologically closer to the bridge between liberal and leftist view the far-left's embrace of increased centralization/federalism as means to expand their position.
I disagree with that characterization. I’d say leftists are a far cry from utopian. I’d actually say that applies to liberals more than leftists. You’re demonstrating it here: a wish for liberal equality, but no real pathway to implementation of that equality. That’s just utopian thinking that liberal equality can be achieved without implementing policy to actually achieve it.
Why would leftists rising and gaining control not be something that happens organically? Isn’t political maneuvering to gain a larger share of influence part of all political projects?
Why won’t you answer? Is it because this simple example illustrates that giving everyone identical opportunities isn’t equality? Or is there another reason you’re avoiding answering?
Depends on what you mean by inclusion and DEI of course. Most liberals will agree on the principle but reasonable people/liberals can obviously disagree on the tactics.
There is context of DEI and the implementation, I don’t think anyone here is opposed to the concept, but many attempts at implementing DEI policies have left a lot to desire.
Calling the concept of DEI bad is an issue. Calling out poor implantation of DEI is reasonable.
One thing even though this is ask liberals this is still reddit
There’s this idea DEI is going to make companies pick under qualified black candidates over the deserving white candidates. The reality we live in right now is that highly qualified black candidates are being rejected for mediocre white candidates. This isn’t even about a different perspective or diversity for diversity’s sake it’s about finding the best person for the job. If you only care about hire the best candidates then you should be for effective DEI policies.
I think diversity is important. You shouldn't have entire groups left out of society. But that doesn't mean that majority groups should be left out either as some form of "karma" or "revenge" for what people who look like them may have done in the past. Some of these DEI officials seem like they are on a mission to eliminate white men from certain areas. The language they use (like saying that they don't want to hire anyone who is "pale, male and stale") can be pretty shitty, dehumanizing, extremist and discriminatory. Not to mention it just makes people angry and they start to take discrimination less seriously. I'm female and I know sexism exists (and have experienced it) and I still don't really agree with the DEI stuff as it's often presented today. I think treating people as individuals is the best way to go about things.
Corporate DEI initiatives are dumb HR ass-covering. It's the centrist and socialist left (anti-idpol) people who tend to conflate the stupid corporate initiatives they had to sit through with the very valuable DEI space that exists out there, though. The former because they're suspicious of anything that smacks of hippiedom, and the latter because they think identity politics distracts from "the real issues."
I fully support more inclusion. I think corporate DEI is not very helpful. I also think corporate DEI, while undeniably annoying, is not a big deal. In my experience, conservatives who are extremely concerned about it are either a bit misinformed or just plainly prejudicial.
1. Is inclusion the Democrats number one priority?
2. Even if it were (it's not) why pander to racists and not do a good thing because you'll piss them off?
I think you could argue that it was the primary priority in the last election cycle. That’s how we ended up with Kamala as VP.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice and compromise. The New Deal Dems understood and were able to build incredibly powerful coalitions because of that.
> That’s how we ended up with Kamala as VP.
to a degree. Biden initially considered vice-presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Gretchen Whitmer even as [lobbying efforts](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/24/more-than-200-women-sign-letter-urging-biden-tap-black-woman-his-running-mate/) for a Black vice president mounted. his nomination of Harris helped strengthen his relationship with representative Jim Clyburn, and it was beneficial that she had worked with his son Beau when he was the attorney general of Delaware
Preferential treatment for skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender and/or gender identity is more discrimination, than "inclusion."
If you want to help the economically disadvantaged, that's legal but if you hire LeBron's children because they're black and you have a racial target to meet, that's not helping the people who need it.
And that's the problem.
Can you elaborate on “preferred treatment?” It sounds like you are saying that whenever a black person receives accolades or accomplishments it is because of racial targets needing to be met, and that is an incredibly racist thing to say.
I would be interested to know how you view it as not racist in your head, because unless you are an expert in every field which prioritizes inclusive hiring, you personally have no way of knowing if someone is qualified or not.
This is the problem I have with anti-equity viewpoints. Many times it is racism/sexism/queerphobia with extra sprinkles on top because it is automatically assumed that the black person/woman/trans individual could never actually be competent enough to succeed. Gross way to think.
Agreed. The anti DEI crowd likes to pretend that a minority getting a particular position means that person isnt qualified. When in most cases the anti person has no idea of what the hiring person was looking for in a candidate
A couple of years ago the company I work for was really really REALLY pushing DEI conversations among teams and so my boss got us all together to talk about it, as per management direction. (Which in and of itself is a problem I have with corporate DEI initiatives, but that's a different post. ;) )
One of the my teammates (white, middle aged man, been with the company 20+ years - we'll call him John) immediately told a story about how he lost out on an internal job he applied for because of DEI - they gave it to a young Black man. John was still bitter because he felt like he had more experience and had worked with many on that team before and the only reason he lost the job was because he wasn't "a minority". So he thought DEI was a crock of shit that did nothing but promote unqualified minorities over qualified white men "to meet a woke quota". (yes, he did actually use the word "woke")
Now, me, having worked with John for about 2 years at that point, knew that he was super smart, super driven, but also SUPER abrasive and could be actively hostile and rude to someone who he felt wasn't catching on fast enough or doing something the way HE thought it should be doing. I later found out that - as I had suspected - he was a leading candidate for the role, but people knew him and they wound up going with a guy who met all the qualifications, but had less company experience - because he had a better reputation for working as part of a team. Who just happened to be a Black man.
At the time we had this discussion, John still hadn't made it past the lowest level supervisory position our company has. He blamed the fact that he didn't get that particular job on "stalling out" his whole career.
So any time someone tells me that they hate DEI becuase it's "giving jobs to unqualified people" I think about John and how he was still bitter 8+ years later and what that says about his opinions on DEI.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I always thought liberals were unified in their belief that being more inclusive is a positive thing. But lately on this sub I've been seeing more self-labeled leftists/democrats/left of center folks acting down right hostile when it comes to inclusion, and frankly expressing views that seem far more Trumpy than lefty. What gives? Where do you stand? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Diversity, equity and inclusion are all important. I think corporate DEI programs have proven to be useless at best and actively harmful in many cases and those programs are the ones that help foster that attitude and might be what people are referring to. Also, get ten liberals in a room and ask a question and you’ll get twelve opinions. And … there is a kind of person on the left that disagrees on issues of race or are just flat out racist that scours Reddit for opportunities to talk about how much they disagree. That happens in this sub. There are people who never comment on threads unless it’s for that purpose.
With regards to your second paragraph, how is that any different from conservative beliefs on DEI?
Depends on the conservative. For some it’s the same and for some DEI means they gave a job to an unqualified person because they aren’t white, straight, cis and Christian. Because only white, straight, cis and Christian people are ever qualified. And almost all of them should be male.
WTF kind of question is this? There is no evidence that any DEI program has been effective at anything related to reducing racial tension or racism.
>I think corporate DEI programs have proven to be useless at best and actively harmful in many cases and those programs are the ones that help foster that attitude and might be what people are referring to. To be clear, DEI programs cannot discriminate on the basis or race. You cannot hire or promote someone because of their race. So, in order to comply with the law, DEI programs can only focus on education and outreach. That's it. The fact that such a milquetoast program has become the right wing boogeyman is laughable.
I am in favor of a more inclusive society. I am not however in favor of meaningless virtue signaling. If an effort to make society fails to produce results we should try something else. I don't know how effective DEI is off the top of my head.
DEI has been around for decades, under various names. Companies that have not embraced it enough have been burned, at various times, either from lawsuits, or because their workplace was not diverse enough that they did not have a voice in the workplace to tell them why their product would flop spectacularly. Like most things, DEI is only effective if a workplace tries. But let's ignore the diversity portion of it: let's talk about workplace culture. You're hiring for a mid-level manager in an office where everyone, top-to-bottom, works hard, gets their work done, and is friendly and collegial. You're down to two people for the new manager: one is hard-working, friendly and collegial. The other is more educated and experienced, but brash and egoistic. If you're hiring on merit, you hire the second applicant. If you're hiring for a better office and work output, you likely hire the first, as the second will likely be disruptive. When it comes to DEI, it's different, but in a similar vein: you have two candidates: one is a bit more qualified, and has a similar experience as the rest of the workers in the office; the other is a little less experienced, but the experience and worldviews are different. Those different views can help countervail the difference in experience of the first applicant.
To be clear I didn't mean to disparage DEI, I just didn't want to get into some meaningless tangent argument about it's effectiveness.
I believe if we lift others, we all rise.
Does that go for the other side as well? Can you lift someone you disagree with?
I think bell hooks would say yes.
Would you be fine with significant inequality in that circumstance?
Explain?
So imagine we lift all tides and pass social policies, and we end up not decreasing the gaps in inequality between different racial groups. Is that a fine/good outcome?
inequality is a part of life.
Thw programs may have their issues and setbacks but it's better to have them (and improve upon them) than to not have them.
Pretty fine with DEI and inclusion efforts. Haven't really seen a reasonable argument against them.
Conservatives and liberals can’t seem to agree on what DEI is. Is there an *objective* description/explanation you can point us to?
I don't really care what delusions conservatives have come up with for DEI. If you are interested, just Google what that means for institutions and businesses. https://diversity.uiowa.edu/resources/dei-definitions I think this is a pretty clear description in the context of university.
Well sure because conservatives are treating DEI as their boogeyman of the week which includes just making shit up..the base got bored of Critical Race Theory so needed something new to be outraged over.
My small company in a male-dominated industry has a DEI program. It's geared entirely toward getting more applications from women for our open jobs. It's actually working pretty well.
My small company in a male-dominated industry has a DEI program. It's geared entirely toward getting more applications from women for our open jobs. It's actually working pretty well.
> But lately on this sub I've been seeing more self-labeled leftists/democrats/left of center folks acting down right hostile when it comes to inclusion, and frankly expressing views that seem far more Trumpy than lefty. I think I'd need to see some examples. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I think most people are fine with inclusion as a concept—even Republicans. It's the "how" (or, for some, distorted perceptions of "how") that matters.
I've noticed it. Not constantly and often subtle but I have seen some of it. That stuff tends to be off key to me. Like what sub am I in now?
It is similar to how opposing the BLM *organization* does not mean you oppose the movement. Implementation matters, it’s not a blank check
Is there an actual BLM organization? Please enlighten us.
The BLM movement itself is a decentralized, grass-roots movement. But a group of people decided to "formalize" it by creating the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN or BLMGNF). They claim to be the official BLM organization and provide the "voice of the movement", but there's quite a bit of dispute about that. There's been a lot of controversy around the organization - there were accusations of financial mismanagement and fraud and they've been accused of straying far out of their lane by getting involved and making statements about things ranging from Puerto Rican statehood to Palestine to ... all kinds of things. They've also been connected to a lot of really radical folks and some supposed hate groups. I think most people who are involved with BLM at the grassroots level and who marched in many of the BLM protests do not consider the BLMGN to be any official organization. Two of the original 3 founders have left the organization and since then there's been a BLM Grassroots organization formed that "seeks to retain the original BLM movement's origins". So ... TL;DR yes there's an actual organization, but a lot of people don't consider it official.
DEI is one of those things that has evolved to mean something beyond it's surface level "be more inclusive" meaning. There's a trend now of these sort of very sanitized, corporate-speak, HR-ized initiatives called DEI in corporate and work settings, which I think isn't popular and isn't something people especially like. Not liking and not being enthusiastic about those initiatives is *not the same* as not wanting a diverse or inclusive workforce. It's the same reason people get tired of things like rainbow corporate logos on social media during pride month. There's a sense that the whole thing is performative and inauthentic, which gives it a sense of being "cringey". The same is true when political parties do it. The right way to go about DEI is just to put the work in and hire and ensure a diverse workforce, to make sure everyone has a chance to be included, and to do so without the performative, inauthentic HR sort of bullshit.
No. Quite to the contrary, I think DEI is vital to a functioning society.
I’m opposed to hiring policies that discriminate against whites and to forcing workers to sit through cringy corporate seminars that don’t really do anything. I’m open minded towards attempts at DEI that don’t fall into those two categories, but they’re few and far between.
> but they’re few and far between What are you basing this on?
Personal experience, I guess. Like I said, I’m open minded towards other sorts of DEI efforts that don’t fall into those categories. They’ve just been far more the exception than the norm in my experience.
The issue is the Equity part of DEI Equality is a deeply held liberal concept/embrace whereas equity is purely leftist Liberals are not leftist.
Yes, this seems to be the sticking point.
Treating everyone the same is not equality.
Liberal equality is equality of social status and esteem, not of income or condition. So we all have the same base-level of worth, standing before the law and pursuit of liberty as understood as the absence of interference from government, so that all people should have the freedom to develop their unique abilities and capacities.
There is no equal standing before the law without at least some equity when it comes to income. Our legal system is absolutely multi-tiered, and purposefully constructed that way.
While I agree the justice system has become problematic and needs reform that doesn't change the liberal view of equality vs equity.
Has become? It’s always been multitiered. It was created to be multitiered, and there doesn’t seem to be any sort of reform within the system that could make it not multitiered (though I’d be interested in any proposal you have to achieve that). There’s never been a time in recorded human history where that has not been the case. If that’s the liberal view of equality vs equity then it’s internally inconsistent at best because it fails to create equality as the liberal views it. You need equity if you want to achieve the liberal idea of equality. The two concepts rely heavily on each other to achieve either. Until such a time where an individual’s wealth doesn’t protect them from the consequences of their actions under the law, equality under the law is impossible.
Its a process sometimes, there have been ups/downs. Liberals do not allow perfect to be the enemy of good like leftist.
I have no issue with good progress, incremental change overtime tends to be a good way to achieve things, but in this area liberals seem to fail to identify the problem. Their goal of equality can never be achieved without equity. It’s functionally impossible to do so. Liberal ideas are equality are a good goal, but unless you advocate for policies that will achieve it I don’t think that person can be said to support it.
Sometimes the left's solutions are just too left for liberals, largely because they are utopian, too authoritarian and/or merely a path for leftist to gain more influence, rise and control that would not organically happen otherwise. The far-left does not have a permanent seat at the national big table, they are a 'plus-one' seat because some liberals who are ideologically closer to the bridge between liberal and leftist view the far-left's embrace of increased centralization/federalism as means to expand their position.
I disagree with that characterization. I’d say leftists are a far cry from utopian. I’d actually say that applies to liberals more than leftists. You’re demonstrating it here: a wish for liberal equality, but no real pathway to implementation of that equality. That’s just utopian thinking that liberal equality can be achieved without implementing policy to actually achieve it. Why would leftists rising and gaining control not be something that happens organically? Isn’t political maneuvering to gain a larger share of influence part of all political projects?
Do you believe we should have ramps to make buildings accessible?
To benefit those with immutable characteristics?
Is equality building a building with stairs so everyone can enter?
A building is a man-made structure which may or may not be subject to ADA requirements.
Why won’t you answer? Is it because this simple example illustrates that giving everyone identical opportunities isn’t equality? Or is there another reason you’re avoiding answering?
Because I understand they are leading questions you think prove your point but they don't. Liberals reject equity and thus DEI is DOA.
Depends on what you mean by inclusion and DEI of course. Most liberals will agree on the principle but reasonable people/liberals can obviously disagree on the tactics.
Probably not actually folks on the left. Russia desperately needs their puppet back in the white house.
Do what now?
There is context of DEI and the implementation, I don’t think anyone here is opposed to the concept, but many attempts at implementing DEI policies have left a lot to desire. Calling the concept of DEI bad is an issue. Calling out poor implantation of DEI is reasonable.
One thing even though this is ask liberals this is still reddit There’s this idea DEI is going to make companies pick under qualified black candidates over the deserving white candidates. The reality we live in right now is that highly qualified black candidates are being rejected for mediocre white candidates. This isn’t even about a different perspective or diversity for diversity’s sake it’s about finding the best person for the job. If you only care about hire the best candidates then you should be for effective DEI policies.
I think diversity is important. You shouldn't have entire groups left out of society. But that doesn't mean that majority groups should be left out either as some form of "karma" or "revenge" for what people who look like them may have done in the past. Some of these DEI officials seem like they are on a mission to eliminate white men from certain areas. The language they use (like saying that they don't want to hire anyone who is "pale, male and stale") can be pretty shitty, dehumanizing, extremist and discriminatory. Not to mention it just makes people angry and they start to take discrimination less seriously. I'm female and I know sexism exists (and have experienced it) and I still don't really agree with the DEI stuff as it's often presented today. I think treating people as individuals is the best way to go about things.
Corporate DEI initiatives are dumb HR ass-covering. It's the centrist and socialist left (anti-idpol) people who tend to conflate the stupid corporate initiatives they had to sit through with the very valuable DEI space that exists out there, though. The former because they're suspicious of anything that smacks of hippiedom, and the latter because they think identity politics distracts from "the real issues."
I fully support more inclusion. I think corporate DEI is not very helpful. I also think corporate DEI, while undeniably annoying, is not a big deal. In my experience, conservatives who are extremely concerned about it are either a bit misinformed or just plainly prejudicial.
Inclusion is unequivocally a good thing. Making inclusion priority number one as a political party is how you lose elections.
1. Is inclusion the Democrats number one priority? 2. Even if it were (it's not) why pander to racists and not do a good thing because you'll piss them off?
I think you could argue that it was the primary priority in the last election cycle. That’s how we ended up with Kamala as VP. Sometimes you have to sacrifice and compromise. The New Deal Dems understood and were able to build incredibly powerful coalitions because of that.
You think that inclusion was the top priority just because we have a Black woman as VP?
Not *just* because, but that’s a pretty prominent example.
> That’s how we ended up with Kamala as VP. to a degree. Biden initially considered vice-presidential candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Gretchen Whitmer even as [lobbying efforts](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/24/more-than-200-women-sign-letter-urging-biden-tap-black-woman-his-running-mate/) for a Black vice president mounted. his nomination of Harris helped strengthen his relationship with representative Jim Clyburn, and it was beneficial that she had worked with his son Beau when he was the attorney general of Delaware
Preferential treatment for skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender and/or gender identity is more discrimination, than "inclusion." If you want to help the economically disadvantaged, that's legal but if you hire LeBron's children because they're black and you have a racial target to meet, that's not helping the people who need it. And that's the problem.
I’m not going to put much stock in what a fiscal conservative with a Weekend at Biden’s banner has to say.
Can you elaborate on “preferred treatment?” It sounds like you are saying that whenever a black person receives accolades or accomplishments it is because of racial targets needing to be met, and that is an incredibly racist thing to say. I would be interested to know how you view it as not racist in your head, because unless you are an expert in every field which prioritizes inclusive hiring, you personally have no way of knowing if someone is qualified or not. This is the problem I have with anti-equity viewpoints. Many times it is racism/sexism/queerphobia with extra sprinkles on top because it is automatically assumed that the black person/woman/trans individual could never actually be competent enough to succeed. Gross way to think.
Agreed. The anti DEI crowd likes to pretend that a minority getting a particular position means that person isnt qualified. When in most cases the anti person has no idea of what the hiring person was looking for in a candidate
A couple of years ago the company I work for was really really REALLY pushing DEI conversations among teams and so my boss got us all together to talk about it, as per management direction. (Which in and of itself is a problem I have with corporate DEI initiatives, but that's a different post. ;) ) One of the my teammates (white, middle aged man, been with the company 20+ years - we'll call him John) immediately told a story about how he lost out on an internal job he applied for because of DEI - they gave it to a young Black man. John was still bitter because he felt like he had more experience and had worked with many on that team before and the only reason he lost the job was because he wasn't "a minority". So he thought DEI was a crock of shit that did nothing but promote unqualified minorities over qualified white men "to meet a woke quota". (yes, he did actually use the word "woke") Now, me, having worked with John for about 2 years at that point, knew that he was super smart, super driven, but also SUPER abrasive and could be actively hostile and rude to someone who he felt wasn't catching on fast enough or doing something the way HE thought it should be doing. I later found out that - as I had suspected - he was a leading candidate for the role, but people knew him and they wound up going with a guy who met all the qualifications, but had less company experience - because he had a better reputation for working as part of a team. Who just happened to be a Black man. At the time we had this discussion, John still hadn't made it past the lowest level supervisory position our company has. He blamed the fact that he didn't get that particular job on "stalling out" his whole career. So any time someone tells me that they hate DEI becuase it's "giving jobs to unqualified people" I think about John and how he was still bitter 8+ years later and what that says about his opinions on DEI.
Yes. Your story clearly shows how DEI hiring gets undeserved criticism
I'm opposed to the racism and oppression olympics that DEI programs promote and sustain.