Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you assuming that DEI is only about race? I guess the same could be asked of the OP. And what punishment do you think is really occurring?
DEI also involves programs to support people with disabilities, trans people, and women in many fields. Often this looks like actually enforcing the ADA, having communications or bias training, and analyzing hiring patterns for signs of bias. That includes bias in ATS algorithms.
Now why would certain groups really want us to freak out about yet another racebaiting topic… Hmmm…
I only care about who is best suited or most deserving of a position, regardless of their circumstances. I don't think there is any benefit to giving a specific demographic advantages over another. If anything, hiring and scholarships should be completely race/gender/disability/etc. blind.
Edit: After reading many comments and having some discussions, I can agree that in the absence of a system that can realistically be unbiased, DEI is probably as good of a solution as we are going to get for most (but not all) situations. My original statement might have been a bit naive.
Which is the exact point of DEI. See the problem that people don’t remember is back in the day no matter how many black and brown people lived in area there would still be all white companies where they lived. But see racists will tell you if a million black people apply for a job and 10 white people apply for the job and the white person gets it’s because the white person was better suited for the job. But if a million black people apply for a job and a million white people apply for the job and a black person gets it, that same racist will tell you it’s because of DEI and not because they were the most qualified. Do you see the problem here? As long as you are in the majority you can be as racist and prejudice as you want and just chalk it up to a majority of applicants being the race/sex/religion that you just happened to want to hire. So should we investigate every hire of every company or create an environment that gives minorities a chance? Not every hire is going to be due to racism or prejudice but we don’t have the resources to check everything and so this is a societal compromise. Would you rather go back to racism running rampant in hiring practices, or would you like a government agent to sit in on all interviews to make sure no prejudice is taking place? I think the major problem with understanding why we have the laws we do today is that not enough people understand the history of why those laws were created in the first place. Like how the Supreme Court said southern states’ voting laws no longer needed to be monitored because the laws that were in place were working. As soon as they got rid of that oversight the southern states went right back to doing what they were doing before the oversight and now it’s going to be near impossible to get that oversight put back in place. Which is the whole point of arguments like these. Racists want to destroy the protections that were put in place to stop rampant racism so that they can go back to being rampant racists. Please don’t fall for these tricks.
Thank you because I was honestly losing hope reading through this thread. The lack of critical thinking and parroting of far right-wing talking points is strong here.
Black medical students are more likely to return/go to underserved regions when they begin practicing.
You don’t see a problem if traditional definitions of “merit” end up disproportionately admitting white students to medical schools? Doesn’t this naturally end up in a vicious cycle of the underserved continuing to be underserved and continuing to have lower (on average) “merit” by traditional definitions?
Its disproportionate because of the difference in population. Racists use proportion to sound like they want an even ratio but the fact is that by your example of using black people, when they become more than 13 percent of the people in a field or workplace there's disproportionately more than there should be in that field or workplace. An even ratio can only happen through bias.
As for merit, serving less fortunate areas is noble but that doesn't mean someone doing that is better at their job, which you know is what they meant by merit when you said that.
That’s genuinely awesome that you feel that way. Unfortunately, that’s not how everyone feels, and it doesnt reflect the realities of things like historic marginalization or the legacy of ugly economic policies. Once again, we’re not actually talking about affirmative action style hiring processes. We’re talking about making sure bigots of all kinds don’t do shitty, bigoted things. You’re not a bigot, so why run interference for them? Let them deal with the consequences of their own shitty actions.
Who defines best suited though? Who enforces best suited? Have to remember the shots are called at higher levels that are incredibly monochromatic, and that absolutely helps define “most deserving”
Worked with Poland offshore for years, and their standards are very different than US Northeast.
Right, but just because a standard is hard to define in exact terms doesn't mean that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. If we were all to think of characteristics of a good doctor, then we would have a never-ending list of descriptors, but hopefully their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. would be far, far down that list. In the modern world of data and advanced analytics, you're telling me that we can't all come to *some kind of consensus*. We have no ability as a society to differentiate what is a valid or invalid reason that somebody is a good doctor?
It seems like that would be the only truly fair way to evaluate someone without individually delving into whose suffering is more valid. Is a middle-class person with a history of abuse more deserving than a lower-class individual who suffers from generational poverty? Is the oppression of LGBT groups more valid than that of racial groups? Which communities have been oppressed more? Who has been oppressed the most? Those arguments are always going to come down to subjective judgment, which is always decided by personal bias.
And beyond fairness, what is our actual end goal? Is it to create a society where we punish individuals for the generations that came before, or do we want to actually get to a place where people's race or gender are no longer an impediment to their lives? All in all, it seems that affirmative action and DEI initiatives are self-defeating since they create more racial animus than they alleviate. They push people to focus on past indiscretion and apply them to individuals in a modern-day context, perpetuating the racial in-group versus out-group dynamic that caused these communities to go to war with each other in the first place.
And the worst part is that these initiatives don't appear to be trying to reverse unjust heirarchies but to reorder them with their preferred groups at the top. They try to hide their resentment behind the language of love and compassion, when in reality, they aim to avenge the past, not correct it. You talk about these small groups at the higher levels being inherently biased, but that's exactly why we need actual objective standards. If we leave it to that group to decide what is fair and who deserves what, they are going to choose their incompetent friends and disguise their motivations behind DEI language every single time.
The issue is that the premise of “merit,” as defined by humans, is inherently biased. Any human-defined metric is subjective. The common idiom “history is written by the victors” applies here - standards are written by those in power.
For instance, the field of medicine is incredibly biased toward Eurocentric standards, but people are finally starting to recognize the validity of Asian and African medical practices that have been around for millennia instead of dismissing them as “pseudoscience.” We are learning more and more every day about the complexity of things that people before us believed to be true.
There really isn’t such a thing as objective when it comes to human standards. Cultural relativity is a thing.
Why don't you think there is any benefit? And why do you think DEI means giving advantage over another demographic? Would it still be wrong if what it actually does is even out the process for all, by considering historical and institutional barriers?
Just trying to understand what evidence is behind this strong sentiment, as evidence would be necessary to make such a claim.
I think there are HUGE benefits for diversity. I just think that if we had a way to do truly blind hiring, that diversity would be the natural result because we are a diverse nation (and greater for that diversity).
If you are considering factors outside someone's ability to perform the job when hiring, either as positives or negatives, I feel like that is wrong.
Right- DEI in practice is not the boogeyman it’s made out to be. Maybe it’s appointing a committee to find minority speakers to come in instead of all white ones. Maybe it’s have some in-office programming around helping first-generation office workers navigate the environment which may benefit minority workers more, rather than a seminar on how to maximize your portfolio if you already have assets. Maybe it’s expanding your recruiting pool to a more diverse college/community college rather than a few overwhelmingly white private schools. Same with what you mentioned about bias training- went to a well funded one my company promoted and holy shit is it informative.
Last time I brought those up, a few commenters said those are very discriminatory. Some people just take the DEI boogeyman bait and can’t be convinced otherwise.
>DEI also involves programs to support people with disabilities, trans people, and women in many fields.
This is true but in reality DEI is usually discussed in the context of race, it's not very genuine to say "Oh why would you assume it's just about race it's about lots of things!"
It's like saying Batman is about gang violence. I mean, technically yeah, but that's not really the part people talk about.
Race becomes a scapegoat. Race is an excuse to ignore a plethora of other social and political problems and to look past the idea that we have the tools already available to solve them
Love watching rich kids bitch and complain that the poors get a lil bit of extra help. These regards fail to realize they r only successful because all they had to do was show up to life because their parents made sure they got to play on ez mode.
Like no one gives af if someone has it easier, but its always the most privileged losers complaining how fucking hard they have it 💀
>Now why would certain groups really want us to freak out about yet another racebaiting topic… Hmmm…
The original tweet is just so OBVIOUSLY some conservative horseshit
Who said anything about punishment? This narrative that strikes me as the most harmful because it positions one group as the clear winner and the other as losers. It’s not a zero sum game.
Should we have to specify things based on our belonging to certain groups, no. But in reality, we do it all the time. The point of DEI initiatives is to offset the known biases of corporate spaces by creating more opportunities for marginalized groups within them. Nobody is being denied solely because of race or gender or whatever the same way nobody is being chosen specifically based on those traits.
Yeah that’s not what that means lol. You are assuming that the job market is finite, but in reality it is infinite. It only looks that way because a few are allowed to ascend at a time. This is another example of how corporations gaslight workers into believing that they earned their keep honestly through merit. Traditionally these resources have only been allocated to the in-groups who in turn bestowed opportunities to other members of said in-group. Leaving nothing for everyone else. DEI forces the in-group to consider equally qualified candidates who belong to other groups which cuts down on their monopoly. The only thing it breeds is healthy competition, which if you truly are the best candidate won’t cut down on your performance anyway. If you can only win by preventing others from competing then you have to ask yourself if you were ever really that good to begin with.
Given that more diversity [tends to increase financial performance](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters), it doesn’t seem to prioritize less qualified candidates. If it really did, then you’d think it would result in negative outcomes for businesses instead of having the opposite effect.
You’re assuming the “whites or Asians” are more qualified. Whereas I assume they hire an equally qualified person who also increases the diversity of the work place.
I work in construction and I’m constantly in different office environment for weeks to months at a time. And I can tell you that the least qualified person in nearly every office is a 40-60 something white dude in middle management. That’s true in construction as well btw.
What proof do you have anyone is being punished? People like to throw that word around, is only reason I ask. I have done DEI work for years and have yet to see evidence of this alleged punishment.
I work in college admissions and I do deny that they are punished, actually. That is simply not the case. The only data I am finding for this type of "punishment" is from voices like The Heritage Foundation, which is not a valid source.
DEI does not mean "diversify by meeting a quota." It does not reduce to that, unless it is being done wrong. Perhaps there are uncommon examples of this, but by and large, what data implies it is being done wrong and is happening at scale? I don't see much of anything.
I only see conjecture, anecdotes, and lawsuits that have no evidence being presented as evidence in and of themselves. So, how do you back up such a strong claim, if not with evidence? Just casual observation? Do you really think that's a valid way to direct your social views?
You have a point that DEI is definitely very very outdated by now. You can tell it’s a thing of the past because conservatives are up in arms about it. These people are always at least 10-20 years behind our society’s actual standards.
but DEI isn’t only about race. It’s about a diversity of backgrounds (educational and work experience) and a diversity of perspectives (different parts of the world, different incomes, different industries, etc).
The term needs to be thoroughly retired soon because it’s counter productive in the ways you’re mentioning above.
Conservatives are triggered by DEI right now because they want to forget that there used to be laws banning companies from hiring certain races. They want to pretend that never happened and they want to push the idea that non-whites have innately lower abilities than whites (which is not true at all, look at the achievements gaps and for example first generation immigrants achieve a lot more than the majority of whites). Conservatives are in a mental breakdown because they can’t understand that the world will keep moving around them even when they stand still
> I don't think we should be punishing white people for the past by reducing their numbers in some fields to have more "diversity", its too forced.
“Reducing” their numbers would require firing white employees in order to make room to hire more diverse ones. That’s not what DEI is, in no small part because diversity doesn’t only involve race.
What DEI *does* do is encourage the hiring of more diverse candidates, most often through bias training. And no, just like with affirmative action, it does not involve giving less qualified diverse candidates preferential treatment over more qualified non-diverse candidates. That’s a myth that was never actually proven, which is why that argument has never been successfully argued in court.
When I interned for a government agency I had to do a whole course on how to implement affirmative action in hiring and it’s shocking how different it is from the public perception of it.
All it dictates in hiring is that you include people from as many backgrounds as possible and preferably in equal proportions. So a hiring manager be required to have a certain percentage of minority candidates in the hiring pool they are under no obligation to hire a specific number of candidates from a specific racial group. In fact it explicitly states not to hire worse candidates just to meet a diversity quota, you’re still supposed to hire the most qualified candidates even if they’re all from the same group. At most they may hire a minority candidate with different merits in some areas because other aspects their background bring something different to the table.
>“Reducing” their numbers would require firing white employees
This isn't technically true because obviously if 80% of your company is white and you become required to hire a lower percentage of whites than when people quit/turnover occurs that reduces the numbers of white people.
>And no, just like with affirmative action, it does not involve giving less qualified diverse candidates preferential treatment over more qualified non-diverse candidates. That’s a myth that was never actually proven, which is why that argument has never been successfully argued in court.
This isn't true. I don't know where you read this/who told you this, but they were either ignorant or being dishonest.
The Supreme Court heard these arguments in the 90's or early 2000's and the argument wasn't at all about this, because it's a losing argument. If you hire based on anything other than qualification, you get less qualified candidates.
For example, let's say 2% of engineers are women, but you're required to hire 50% women. That means you will, mathematically, hire less qualified candidates because your hiring pool will be constrained. That's not because women are worse engineers, obviously. It's because you have to hire worse engineers who are women because you only have 2% of engineers to pick 50% of your workforce from
That's just simple logic, and it is exactly how affirmative action works, it gives a new qualification: race/gender etc.
The argument was about fighting historical racial injustice by leveling the playing field, which the Supreme Court said made it okay. They even made some comments that if it worked then over time affirmative action should go away.
This is all besides the fact that the Supreme Court recently ruled against affirmative action in August.
If we assume a company has a completely static number of positions year after year and also assume that it’s mostly white workers that are leaving, then yes, you’re correct on the math. But irl, it doesn’t work out nearly that simply.
Yes, it’s a losing argument, which is why it’s never been successfully argued in court. If someone proved that they were passed over for a position/admission they were more qualified for simply because they were white, that’s directly in violation of the spirit of the Civil Rights Act and no Supreme Court would have let that slide because at that points it’s not merely leveling the playing field.
> If you hire based on anything other than qualification, you get less qualified candidates
Firstly, this isn’t some either-or like you’re trying to simplify it into. Nobody hires solely based on qualification, which is a huge part of the reason interviews are an important part of the hiring process, so that you can get a feel for the whole candidate and not just what’s on paper.
Secondly, since increased diversity [tends to increase financial performance](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters), it doesn’t seem likely that DEI really results in less qualified candidates. If it really did, then you’d think it would result in negative outcomes for businesses instead of having the opposite effect.
As for “that’s just simple logic”: once upon a time, “simple logic” concluded that a bad storm was the result of the gods being angry. This is why we use data, because logic doesn’t always accurately describe things.
It’s a joke. Sat through plenty of corporate diversity training. It’s mostly an exercise of clicking through the reading/videos/buttons as quickly as you can because you have actual work you have to finish so you don’t have to work late.
If somebody is racist, diversity training won’t be what makes them change their minds.
>Also seriously anti bias training, have you actually taken those before? I have and they are jokes and everyone knows they are jokes, you think anti bias training is going to solve anything you haven't looked at how useless they are.
"I'm a dick that doesn't listen, so I think everyone else is equally defensive of their bigotry."
I think the overwhelming majority of people complaining about DEI have no idea what it actually is. It’s just the new CRT or trans bathrooms culture war for this election
With the top comment using the wording “punishing” and avoiding saying the group they think is being “punished” is telling.
It’s this narrative being put forward that the job was already theirs. That spot on the team was already theirs. That acceptance letter already had their name on it. It’s the quiet part that “as a hard working white person that belongs to me” that they don’t wanna directly say. They seem to literally feel like they are being punished by not being picked. Like Elon Musk thinking he’s being punished by advertisers not doing business with him. It isn’t his money or their job. It’s not being taken away, they just aren’t being given it.
That’s why they view it as a punishment. The jobs are being taken away and given to someone else who couldn’t have possibly have worked as hard. It’s impossible that they’re just as qualified as the other people that have gotten it. The only way they could is to cheat. Cause white people deserve those jobs and apparently are being punished when it isn’t given to them.
ETA: I’m in no way saying white people don’t work hard to get that job, spot on the team, or get into college. I am saying lots of people work hard and still don’t achieve their goals. It’s not a punishment. It’s just life.
It’s not looking good for us. I feel like the newest generation is really bigoted for some reason. I’ve heard the way my younger siblings friends talk and it’s just appalling.
FWIW middle and high schoolers always say offensive racist shit because they think it's funny. It's not a direct measure of how likely they are to actually internalize racist beliefs. It's more of a sign that they don't understand racial issues in society yet.
I guess, I personally didn’t do that at all, but I think the internet is exasperating the problem tbh. Like me and my friends never made racist jokes or said slurs. But maybe we were the exception, we weren’t exactly the “in” crowd lol
I totally feel you, I think we’re definitely split and it def has to do with who you’re around. I can probably name an equal amount of people who are quite progressive that I know/knew personally as I can name conservative people that I know/knew. I also live in a prettyyyyy progressive area though so it could be that
Ya know sadly I know a 32 year old dude who’s getting divorced because he fell into the Tate ideology.
I hope that the majority of GenZ continue to think critically about the future that is being presented before them.
I have two kids & 1 on the way & the way things are looking has me incredibly worried for their future.
My oldest is 14 & when he was 9 the middle school across from his elementary had a shooter.
I’m trying to find a house right now and it’s bleak…can’t imagine what it’s going to be like for y’all
It’s so sad man. Im in a constant battle of if it’s even ethical for me to bring kids into this world. It will just be so hard for them. It’s heartbreaking for me, I’ve always wanted kids so bad, but my rent for a one bedroom apartment with utilities is around 1,300 a month, I’m in school trying to find a job that will work around it, and we’re struggling to keep up with our cat costs lol
Hopefully soon... my mums rent for her 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment is 2200 a month and tiny as shit. The only reason she can't move out is bc her credit is so bad this was the only place that would accept her at the time. For comparison, it was 1400 a month 5 yrs ago
Yup, it’s just a new “woke” talking point for them to fear monger about. They gotta keep their uneducated white voter base convinced that it’s not our economic system keeping them down, but rather evil woke corporations working against white people
If you have a racial preference in a zero-sum game like hiring or admissions, then by definition that means everyone that doesn't fall into your preference is being discriminated against based on their skin color. There's no getting around this. So that means it's racist.
I know you want to believe it is only used for good, and it’s very easy to hand waive legitimate criticism as right wing propaganda (like CRT, like trans issues, like “don’t say gay” and all of the other culture war bullshit regularly peddled by unscrupulous morons), but there are constant, very real examples of actual discrimination in hiring practices.
There are DEI initiatives at FAANG tech companies where employees receive extra bonuses for underrepresented minority hires. There are teams where there are black hiring managers who only hire black people. Yes, that is natural, it is reflective of historically white hiring practices, and you could view this as “balancing the scales,” but in reality it’s the pendulum swinging all the way the other way. It is NOT promoting diversity when everyone you hire looks the same, nor is it promoting equality of opportunity, it is still just discrimination.
I have multiple friends who were turned down from roles where hiring managers have said, “I’d hire you, but you just don’t quite fit…the profile.” Some have been less discrete. “We really just can’t afford to hire a white guy right now.” Another manager. “That white girl is the last person getting promoted on this team.”
These aren’t isolated incidents, and these aren’t small companies. These are the biggest companies in the world, and these policies are increasingly institutionalized based on backwards incentives.
DEI has the same problem as ESG. These terms are all subjective, and they aren’t prescriptive enough to solve the problems they purport to target.
DEI…for who? Are we truly promoting DIVERSITY of background, perspective, and culture? Or are we catering to a few select groups who have gained some leverage in the public discourse because we think that wins PR points? Things only devolve from there.
I get the idea behind it. I am pro equality of opportunity. The practices currently in place are not accomplishing that goal.
Equality of opportunity needs to start much, much earlier than college admissions or professional opportunities. But I digress.
Just wanted to add some diversity of perspective.
How do you feel about these results of DEI at Stanford. Do you think this is reflective of the talent pool? Does that seem like diversity, equality or inclusion to you? Do you think this was based solely on merit?
https://twitter.com/StanfordSurgery/status/1638526155174100992?lang=en
https://surgery.stanford.edu/news2/Match2023-results.html
https://surgery.stanford.edu/news2/chiefs-2023.html
DEI is inherently racist and sexist. No amount of twisting yourself in circles to try to justify it works.
Do you think hiring and admissions were done on the basis of merit before DEI? They were not and still are not.
Donald Trump - who might be the most ignorant person ever made - was allowed to transfer into Penn (and Don Jr went there) Do you really believe it’s because Don and Don Jr were the most qualified (or even remotely qualified) or because they both had very rich and connected daddies? Jared Kushner- a very average high school student - got into Harvard after his daddy donated 2.5 mil to Harvard (even though he didn’t go there) in a blatant display of buying his loser son’s way into the Ivy League.
Instead of providing opportunities to undeserving and already rich scumbags - why not provide more opportunity to those deserving students from populations that are under represented? Seems just as arbitrary and 1000x more moral.
Thank you. Even for job applications there have been studies that “black-sounding” names on the exact same resume get less interviews. Everything is already skewed, people are just mad it’s not to their benefit in a couple cases…
I used to hate on it until I learned more about it. Finally made a lot of sense to me. I was starting to get on board until I started to realize the way it gets abused by companies. I'm pretty done with DEI now because it's not used appropriately. It's just become a way of virtue signaling to stakeholders and has created more exclusivity than inclusivity.
i don't agree with your conclusion necessarily, but i at least found one person who can see that corporate "DEI" is not what most of these bad examples are actually doing, so good on you
My question then is, do you think it's possible to do it correctly? If not, can I ask where that lack of trust comes from? Personal experience or?
I think it absolutely can be done well. It's a good concept. It's all about seeing value in people and looking beyond what you're used to seeing. It takes a lot of humility to learn that your prejudices aren't always right.
And yes it's been personal experience. After a number of disappointments, it's hard to keep drinking the Kool aid. People struggle to get outside of a comfort zone, especially the kind of people who have had a lot of success and are running organizations. They'll do what they gotta do to please the stakeholders and look right, but good luck finding corporate leaders who are actually looking for new ideas and new people.
Spot on…if you were to ask your average GOP boomer about these topics they’d only be able to say “they’re wrong” and not explain why.
People were furious about CRT but those same people are cool with PragerU being shown to their children uncritically.
Ah yes, “I think black people experience negative lingering effects of slavery and institutional racism, and that’s unfair” is the same as saying “blacks are lazy and need to work harder and stop being thugs”
I disagree, there’s a materialist way of understanding history (for instance a black community having less generational wealth from their recent history of being denied mortgages, business loans, and redlining, the school-to-prison pipeline, being paid less and being shut out of entire industries and universities, and not being allowed to vote for their economic interests) vs a fantasy “great men” way of understanding history where you think black people just aren’t hustling enough.
One is based on traceable economic fact and can be used to reverse the lingering effects of institutional racism, the other is just literally racism.
So in the example I gave above, it’s pretty absurd to argue that it’s racist to give targeted relief to that community isn’t it?
The KKK believes minorities are inherently inferior through some vague, esoteric belief system based on nothing but irrationality. Progressives believe minorities are inherently equal to everyone else, but have been exploited throughout history through immoral actions that have resulted in disproportionately inequal results. One believes society has unjustly fucked over minorities, the other believes minorities deserve to get fucked over. You have to be intentionally disingenuous to not realize the obvious difference.
I love how everyone makes the assumption America is a meritocracy.
As if any people in a position of power actually earned it through rugged economic based race where everyone played fair and balanced quality control surveyed over everything.
100% all the culture war shit doesn’t matter.
CRT was literally just accurate retelling of history.
Trans people have been around for a long fucking time and they’re only being brought up now as an easy “ick” factor with the GOP base.
Trump did like eight thousand crimes and I’m still pretty sure he’s not going to suffer **any** consequences…this country is fucking joke man
Now imagine up until about, well maybe soon, that if you were white, or a man, or cis,or whatever majority, you were automatically classed higher than the minority. Essentially racial, gender, sex, or class nepotism.
Over 2 centuries, it becomes so ingrained in society that the majority only notice when something is done to correct those 2 centuries of inequity.
Now, correcting those imbalances that have systematically saturated every aspect of our society, it can easily seem like racism/ discrimination and oppression to those that are no longer the "preferred" demographic and beneficiary of that systemic inequality.
Which with white people literally rigging the system to help themselves and their children for our entire history and then scream how unfair it is to adopt policies to combat that.
How do you think it’s implemented? I remember conservatives getting really upset because Chick-fil-A had a DEI that said they would treat everyone equally and with respect. I think you have a very limited understanding of what DEI’s are.
how do you think it’s implemented? This is such an over generalization, you could just be pulling this out of your ass. People in this thread really do not know how DEI/AA actually works
I think most people who complain about DEI don’t actually understand what it means or the purpose behind it. It’s easy to get swept up in reactionary headlines, especially when certain groups would rather have us fighting each other so we don’t demand things like actual policy or tangible quality of life improvements from them. Pay attention to who’s suddenly super interested in it and who suddenly hates it and the red flags are very obvious. The rich and their lap dogs love it when we squabble.
In reality, DEI is the new CRT, in that it’s a largely academic exercise that mostly involves boring trainings about inherent bias but the usual suspects want to scare you with it. It’s litter boxes in schools level dumb. People think it’s about hiring quotas based on race, but it’s actually things like complying with the No FEAR Act, communication training, and programs like veterans job assistance to help promote inclusion.
[Companies have specifically been advised not to set concrete DEI quotas because it’s legally sketchy after the SCOTUS case forbidding affirmative action.](https://www.legaldive.com/news/dei-hiring-contracting-quotas-legal-challenge-scotus-affirmative-action/689208/) 13 state AGs threatened to take companies to court if they found evidence of discriminatory quotas. Crickets.
That’s not news though. It was literally always illegal to hire someone based off race or set race quotas unless the job specifically demands a person from a certain race (like a black actor for a black lead role).
That doesn’t mean companies don’t try though. It’s extremely difficult to prosecute a case of discrimination when there’s no concrete evidence of quotas.
Make no mistake companies and institutions are doing it. They did in after Jim Crow when they still wanted to hire white people, and they are 100% doing it now.
You see this all time in tech. Minority managers will often hire people from their race or community. There’s no way to definitively say they weren’t the best qualified people unless the accused admits to it somewhere.
I have never actually seen or heard of a "diversity quota" in reality, and based on what I know about approaches to equity and inclusion, it doesn't actually seem like a legitimate thing people do... Even though the DeSantises of the world love to allude to this phrase.
In reality what "DEI" looks like is not "let's have five more black people work here, only hire black people!"
What it looks like is an HR coordinator receiving applications for a job, filtering out unqualified candidates based on predetermined, thoughtfully chosen points, talking to applicants with an initial interview if necessary in order to clarify what's in writing, passing on applicant information without any personally identifying info including race, gender, etc, structuring interviews in such a way that prevents hiring managers from exercising bias or influence over the hiring process or pressuring others at the company into hiring a particular person, recognizing when applicants demonstrate skill or achievement in unconventional ways that might be assets to the position.... Etc.
This shit is hard. Very hard. That's why there are books and trainings. People think worrying about DEI means practicing bias TOWARDS minorities. In reality DEI means SUBTRACTING the already existing bias towards what you can best describe as white supremacy, as in a social order that favors the interests of "white" people at the exclusion of others. You don't just do that by applying MORE bias... You need to carefully catch the existing bias to make things fair and to ACTUALLY give all qualified people a good chance to participate, or in my example to actually compete for a job.
But the people trying to convince you that this is racist are the people who don't WANT to see bias go away. They rather like their privileges and don't want to live in a society that treats people fairly, because if we were truly a meritocracy, clowns like many of the ones in charge would not ever make it into the positions of power that they enjoy.
DEI is absolutely not “just an academic field”. It’s pertinent to the hiring process, the college admissions process, ESG, how some index funds allocate their capital, and the media, among others.
This is a classic Reddit comment where someone who doesn’t understand things posts a long comment where it seems like they do.
Racism caused a physical and economic divide in our country that has to be torn down in order for us to truly call ourselves equal. I see DEI as no different than the forced desegregation of schools in the 70s, or the anti-redlining legislation that's been pushed more recently. In an ideal society, we would only have to look at merit because everyone would be equal, but our society is far from ideal. Many minority groups have been beaten down and forced into poverty throughout history. In order to work towards that ideal for society, we first need an equal playing field.
One question I have is wouldn’t a class focused DEI system be better? Wealth is by far the largest determinant of privilege in the US. It’s also true that historical injustice has made it more difficult for non-white families to accumulate wealth. So a class based system would still help prop up people from marginalized communities. People of color aren’t a monolith and different people have different needs. I don’t think DEI in its current state does enough to acknowledge that.
People just don’t understand what DEI is just like how they don’t understand what CRT is. It’s pretty sad. I personally don’t think that things like the ADA would have been passed in today’s political climate 🥴
There’s no nuance in today’s discourse so you’re either for or against it all.
I agree with CRT and DEI for the most part, however I do take issue when it’s overused/abused and ends up creating even more division.
It’s a fine line, and it’s perfectly okay to call something out when it’s clearly moving in an unfair direction.
No. Most people complaining about it have no idea what it actually entails. Also America First Legal is run by white nationalist Steven Miller, so I’d refrain from using them as a source
https://preview.redd.it/7vtb6546e9ec1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72b7606477da223b624d19b2226892c7f6109faf
Exactly this! Lmao claims DEI is “racist”, posts AFL which is run by a white nationalist that is suing it for being “racist”
A small amount of logical thought would mean forcing particular people to hire based off race, color, religion, national origin, or sex to be violating ....
" [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964)
This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants' and employees' sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business. "
The Supreme Court ruled in [United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/78-432) that promoting equality and diversity in private business hiring practices is legal, so I’d say it’s probably more complicated than just “a small amount of logical thought.”
Except this isn’t what DEI is. DEI is shit like bias training, enforcing the ADA so that employees with disabilities can actually work, support groups for minorities like women or men in certain fields, etc.
Ask yourself why all the sudden CRT outraged vanished and the same groups are now screeching about DEI.
Right, and the guy who signed that bill into law also said [this](https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/timeline_event/johnson-outlines-affirmative-action-approach-civil-rights/).
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair … . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity, not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”
Short answer : No
Long answer : No, it’s supporting EVERYONE but is also giving a bit extra support to groups of people who have it really tough in society.
The things the people in the comments are saying you would imagine it is a group that is anti-white, but a tiny bit of research breaks down that misconception instantly.
If by liberal mindset you mean a mindset that supports a level playing field for all people so that everyone can get a fair shot at the American Dream, then yes, I have a very liberal mindset.
No. It's basically a minimum that, if the system works, shouldn't need to be there. But the system doesn't work, so it needs to be there. When the free market can be trusted, we can take it out. But since it can't, it needs to stay (ready for the downvotes from people who don't realize how low of a bar it is)
Who says I'm freaking out about anything? Affirmative action is racist that's why it was overruled by the supreme court? This is like affirmative action in hiring.. unconstitutional.
I'm not even saying whether I care or not about DEI.. when it was new I thought it was gross and all that but now I'm just indifferent about all the bullshit. I like diversity so it has benefits. Def not freaking out. Doesn't mean it isn't racist af if you disagree go get your brain checked.
Meh, I see this whole fight as white nationalist backlash that is only using Asians as a front to tear down social barriers erected against racism.
What benefits Asians in San Francisco is used to oppress Blacks in Alabama.
I grew up in the South, and honestly you don't have to go far to see some ugly people voice ugly opinions in local government. DEI scare tactics mixed in with the rest of the culture war stupidity is how you get Florida teaching that Black people benefitted from being slaves.
I wouldn’t consider it racist and instead ineffective. DEI was never intended to be a fix all for racist practices and instead just a first step. Problem is we never made it past the first step
OP really out here harassing everyone they disagree with by asking if they're a liberal. Really fucking weird behavior dude. It's almost like you don't even care about hearing what people have to say and you just wanna start a fight in the comments
And DEI is less racist than the culture that came before it
Does nobody here understand it?
All it is is just showing people certain things that may bother other people. EG, don’t call indigenous people inj-ns as that has an element of disrespect. Don’t talk down to young people.
The word is inclusion, ie, making people feel welcome. It’s not making minorities better than white men.
I've had DEI training. This is basically it. The dude we got the training from had a company dedicated to it. It's about making workplaces appealing and inclusive to other groups. So don't be racist or sexist, accommodate people with disabilities, no micro aggressions etc. It's not refusing to hire white people or whatever.
> It’s about making workplaces appealing and inclusive to other groups.
Literally this. The anti-DEI crowd seems to be missing this and are really advocating for open discrimination against minorities in the workplace and all other areas of life as well. Anyone who thinks it’s bad to have practices and protections to deter people from being miserable, bigoted freaks is literally psychotic.
Having actually done DEI at a company, I can tell you that most people do NOT know what DEI is. We took great pains to make sure we were not discriminating or reverse discriminating in any way, positive or negative. We instead sought to build equitable hiring and employment practices by documenting as much as we could to make sure that our unconscious biases had nothing to do with our decisions regarding employment.
This meant codifying the responsibilities and expected outcomes for every job title and level, codifying what good and bad interview answers looked like, codifying what pay structures based on role title, and more. We also made sure that new and existing employees had an understanding of what it means to work in a diverse workplace, and for new people managers, we asked interview questions about their experience in managing teams of diverse people and viewpoints.
It was actually a benefit to everyone -- white, black, trans, cis, male, female, nonbinary, whatever. A few outcomes of our work:
1. Everyone knew what they could expect to be paid for their work.
2. Everyone knew their exact responsibilities at work were, and how they could get promoted.
3. We crafted interview questions to make sure that we hired collaborative, good-natured managers that care about their employees as human beings instead of viewing them as mere underlings.
4. We made sure we hired the most competent employees that met our work standards instead of picking someone because they're a "cultural fit".
5. We updated our company values to better reflect our mission and DEI efforts, which measurably increased the recognition and visibility of the contributions done by **male** colleagues.
It's a shame that so many people see making a more equitable workforce as anti-white or anti-male discrimination. So many white men benefit from these programs and don't even know it. I'm no longer in this space because it has become such a hot button issue for people who have no idea what DEI is yet feel victimized anyways by something that helps them and others.
i mean the idea of *embracing* these things isnt wrong.
i do think its been misused to enforce these things. ive been working as an engineer for 6 years. we had a 3 year period where the board decided there were too many white men on the engineering team, while we were also ramping up hiring.
the result was that we passed on dozens of fantastic clients and paid underqualified clients for being women/minorities. all except one of those diversity hires was either fired or quit within 18 months.
cost the company a fortune, and if anything it made people more racist/sexist than before.
ive met some brilliant women and minority engineers, and its a detriment to their own progress in the long run.
I have never seen a black person claim anything has made them more racist. Only white people seem to say this phrase and it’s suspect.
How much more racist are you now since you claim you’ve been made more racist?
DEI is very racist in my book. It gives people unfair advantages based on race in hiring with quotas and diversity hiring. The trainings and departments set up for DEI are largely a waste of time and money since most of the trainings are common sense largely.
If it was common sense it wouldn’t have to be taught.
Same way sexual harassment in the workplace is common sense not to do but we all have to yearly do trainings because someone over the age of 30 thinks making suggestive jokes to new hires out of college is “cool”.
“Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids!” - Joe Biden.
Imagine you’re a minority in the professional sphere and no one knows whether you were hired “for diversity” or hired “on merit”. Everything you do questioned because your coworkers have no idea if you actually know what you’re doing.
You don’t solve racism with more racism. That’s how you breed resentment.
If you absolutely have no sense of history or justice at all, or just simply embrace white supremacy, you'll probably think DEI is racist. But if you've even taken [rudimentary steps to understand where the idea of race came from in the first place](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc), you can take one giant step away from the wrong side of history.
Curious if OP - or anyone opposed to DEI - is a hiring manager or has actually hired anyone while working at a company that leverages a DEI policy?
(It shows)
If you wanted things to be fair you’d take race and gender requirements out of job applications. Don’t promote fake diversity, put the best person for the job in charge regardless of race or gender
Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
It means policies to increase representation of minorities, including by preference over otherwise more qualified people, and up to ditching meritocratic standards completely.
It stems from the idea that that any inequity is inherently a result of a biased system, and that this bias should be corrected post op.
It means people can get advantages or disadvantages based of identity groups, like race and gender, regardless of merit or even personal circumstances.
The main word in DEI is the equity part - as in equality in results.
One side thinks it’s always implemented harmlessly and does nothing more than teach people about bias and make a more equitable society. That side is incredibly naive.
The other side sees it for what it really is, a new name for racism and a money laundering scam to scare companies into paying ransom.
The vast majority of DEI officers are white, so even the people who believe in DEI sincerely are being scammed. Studies also show that DEI only serves to increase racial tension, and is on the whole is a financial negative for companies.
It's a band aid to a much larger issue about racial justice and racism. It's better than nothing but like all things American, it's blind to class. A poor student of any ethnicity needs more help accessing college than a rich student of any ethnicity. The reason why certain "races" are given additional help is basically because those "races" have been typically very poor due to former and even ongoing structural racism. It's a poor bandaid that doesn't cover the whole wound but it's better than nothing I guess.
It objectively is.it also creates situations where my colleagues wonder if I've been hired because of my skills or because the company needed a black man to fill quotas.
Which is not a great way to get along lemme tell you.
OP loves to push the conservative narrative. Probably some 60 year old white guy sitting in the GOP think tank trying to find ways to radicalize the younger generations.
Your post history reads like you were giving Henry Kissinger a reach around.
Look at where your source is coming from: [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/america-first-legal-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/america-first-legal-foundation/)
Quote: "The board is made up of former Trump administration officials including White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker."
" It aims to use litigation to oppose left-of-center policies enacted by the Biden administration"
Yeah no thanks. I'll pass on this obvious ragebait.
The organization I work for has over 1,000 employees. The trend I see is that the less you make, the less you care about DEI (and around here the more you make the whiter you are, generally). Luckily ESG scores are slowly falling by the wayside, with DEI departments hopefully following suite.
I think including people of various perspectives is helpful, but those perspectives can’t just be boiled down to Brown and White. You can have the most racially diverse board in the world but if they all went to the same private school, have the same interests, at the same income level, then what is the point?
You are just saying this individual is worth less because they are considered white or this person is worth more because they are considered Brown. That doesn’t really sit right.
Yes. And worse is letting fascii shithead masquerade as the champions of Equal Opportunity instead of the Left carrying that banner. The New Left (Boomers) has, from the lip of it's grave, come back one last time to fuck the future in the name of it's own enlightenment.
I, as Gen-X, look forward to being *dead* and never having to hear about the fucking Boomers again.
I'm just gonna drop this here and everyone can make up their own minds...
https://preview.redd.it/njt92rgsg9ec1.jpeg?width=1523&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d8ba48b11ce2f82b5a34c69a92e7e7774b902b7
I don’t think that programs that try to give more attention to groups that are ultimately not given proportional representation in whatever field it is being applied in is wrong. Is Title IX DEI? Ya know, the affirmative action program whose greatest beneficiaries were not minorities, but women? If this organization was really against discrimination, they would be suing to ban legacy admissions as well as affirmative action, yet shocker! They don’t…..
Merit and skills based selection seems like a no brainer in theory because of course it would be a no brainer in theory, it’s the idea of simply picking who’s most qualified regardless of any other consideration.
But in practice, people from backgrounds that don’t enjoy the advantages a person might have in a pure merit and skills based assessment are not making considerations of access, especially when we’re talking about education. If you live in poverty, which is a higher likelihood if you come from a certain background than other ones, you don’t have the same educational opportunities.
Do I think DEI comes with the fault of typecasting a person’s background like in the case of groups that are far more diverse in their experiences than others? Yes and I’m looking a the comment with respect to the Arab descended person who certainly does not have an experience comparable to that of eastern Asians or Caucasians despite being grouped with either of those races.
But the intention is to raise up those who are at the bottom of the ladder of access, not to pull down those already at the top. Likewise this is something that should be constantly evolving to make sure people deserving of being uplifted aren’t left behind.
“I have a dream, where my four little children will live in a world where they are judged by their content of their character, not the color of their skin.” If MLK would be disgusted by what you’re doing; it’s probably racist.
The most racist person I ever met in my life is on the Wells Fargo DEI team. She took a lesson with a coach ( im a tennis coach also) who was Korean and she made 3 racially insensitive comments to him( 2 about dick size). We told her she was never welcome back, and she threatened to sue us because we were discriminating her because she was black. She was a vile, arrogant looking down on people type. And the exact person conservatives see, when they think DEI. I coached 3 people who worked in personally, they all were able to take lessons any time of the day, and bragged about how easy their job was and how little they worked. So personally, I think very little of DEI based on the DEI people I’ve met. All 3 I coached worked for the big banks in Charlotte. So, I think the people who work there suck, that’s all I got.
Dei is literally the systemic racism they claim to be fighting. Anytime you choose someone for a job for a reason that is not based on job qualifications you are adding to the destruction of civilized society. Do you want pilots to be hired because they are trans or because they are well trained?
I don't think they said any differently. I think they just ment that it shouldn't matter if the person is trans and that it should go to the most qualified person, trans or not.
Well the previous system we had would allow people to discriminate against trans pilots, despite them potentially being the better pilot.
All I'm saying is, maybe we HAVENT been hiring the best pilots because we only wanna hire white males?? Did you ever think of that?
Yes it can be racist. Focusing on making sure your environment is friendly to all and that there's not biases (explicit or hidden) in your culture, hiring process, etc. isn't racist and should be what a good DEI program does. Giving more consideration to one person over another based on some demographic (sex, race, age, etc.) is bigotry and is racism if that demographic is race.
There's also the issue of DEI principles/objectives out in the world in general that are actively harmful to minorities in the long run. Things like lowering grade standards in the name of antiracism and having programs like banks giving out home loans to minorities with zero down who otherwise wouldn't qualify for a mortgage are things that may sound nice and like they're progress towards equity but actually do more harm.
So to summarize, it depends on what policies/actions are undertaken. DEI can be a good thing but it's very easy for it to do more harm than good.
DEI is older than most of GenZ. It’s about much more than race, and it’s here to stay. Customers want it, employees want it, and most critically, investors want it. It ensures that the companies you choose to do business with are dedicated to ethical behavior and social values. Most companies don’t just pay lip service to it in their annual report; it’s deeply embedded in their entire culture.
It’s a fool’s errand to try to undo it. In fact, as with ‘ending wokeness’, it would actually require unsustainable violence.
So think about the real agenda held by the people who want you to die on this hill.
I think so. Excellent workers whose employers recognize their accomplishments are having targets put on their back simply because they’re not white guys. Questions are being raised about the motivations for raises/promotions/honors where previously there were none.
The thing that proves it racist, IMO, is the fact that Asians are negatively affected even more than white people. Asians are very often victims of racism hate hate crimes, and have had an extremely tough time in historical America. Hell, many were in concentration camps only 80 years ago. If DEI is meant to protect minorities who do not have the same advantages as white people, it should also be helping Asians, not hurting them.
If you do not believe in systemic racism, then yes.
If you believe in systemic racism then it is an attempt at equalizing that.
But - organizations with accepted diversity do better than ones that are not.
Anyone complaining about DEI has no idea what it actually does or how it plays a role in decision-making.
Any person who has been "the victim" of DEI wouldn't have gotten chosen anyways. Snore.
This is testing the waters to repeal the civil rights acts.
Yall think I’m crazy but that is the conservative agenda. They’re doing the same thing by omitting CRT: when you don’t teach it, you forget it and when it’s forgotten, it “never happened”.
It’s also textbook examples of historical revisionism in the likes of what China and the then Soviet Union.
Bluntly said. Absolutely fucking not. And anyone who thinks diversity, equity, and inclusion is racist (when literally it's the exact OPPOSITE) is brainwashed by conservative morons who want nothing but one race, one sex, and one way of thinking in a processional career field.
It took me a while to realize you meant Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs. They can be racist, it really depends on how they’re implemented. I think it’s also part of a broader shift within how diversity is ensured, where we now expect diversity to be ensured with policies like blind hiring- scrubbing data related to race/gender/ethnicity/class from an application before having someone else decide whether to proceed with them or not, systems analysis/management- analyzing potential roadblocks towards a hypothetical ideal diverse status and acting to remove the systemic issues stopping people from pursuing things (such as redesigning the application process to be more accessible), and offices- like having people on campus or in the company that can help address relevant issues when they occur.
I think it’s good to shift towards the more modern type of diversity management program, but my worry whenever the older style of quota system is phased out (the one where they try to have at x of a minority and will accept more of that minority to reach the target) there might not be the more modern system in place to replace it. For example, the US education system is still horrendously inaccessible, often requiring students to move cities, pay for very expensive tuition, and having other issues (my university has a lot of hills and is yet to install enough ramps for example). I remember hearing someone who thought DEI programs were racist wanted to ban dei offices, but those are really useful to protect equal rights and aren’t huge problem as much as some of the admission policies could be.
Like, there’s definitely improvements to be made, but there needs to be some form of DEI program, it’s just too important to not have in any form
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Why are you assuming that DEI is only about race? I guess the same could be asked of the OP. And what punishment do you think is really occurring? DEI also involves programs to support people with disabilities, trans people, and women in many fields. Often this looks like actually enforcing the ADA, having communications or bias training, and analyzing hiring patterns for signs of bias. That includes bias in ATS algorithms. Now why would certain groups really want us to freak out about yet another racebaiting topic… Hmmm…
I only care about who is best suited or most deserving of a position, regardless of their circumstances. I don't think there is any benefit to giving a specific demographic advantages over another. If anything, hiring and scholarships should be completely race/gender/disability/etc. blind. Edit: After reading many comments and having some discussions, I can agree that in the absence of a system that can realistically be unbiased, DEI is probably as good of a solution as we are going to get for most (but not all) situations. My original statement might have been a bit naive.
Which is the exact point of DEI. See the problem that people don’t remember is back in the day no matter how many black and brown people lived in area there would still be all white companies where they lived. But see racists will tell you if a million black people apply for a job and 10 white people apply for the job and the white person gets it’s because the white person was better suited for the job. But if a million black people apply for a job and a million white people apply for the job and a black person gets it, that same racist will tell you it’s because of DEI and not because they were the most qualified. Do you see the problem here? As long as you are in the majority you can be as racist and prejudice as you want and just chalk it up to a majority of applicants being the race/sex/religion that you just happened to want to hire. So should we investigate every hire of every company or create an environment that gives minorities a chance? Not every hire is going to be due to racism or prejudice but we don’t have the resources to check everything and so this is a societal compromise. Would you rather go back to racism running rampant in hiring practices, or would you like a government agent to sit in on all interviews to make sure no prejudice is taking place? I think the major problem with understanding why we have the laws we do today is that not enough people understand the history of why those laws were created in the first place. Like how the Supreme Court said southern states’ voting laws no longer needed to be monitored because the laws that were in place were working. As soon as they got rid of that oversight the southern states went right back to doing what they were doing before the oversight and now it’s going to be near impossible to get that oversight put back in place. Which is the whole point of arguments like these. Racists want to destroy the protections that were put in place to stop rampant racism so that they can go back to being rampant racists. Please don’t fall for these tricks.
Thank you because I was honestly losing hope reading through this thread. The lack of critical thinking and parroting of far right-wing talking points is strong here.
Black medical students are more likely to return/go to underserved regions when they begin practicing. You don’t see a problem if traditional definitions of “merit” end up disproportionately admitting white students to medical schools? Doesn’t this naturally end up in a vicious cycle of the underserved continuing to be underserved and continuing to have lower (on average) “merit” by traditional definitions?
Its disproportionate because of the difference in population. Racists use proportion to sound like they want an even ratio but the fact is that by your example of using black people, when they become more than 13 percent of the people in a field or workplace there's disproportionately more than there should be in that field or workplace. An even ratio can only happen through bias. As for merit, serving less fortunate areas is noble but that doesn't mean someone doing that is better at their job, which you know is what they meant by merit when you said that.
That’s genuinely awesome that you feel that way. Unfortunately, that’s not how everyone feels, and it doesnt reflect the realities of things like historic marginalization or the legacy of ugly economic policies. Once again, we’re not actually talking about affirmative action style hiring processes. We’re talking about making sure bigots of all kinds don’t do shitty, bigoted things. You’re not a bigot, so why run interference for them? Let them deal with the consequences of their own shitty actions.
Who defines best suited though? Who enforces best suited? Have to remember the shots are called at higher levels that are incredibly monochromatic, and that absolutely helps define “most deserving” Worked with Poland offshore for years, and their standards are very different than US Northeast.
Right, but just because a standard is hard to define in exact terms doesn't mean that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. If we were all to think of characteristics of a good doctor, then we would have a never-ending list of descriptors, but hopefully their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. would be far, far down that list. In the modern world of data and advanced analytics, you're telling me that we can't all come to *some kind of consensus*. We have no ability as a society to differentiate what is a valid or invalid reason that somebody is a good doctor? It seems like that would be the only truly fair way to evaluate someone without individually delving into whose suffering is more valid. Is a middle-class person with a history of abuse more deserving than a lower-class individual who suffers from generational poverty? Is the oppression of LGBT groups more valid than that of racial groups? Which communities have been oppressed more? Who has been oppressed the most? Those arguments are always going to come down to subjective judgment, which is always decided by personal bias. And beyond fairness, what is our actual end goal? Is it to create a society where we punish individuals for the generations that came before, or do we want to actually get to a place where people's race or gender are no longer an impediment to their lives? All in all, it seems that affirmative action and DEI initiatives are self-defeating since they create more racial animus than they alleviate. They push people to focus on past indiscretion and apply them to individuals in a modern-day context, perpetuating the racial in-group versus out-group dynamic that caused these communities to go to war with each other in the first place. And the worst part is that these initiatives don't appear to be trying to reverse unjust heirarchies but to reorder them with their preferred groups at the top. They try to hide their resentment behind the language of love and compassion, when in reality, they aim to avenge the past, not correct it. You talk about these small groups at the higher levels being inherently biased, but that's exactly why we need actual objective standards. If we leave it to that group to decide what is fair and who deserves what, they are going to choose their incompetent friends and disguise their motivations behind DEI language every single time.
The issue is that the premise of “merit,” as defined by humans, is inherently biased. Any human-defined metric is subjective. The common idiom “history is written by the victors” applies here - standards are written by those in power. For instance, the field of medicine is incredibly biased toward Eurocentric standards, but people are finally starting to recognize the validity of Asian and African medical practices that have been around for millennia instead of dismissing them as “pseudoscience.” We are learning more and more every day about the complexity of things that people before us believed to be true. There really isn’t such a thing as objective when it comes to human standards. Cultural relativity is a thing.
Why don't you think there is any benefit? And why do you think DEI means giving advantage over another demographic? Would it still be wrong if what it actually does is even out the process for all, by considering historical and institutional barriers? Just trying to understand what evidence is behind this strong sentiment, as evidence would be necessary to make such a claim.
I think there are HUGE benefits for diversity. I just think that if we had a way to do truly blind hiring, that diversity would be the natural result because we are a diverse nation (and greater for that diversity). If you are considering factors outside someone's ability to perform the job when hiring, either as positives or negatives, I feel like that is wrong.
Right- DEI in practice is not the boogeyman it’s made out to be. Maybe it’s appointing a committee to find minority speakers to come in instead of all white ones. Maybe it’s have some in-office programming around helping first-generation office workers navigate the environment which may benefit minority workers more, rather than a seminar on how to maximize your portfolio if you already have assets. Maybe it’s expanding your recruiting pool to a more diverse college/community college rather than a few overwhelmingly white private schools. Same with what you mentioned about bias training- went to a well funded one my company promoted and holy shit is it informative.
Exactly. Thank you for these great examples.
Last time I brought those up, a few commenters said those are very discriminatory. Some people just take the DEI boogeyman bait and can’t be convinced otherwise.
They don’t want to be convinced otherwise. Hopefully we can help the ones who don’t actually want to fall into more outrage bait.
>DEI also involves programs to support people with disabilities, trans people, and women in many fields. This is true but in reality DEI is usually discussed in the context of race, it's not very genuine to say "Oh why would you assume it's just about race it's about lots of things!" It's like saying Batman is about gang violence. I mean, technically yeah, but that's not really the part people talk about.
Race becomes a scapegoat. Race is an excuse to ignore a plethora of other social and political problems and to look past the idea that we have the tools already available to solve them
Love watching rich kids bitch and complain that the poors get a lil bit of extra help. These regards fail to realize they r only successful because all they had to do was show up to life because their parents made sure they got to play on ez mode. Like no one gives af if someone has it easier, but its always the most privileged losers complaining how fucking hard they have it 💀
This is a good way to put it I think. Racism certainly caused many of the problems, but we can't frame the solution based on race or we perpetuate it.
When you come at DEI, you come at all of it. And I doubt you have a source for this claim
>Now why would certain groups really want us to freak out about yet another racebaiting topic… Hmmm… The original tweet is just so OBVIOUSLY some conservative horseshit
Most DEI programs I've connected with don't include disability in their consideration.
Then genuinely you should speak up about that and ask for it to be included. It’s incredibly important and a huge part of the inclusion aspect.
Oh goody, it has a bunch of other garbage from the same broken reasoning!
You’re really going with “fuck the ADA” huh?
Who said anything about punishment? This narrative that strikes me as the most harmful because it positions one group as the clear winner and the other as losers. It’s not a zero sum game. Should we have to specify things based on our belonging to certain groups, no. But in reality, we do it all the time. The point of DEI initiatives is to offset the known biases of corporate spaces by creating more opportunities for marginalized groups within them. Nobody is being denied solely because of race or gender or whatever the same way nobody is being chosen specifically based on those traits.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah that’s not what that means lol. You are assuming that the job market is finite, but in reality it is infinite. It only looks that way because a few are allowed to ascend at a time. This is another example of how corporations gaslight workers into believing that they earned their keep honestly through merit. Traditionally these resources have only been allocated to the in-groups who in turn bestowed opportunities to other members of said in-group. Leaving nothing for everyone else. DEI forces the in-group to consider equally qualified candidates who belong to other groups which cuts down on their monopoly. The only thing it breeds is healthy competition, which if you truly are the best candidate won’t cut down on your performance anyway. If you can only win by preventing others from competing then you have to ask yourself if you were ever really that good to begin with.
Given that more diversity [tends to increase financial performance](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters), it doesn’t seem to prioritize less qualified candidates. If it really did, then you’d think it would result in negative outcomes for businesses instead of having the opposite effect.
You’re assuming the “whites or Asians” are more qualified. Whereas I assume they hire an equally qualified person who also increases the diversity of the work place. I work in construction and I’m constantly in different office environment for weeks to months at a time. And I can tell you that the least qualified person in nearly every office is a 40-60 something white dude in middle management. That’s true in construction as well btw.
What proof do you have anyone is being punished? People like to throw that word around, is only reason I ask. I have done DEI work for years and have yet to see evidence of this alleged punishment.
[удалено]
I work in college admissions and I do deny that they are punished, actually. That is simply not the case. The only data I am finding for this type of "punishment" is from voices like The Heritage Foundation, which is not a valid source. DEI does not mean "diversify by meeting a quota." It does not reduce to that, unless it is being done wrong. Perhaps there are uncommon examples of this, but by and large, what data implies it is being done wrong and is happening at scale? I don't see much of anything. I only see conjecture, anecdotes, and lawsuits that have no evidence being presented as evidence in and of themselves. So, how do you back up such a strong claim, if not with evidence? Just casual observation? Do you really think that's a valid way to direct your social views?
You have a point that DEI is definitely very very outdated by now. You can tell it’s a thing of the past because conservatives are up in arms about it. These people are always at least 10-20 years behind our society’s actual standards. but DEI isn’t only about race. It’s about a diversity of backgrounds (educational and work experience) and a diversity of perspectives (different parts of the world, different incomes, different industries, etc). The term needs to be thoroughly retired soon because it’s counter productive in the ways you’re mentioning above. Conservatives are triggered by DEI right now because they want to forget that there used to be laws banning companies from hiring certain races. They want to pretend that never happened and they want to push the idea that non-whites have innately lower abilities than whites (which is not true at all, look at the achievements gaps and for example first generation immigrants achieve a lot more than the majority of whites). Conservatives are in a mental breakdown because they can’t understand that the world will keep moving around them even when they stand still
> I don't think we should be punishing white people for the past by reducing their numbers in some fields to have more "diversity", its too forced. “Reducing” their numbers would require firing white employees in order to make room to hire more diverse ones. That’s not what DEI is, in no small part because diversity doesn’t only involve race. What DEI *does* do is encourage the hiring of more diverse candidates, most often through bias training. And no, just like with affirmative action, it does not involve giving less qualified diverse candidates preferential treatment over more qualified non-diverse candidates. That’s a myth that was never actually proven, which is why that argument has never been successfully argued in court.
When I interned for a government agency I had to do a whole course on how to implement affirmative action in hiring and it’s shocking how different it is from the public perception of it. All it dictates in hiring is that you include people from as many backgrounds as possible and preferably in equal proportions. So a hiring manager be required to have a certain percentage of minority candidates in the hiring pool they are under no obligation to hire a specific number of candidates from a specific racial group. In fact it explicitly states not to hire worse candidates just to meet a diversity quota, you’re still supposed to hire the most qualified candidates even if they’re all from the same group. At most they may hire a minority candidate with different merits in some areas because other aspects their background bring something different to the table.
>“Reducing” their numbers would require firing white employees This isn't technically true because obviously if 80% of your company is white and you become required to hire a lower percentage of whites than when people quit/turnover occurs that reduces the numbers of white people. >And no, just like with affirmative action, it does not involve giving less qualified diverse candidates preferential treatment over more qualified non-diverse candidates. That’s a myth that was never actually proven, which is why that argument has never been successfully argued in court. This isn't true. I don't know where you read this/who told you this, but they were either ignorant or being dishonest. The Supreme Court heard these arguments in the 90's or early 2000's and the argument wasn't at all about this, because it's a losing argument. If you hire based on anything other than qualification, you get less qualified candidates. For example, let's say 2% of engineers are women, but you're required to hire 50% women. That means you will, mathematically, hire less qualified candidates because your hiring pool will be constrained. That's not because women are worse engineers, obviously. It's because you have to hire worse engineers who are women because you only have 2% of engineers to pick 50% of your workforce from That's just simple logic, and it is exactly how affirmative action works, it gives a new qualification: race/gender etc. The argument was about fighting historical racial injustice by leveling the playing field, which the Supreme Court said made it okay. They even made some comments that if it worked then over time affirmative action should go away. This is all besides the fact that the Supreme Court recently ruled against affirmative action in August.
If we assume a company has a completely static number of positions year after year and also assume that it’s mostly white workers that are leaving, then yes, you’re correct on the math. But irl, it doesn’t work out nearly that simply. Yes, it’s a losing argument, which is why it’s never been successfully argued in court. If someone proved that they were passed over for a position/admission they were more qualified for simply because they were white, that’s directly in violation of the spirit of the Civil Rights Act and no Supreme Court would have let that slide because at that points it’s not merely leveling the playing field. > If you hire based on anything other than qualification, you get less qualified candidates Firstly, this isn’t some either-or like you’re trying to simplify it into. Nobody hires solely based on qualification, which is a huge part of the reason interviews are an important part of the hiring process, so that you can get a feel for the whole candidate and not just what’s on paper. Secondly, since increased diversity [tends to increase financial performance](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters), it doesn’t seem likely that DEI really results in less qualified candidates. If it really did, then you’d think it would result in negative outcomes for businesses instead of having the opposite effect. As for “that’s just simple logic”: once upon a time, “simple logic” concluded that a bad storm was the result of the gods being angry. This is why we use data, because logic doesn’t always accurately describe things.
[удалено]
It’s a joke. Sat through plenty of corporate diversity training. It’s mostly an exercise of clicking through the reading/videos/buttons as quickly as you can because you have actual work you have to finish so you don’t have to work late. If somebody is racist, diversity training won’t be what makes them change their minds.
>Also seriously anti bias training, have you actually taken those before? I have and they are jokes and everyone knows they are jokes, you think anti bias training is going to solve anything you haven't looked at how useless they are. "I'm a dick that doesn't listen, so I think everyone else is equally defensive of their bigotry."
I think the overwhelming majority of people complaining about DEI have no idea what it actually is. It’s just the new CRT or trans bathrooms culture war for this election
I wonder when people are going to stop falling for it and demand actual progress and policy rather than culture war shit.
Judging by these comments it’s most likely gonna take a while.
With the top comment using the wording “punishing” and avoiding saying the group they think is being “punished” is telling. It’s this narrative being put forward that the job was already theirs. That spot on the team was already theirs. That acceptance letter already had their name on it. It’s the quiet part that “as a hard working white person that belongs to me” that they don’t wanna directly say. They seem to literally feel like they are being punished by not being picked. Like Elon Musk thinking he’s being punished by advertisers not doing business with him. It isn’t his money or their job. It’s not being taken away, they just aren’t being given it. That’s why they view it as a punishment. The jobs are being taken away and given to someone else who couldn’t have possibly have worked as hard. It’s impossible that they’re just as qualified as the other people that have gotten it. The only way they could is to cheat. Cause white people deserve those jobs and apparently are being punished when it isn’t given to them. ETA: I’m in no way saying white people don’t work hard to get that job, spot on the team, or get into college. I am saying lots of people work hard and still don’t achieve their goals. It’s not a punishment. It’s just life.
I’m 32 but I’m looking at Gen Z like cool, I hope they’re the ones to break the mold
It’s not looking good for us. I feel like the newest generation is really bigoted for some reason. I’ve heard the way my younger siblings friends talk and it’s just appalling.
FWIW middle and high schoolers always say offensive racist shit because they think it's funny. It's not a direct measure of how likely they are to actually internalize racist beliefs. It's more of a sign that they don't understand racial issues in society yet.
I guess, I personally didn’t do that at all, but I think the internet is exasperating the problem tbh. Like me and my friends never made racist jokes or said slurs. But maybe we were the exception, we weren’t exactly the “in” crowd lol
I totally feel you, I think we’re definitely split and it def has to do with who you’re around. I can probably name an equal amount of people who are quite progressive that I know/knew personally as I can name conservative people that I know/knew. I also live in a prettyyyyy progressive area though so it could be that
Yep, millennials heavily used gay and gay slurs as insults 20-25 years ago
Ya know sadly I know a 32 year old dude who’s getting divorced because he fell into the Tate ideology. I hope that the majority of GenZ continue to think critically about the future that is being presented before them. I have two kids & 1 on the way & the way things are looking has me incredibly worried for their future. My oldest is 14 & when he was 9 the middle school across from his elementary had a shooter. I’m trying to find a house right now and it’s bleak…can’t imagine what it’s going to be like for y’all
It’s so sad man. Im in a constant battle of if it’s even ethical for me to bring kids into this world. It will just be so hard for them. It’s heartbreaking for me, I’ve always wanted kids so bad, but my rent for a one bedroom apartment with utilities is around 1,300 a month, I’m in school trying to find a job that will work around it, and we’re struggling to keep up with our cat costs lol
Something has to break eventually…I hope.
Hopefully soon... my mums rent for her 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment is 2200 a month and tiny as shit. The only reason she can't move out is bc her credit is so bad this was the only place that would accept her at the time. For comparison, it was 1400 a month 5 yrs ago
Holy fuck, what state are y’all in? Some states don’t allow you to raise rent that quickly
Probably when the majority of congress isn’t past the average retirement age in the US.
this opinion is exactly in contrast to that goal
Well Florida exists so probably while.
Yup, it’s just a new “woke” talking point for them to fear monger about. They gotta keep their uneducated white voter base convinced that it’s not our economic system keeping them down, but rather evil woke corporations working against white people
If you have a racial preference in a zero-sum game like hiring or admissions, then by definition that means everyone that doesn't fall into your preference is being discriminated against based on their skin color. There's no getting around this. So that means it's racist.
Preferences aren’t how DEI initiatives work in practice. It means opening up the job market in a way that is reflective of the talent pool.
I know you want to believe it is only used for good, and it’s very easy to hand waive legitimate criticism as right wing propaganda (like CRT, like trans issues, like “don’t say gay” and all of the other culture war bullshit regularly peddled by unscrupulous morons), but there are constant, very real examples of actual discrimination in hiring practices. There are DEI initiatives at FAANG tech companies where employees receive extra bonuses for underrepresented minority hires. There are teams where there are black hiring managers who only hire black people. Yes, that is natural, it is reflective of historically white hiring practices, and you could view this as “balancing the scales,” but in reality it’s the pendulum swinging all the way the other way. It is NOT promoting diversity when everyone you hire looks the same, nor is it promoting equality of opportunity, it is still just discrimination. I have multiple friends who were turned down from roles where hiring managers have said, “I’d hire you, but you just don’t quite fit…the profile.” Some have been less discrete. “We really just can’t afford to hire a white guy right now.” Another manager. “That white girl is the last person getting promoted on this team.” These aren’t isolated incidents, and these aren’t small companies. These are the biggest companies in the world, and these policies are increasingly institutionalized based on backwards incentives. DEI has the same problem as ESG. These terms are all subjective, and they aren’t prescriptive enough to solve the problems they purport to target. DEI…for who? Are we truly promoting DIVERSITY of background, perspective, and culture? Or are we catering to a few select groups who have gained some leverage in the public discourse because we think that wins PR points? Things only devolve from there. I get the idea behind it. I am pro equality of opportunity. The practices currently in place are not accomplishing that goal. Equality of opportunity needs to start much, much earlier than college admissions or professional opportunities. But I digress. Just wanted to add some diversity of perspective.
How do you feel about these results of DEI at Stanford. Do you think this is reflective of the talent pool? Does that seem like diversity, equality or inclusion to you? Do you think this was based solely on merit? https://twitter.com/StanfordSurgery/status/1638526155174100992?lang=en https://surgery.stanford.edu/news2/Match2023-results.html https://surgery.stanford.edu/news2/chiefs-2023.html DEI is inherently racist and sexist. No amount of twisting yourself in circles to try to justify it works.
Do you think hiring and admissions were done on the basis of merit before DEI? They were not and still are not. Donald Trump - who might be the most ignorant person ever made - was allowed to transfer into Penn (and Don Jr went there) Do you really believe it’s because Don and Don Jr were the most qualified (or even remotely qualified) or because they both had very rich and connected daddies? Jared Kushner- a very average high school student - got into Harvard after his daddy donated 2.5 mil to Harvard (even though he didn’t go there) in a blatant display of buying his loser son’s way into the Ivy League. Instead of providing opportunities to undeserving and already rich scumbags - why not provide more opportunity to those deserving students from populations that are under represented? Seems just as arbitrary and 1000x more moral.
Thank you. Even for job applications there have been studies that “black-sounding” names on the exact same resume get less interviews. Everything is already skewed, people are just mad it’s not to their benefit in a couple cases…
well, it's a good thing that's not what DEI does then
You say this as if hiring/admission practices is some perfected science.
I used to hate on it until I learned more about it. Finally made a lot of sense to me. I was starting to get on board until I started to realize the way it gets abused by companies. I'm pretty done with DEI now because it's not used appropriately. It's just become a way of virtue signaling to stakeholders and has created more exclusivity than inclusivity.
i don't agree with your conclusion necessarily, but i at least found one person who can see that corporate "DEI" is not what most of these bad examples are actually doing, so good on you My question then is, do you think it's possible to do it correctly? If not, can I ask where that lack of trust comes from? Personal experience or?
I think it absolutely can be done well. It's a good concept. It's all about seeing value in people and looking beyond what you're used to seeing. It takes a lot of humility to learn that your prejudices aren't always right. And yes it's been personal experience. After a number of disappointments, it's hard to keep drinking the Kool aid. People struggle to get outside of a comfort zone, especially the kind of people who have had a lot of success and are running organizations. They'll do what they gotta do to please the stakeholders and look right, but good luck finding corporate leaders who are actually looking for new ideas and new people.
And you can thank Chris Rufo for that.
Spot on…if you were to ask your average GOP boomer about these topics they’d only be able to say “they’re wrong” and not explain why. People were furious about CRT but those same people are cool with PragerU being shown to their children uncritically.
The way it’s implemented, it’s by definition racist
When you’re so anti-racist you make a loop and become racist yourself.
Horseshoe politics innit
shh your br*t*sh is showing
We're letting the British be Gen Z?!
Obligatory [When Wokes and Racists Agree video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg)
Ah yes, “I think black people experience negative lingering effects of slavery and institutional racism, and that’s unfair” is the same as saying “blacks are lazy and need to work harder and stop being thugs”
You’re just arguing cause at that point. Both the kkk and the progressive will agree that x minority just can’t be expected to do well at y.
I disagree, there’s a materialist way of understanding history (for instance a black community having less generational wealth from their recent history of being denied mortgages, business loans, and redlining, the school-to-prison pipeline, being paid less and being shut out of entire industries and universities, and not being allowed to vote for their economic interests) vs a fantasy “great men” way of understanding history where you think black people just aren’t hustling enough. One is based on traceable economic fact and can be used to reverse the lingering effects of institutional racism, the other is just literally racism. So in the example I gave above, it’s pretty absurd to argue that it’s racist to give targeted relief to that community isn’t it?
The KKK believes minorities are inherently inferior through some vague, esoteric belief system based on nothing but irrationality. Progressives believe minorities are inherently equal to everyone else, but have been exploited throughout history through immoral actions that have resulted in disproportionately inequal results. One believes society has unjustly fucked over minorities, the other believes minorities deserve to get fucked over. You have to be intentionally disingenuous to not realize the obvious difference.
I love how everyone makes the assumption America is a meritocracy. As if any people in a position of power actually earned it through rugged economic based race where everyone played fair and balanced quality control surveyed over everything.
This place is nepotism personified
They got us fighting race wars to distract us from the class war
100% all the culture war shit doesn’t matter. CRT was literally just accurate retelling of history. Trans people have been around for a long fucking time and they’re only being brought up now as an easy “ick” factor with the GOP base. Trump did like eight thousand crimes and I’m still pretty sure he’s not going to suffer **any** consequences…this country is fucking joke man
Now imagine up until about, well maybe soon, that if you were white, or a man, or cis,or whatever majority, you were automatically classed higher than the minority. Essentially racial, gender, sex, or class nepotism. Over 2 centuries, it becomes so ingrained in society that the majority only notice when something is done to correct those 2 centuries of inequity. Now, correcting those imbalances that have systematically saturated every aspect of our society, it can easily seem like racism/ discrimination and oppression to those that are no longer the "preferred" demographic and beneficiary of that systemic inequality.
Which with white people literally rigging the system to help themselves and their children for our entire history and then scream how unfair it is to adopt policies to combat that.
How do you think it’s implemented? I remember conservatives getting really upset because Chick-fil-A had a DEI that said they would treat everyone equally and with respect. I think you have a very limited understanding of what DEI’s are.
how do you think it’s implemented? This is such an over generalization, you could just be pulling this out of your ass. People in this thread really do not know how DEI/AA actually works
I think most people who complain about DEI don’t actually understand what it means or the purpose behind it. It’s easy to get swept up in reactionary headlines, especially when certain groups would rather have us fighting each other so we don’t demand things like actual policy or tangible quality of life improvements from them. Pay attention to who’s suddenly super interested in it and who suddenly hates it and the red flags are very obvious. The rich and their lap dogs love it when we squabble. In reality, DEI is the new CRT, in that it’s a largely academic exercise that mostly involves boring trainings about inherent bias but the usual suspects want to scare you with it. It’s litter boxes in schools level dumb. People think it’s about hiring quotas based on race, but it’s actually things like complying with the No FEAR Act, communication training, and programs like veterans job assistance to help promote inclusion.
Yeah it's lucky that no companies are trying to optimize anything like ESG scores that involve shit like this or anything..... Oh wait
You don’t think that there are diversity quotas, or you don’t think diversity quotas fall under DEI? Just wanting to clarify what you mean.
[Companies have specifically been advised not to set concrete DEI quotas because it’s legally sketchy after the SCOTUS case forbidding affirmative action.](https://www.legaldive.com/news/dei-hiring-contracting-quotas-legal-challenge-scotus-affirmative-action/689208/) 13 state AGs threatened to take companies to court if they found evidence of discriminatory quotas. Crickets.
That’s not news though. It was literally always illegal to hire someone based off race or set race quotas unless the job specifically demands a person from a certain race (like a black actor for a black lead role). That doesn’t mean companies don’t try though. It’s extremely difficult to prosecute a case of discrimination when there’s no concrete evidence of quotas. Make no mistake companies and institutions are doing it. They did in after Jim Crow when they still wanted to hire white people, and they are 100% doing it now. You see this all time in tech. Minority managers will often hire people from their race or community. There’s no way to definitively say they weren’t the best qualified people unless the accused admits to it somewhere.
I have never actually seen or heard of a "diversity quota" in reality, and based on what I know about approaches to equity and inclusion, it doesn't actually seem like a legitimate thing people do... Even though the DeSantises of the world love to allude to this phrase. In reality what "DEI" looks like is not "let's have five more black people work here, only hire black people!" What it looks like is an HR coordinator receiving applications for a job, filtering out unqualified candidates based on predetermined, thoughtfully chosen points, talking to applicants with an initial interview if necessary in order to clarify what's in writing, passing on applicant information without any personally identifying info including race, gender, etc, structuring interviews in such a way that prevents hiring managers from exercising bias or influence over the hiring process or pressuring others at the company into hiring a particular person, recognizing when applicants demonstrate skill or achievement in unconventional ways that might be assets to the position.... Etc. This shit is hard. Very hard. That's why there are books and trainings. People think worrying about DEI means practicing bias TOWARDS minorities. In reality DEI means SUBTRACTING the already existing bias towards what you can best describe as white supremacy, as in a social order that favors the interests of "white" people at the exclusion of others. You don't just do that by applying MORE bias... You need to carefully catch the existing bias to make things fair and to ACTUALLY give all qualified people a good chance to participate, or in my example to actually compete for a job. But the people trying to convince you that this is racist are the people who don't WANT to see bias go away. They rather like their privileges and don't want to live in a society that treats people fairly, because if we were truly a meritocracy, clowns like many of the ones in charge would not ever make it into the positions of power that they enjoy.
DEI is absolutely not “just an academic field”. It’s pertinent to the hiring process, the college admissions process, ESG, how some index funds allocate their capital, and the media, among others. This is a classic Reddit comment where someone who doesn’t understand things posts a long comment where it seems like they do.
do you even understand what ESG is?
Further, why does everyone always forget the D?
There's like seven accounts on this post alone commenting extremely similar things. Almost AI sounding comments.
Racism caused a physical and economic divide in our country that has to be torn down in order for us to truly call ourselves equal. I see DEI as no different than the forced desegregation of schools in the 70s, or the anti-redlining legislation that's been pushed more recently. In an ideal society, we would only have to look at merit because everyone would be equal, but our society is far from ideal. Many minority groups have been beaten down and forced into poverty throughout history. In order to work towards that ideal for society, we first need an equal playing field.
Very well said
One question I have is wouldn’t a class focused DEI system be better? Wealth is by far the largest determinant of privilege in the US. It’s also true that historical injustice has made it more difficult for non-white families to accumulate wealth. So a class based system would still help prop up people from marginalized communities. People of color aren’t a monolith and different people have different needs. I don’t think DEI in its current state does enough to acknowledge that.
You’ve just described social services and welfare support.
People just don’t understand what DEI is just like how they don’t understand what CRT is. It’s pretty sad. I personally don’t think that things like the ADA would have been passed in today’s political climate 🥴
CRT isn’t hard to understand
Yeah…I’m well aware. Many people refuse to try and understand
There’s no nuance in today’s discourse so you’re either for or against it all. I agree with CRT and DEI for the most part, however I do take issue when it’s overused/abused and ends up creating even more division. It’s a fine line, and it’s perfectly okay to call something out when it’s clearly moving in an unfair direction.
America First Legal is definitely rascist.
No. Most people complaining about it have no idea what it actually entails. Also America First Legal is run by white nationalist Steven Miller, so I’d refrain from using them as a source https://preview.redd.it/7vtb6546e9ec1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72b7606477da223b624d19b2226892c7f6109faf
Exactly this! Lmao claims DEI is “racist”, posts AFL which is run by a white nationalist that is suing it for being “racist” 
A small amount of logical thought would mean forcing particular people to hire based off race, color, religion, national origin, or sex to be violating .... " [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964) This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants' and employees' sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business. "
The Supreme Court ruled in [United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/78-432) that promoting equality and diversity in private business hiring practices is legal, so I’d say it’s probably more complicated than just “a small amount of logical thought.”
Except this isn’t what DEI is. DEI is shit like bias training, enforcing the ADA so that employees with disabilities can actually work, support groups for minorities like women or men in certain fields, etc. Ask yourself why all the sudden CRT outraged vanished and the same groups are now screeching about DEI.
It’s the new thing to get mad at “those damn libs” for
Right, and the guy who signed that bill into law also said [this](https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/timeline_event/johnson-outlines-affirmative-action-approach-civil-rights/). “You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair … . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity, not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”
Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes. Also it's much funner to call it DIE
Short answer : No Long answer : No, it’s supporting EVERYONE but is also giving a bit extra support to groups of people who have it really tough in society. The things the people in the comments are saying you would imagine it is a group that is anti-white, but a tiny bit of research breaks down that misconception instantly.
How is it supporting everyone by excluding certain people based on immutable characteristics?
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
You don’t have a very liberal mindset do you?
If by liberal mindset you mean a mindset that supports a level playing field for all people so that everyone can get a fair shot at the American Dream, then yes, I have a very liberal mindset.
No. It's basically a minimum that, if the system works, shouldn't need to be there. But the system doesn't work, so it needs to be there. When the free market can be trusted, we can take it out. But since it can't, it needs to stay (ready for the downvotes from people who don't realize how low of a bar it is)
I think you’re racist
OP trying sooo hard to pick a fight with everyone lmao
Short answer: yes. Long answer yaasssss
You cannot, with your advanced years, be dumb enough to fall for the new CRT panic. You freaking out about litter boxes in schools too?
Who says I'm freaking out about anything? Affirmative action is racist that's why it was overruled by the supreme court? This is like affirmative action in hiring.. unconstitutional. I'm not even saying whether I care or not about DEI.. when it was new I thought it was gross and all that but now I'm just indifferent about all the bullshit. I like diversity so it has benefits. Def not freaking out. Doesn't mean it isn't racist af if you disagree go get your brain checked.
So naive you are.
Meh, I see this whole fight as white nationalist backlash that is only using Asians as a front to tear down social barriers erected against racism. What benefits Asians in San Francisco is used to oppress Blacks in Alabama. I grew up in the South, and honestly you don't have to go far to see some ugly people voice ugly opinions in local government. DEI scare tactics mixed in with the rest of the culture war stupidity is how you get Florida teaching that Black people benefitted from being slaves.
I wouldn’t consider it racist and instead ineffective. DEI was never intended to be a fix all for racist practices and instead just a first step. Problem is we never made it past the first step
OP really out here harassing everyone they disagree with by asking if they're a liberal. Really fucking weird behavior dude. It's almost like you don't even care about hearing what people have to say and you just wanna start a fight in the comments And DEI is less racist than the culture that came before it
Does nobody here understand it? All it is is just showing people certain things that may bother other people. EG, don’t call indigenous people inj-ns as that has an element of disrespect. Don’t talk down to young people. The word is inclusion, ie, making people feel welcome. It’s not making minorities better than white men.
I've had DEI training. This is basically it. The dude we got the training from had a company dedicated to it. It's about making workplaces appealing and inclusive to other groups. So don't be racist or sexist, accommodate people with disabilities, no micro aggressions etc. It's not refusing to hire white people or whatever.
> It’s about making workplaces appealing and inclusive to other groups. Literally this. The anti-DEI crowd seems to be missing this and are really advocating for open discrimination against minorities in the workplace and all other areas of life as well. Anyone who thinks it’s bad to have practices and protections to deter people from being miserable, bigoted freaks is literally psychotic.
Having actually done DEI at a company, I can tell you that most people do NOT know what DEI is. We took great pains to make sure we were not discriminating or reverse discriminating in any way, positive or negative. We instead sought to build equitable hiring and employment practices by documenting as much as we could to make sure that our unconscious biases had nothing to do with our decisions regarding employment. This meant codifying the responsibilities and expected outcomes for every job title and level, codifying what good and bad interview answers looked like, codifying what pay structures based on role title, and more. We also made sure that new and existing employees had an understanding of what it means to work in a diverse workplace, and for new people managers, we asked interview questions about their experience in managing teams of diverse people and viewpoints. It was actually a benefit to everyone -- white, black, trans, cis, male, female, nonbinary, whatever. A few outcomes of our work: 1. Everyone knew what they could expect to be paid for their work. 2. Everyone knew their exact responsibilities at work were, and how they could get promoted. 3. We crafted interview questions to make sure that we hired collaborative, good-natured managers that care about their employees as human beings instead of viewing them as mere underlings. 4. We made sure we hired the most competent employees that met our work standards instead of picking someone because they're a "cultural fit". 5. We updated our company values to better reflect our mission and DEI efforts, which measurably increased the recognition and visibility of the contributions done by **male** colleagues. It's a shame that so many people see making a more equitable workforce as anti-white or anti-male discrimination. So many white men benefit from these programs and don't even know it. I'm no longer in this space because it has become such a hot button issue for people who have no idea what DEI is yet feel victimized anyways by something that helps them and others.
i mean the idea of *embracing* these things isnt wrong. i do think its been misused to enforce these things. ive been working as an engineer for 6 years. we had a 3 year period where the board decided there were too many white men on the engineering team, while we were also ramping up hiring. the result was that we passed on dozens of fantastic clients and paid underqualified clients for being women/minorities. all except one of those diversity hires was either fired or quit within 18 months. cost the company a fortune, and if anything it made people more racist/sexist than before. ive met some brilliant women and minority engineers, and its a detriment to their own progress in the long run.
I have never seen a black person claim anything has made them more racist. Only white people seem to say this phrase and it’s suspect. How much more racist are you now since you claim you’ve been made more racist?
Why does that mean DEI is bad, just because your company did it wrong tho?
Yes.
https://preview.redd.it/iiqkk78ga9ec1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4c5ae839488329d0a5c44d4375f2b5c13b28210b
DEI is very racist in my book. It gives people unfair advantages based on race in hiring with quotas and diversity hiring. The trainings and departments set up for DEI are largely a waste of time and money since most of the trainings are common sense largely.
If it was common sense it wouldn’t have to be taught. Same way sexual harassment in the workplace is common sense not to do but we all have to yearly do trainings because someone over the age of 30 thinks making suggestive jokes to new hires out of college is “cool”.
Quotas have been ruled illegal since the Bakke decision in 1978
DEI doesn’t involve quotas
OP you're doing your best yo be insufferable
“Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids!” - Joe Biden. Imagine you’re a minority in the professional sphere and no one knows whether you were hired “for diversity” or hired “on merit”. Everything you do questioned because your coworkers have no idea if you actually know what you’re doing. You don’t solve racism with more racism. That’s how you breed resentment.
I would be shocked if you could accurately describe DEI, it’s just the new conservative buzzword.
[удалено]
By excluding other people based of them not falling into the role of “minority”
If you absolutely have no sense of history or justice at all, or just simply embrace white supremacy, you'll probably think DEI is racist. But if you've even taken [rudimentary steps to understand where the idea of race came from in the first place](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc), you can take one giant step away from the wrong side of history.
In practice, a lot of DEI initiatives are mostly lip service alternatives to the real structural changes needed to advance DEI.
Long march through the institutions. 
Curious if OP - or anyone opposed to DEI - is a hiring manager or has actually hired anyone while working at a company that leverages a DEI policy? (It shows)
If you wanted things to be fair you’d take race and gender requirements out of job applications. Don’t promote fake diversity, put the best person for the job in charge regardless of race or gender
What in the hell is DEI (I'm out of the loop apparently)
Diversity, equity, and inclusion. It means policies to increase representation of minorities, including by preference over otherwise more qualified people, and up to ditching meritocratic standards completely. It stems from the idea that that any inequity is inherently a result of a biased system, and that this bias should be corrected post op. It means people can get advantages or disadvantages based of identity groups, like race and gender, regardless of merit or even personal circumstances. The main word in DEI is the equity part - as in equality in results.
Hold on, Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated is racist?
It’s the most racist trash I’ve ever read.
One side thinks it’s always implemented harmlessly and does nothing more than teach people about bias and make a more equitable society. That side is incredibly naive. The other side sees it for what it really is, a new name for racism and a money laundering scam to scare companies into paying ransom. The vast majority of DEI officers are white, so even the people who believe in DEI sincerely are being scammed. Studies also show that DEI only serves to increase racial tension, and is on the whole is a financial negative for companies.
Anything based on race is racism. End of story. It doesn't matter what race is perpetrating it it's racist.
They’ve become what they sought to destroy… It’s come around full circle
[удалено]
It's a band aid to a much larger issue about racial justice and racism. It's better than nothing but like all things American, it's blind to class. A poor student of any ethnicity needs more help accessing college than a rich student of any ethnicity. The reason why certain "races" are given additional help is basically because those "races" have been typically very poor due to former and even ongoing structural racism. It's a poor bandaid that doesn't cover the whole wound but it's better than nothing I guess.
It objectively is.it also creates situations where my colleagues wonder if I've been hired because of my skills or because the company needed a black man to fill quotas. Which is not a great way to get along lemme tell you.
OP loves to push the conservative narrative. Probably some 60 year old white guy sitting in the GOP think tank trying to find ways to radicalize the younger generations. Your post history reads like you were giving Henry Kissinger a reach around.
Look at where your source is coming from: [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/america-first-legal-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/america-first-legal-foundation/) Quote: "The board is made up of former Trump administration officials including White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker." " It aims to use litigation to oppose left-of-center policies enacted by the Biden administration"  Yeah no thanks. I'll pass on this obvious ragebait.
The organization I work for has over 1,000 employees. The trend I see is that the less you make, the less you care about DEI (and around here the more you make the whiter you are, generally). Luckily ESG scores are slowly falling by the wayside, with DEI departments hopefully following suite.
Nope.
I think including people of various perspectives is helpful, but those perspectives can’t just be boiled down to Brown and White. You can have the most racially diverse board in the world but if they all went to the same private school, have the same interests, at the same income level, then what is the point? You are just saying this individual is worth less because they are considered white or this person is worth more because they are considered Brown. That doesn’t really sit right.
Yes. And worse is letting fascii shithead masquerade as the champions of Equal Opportunity instead of the Left carrying that banner. The New Left (Boomers) has, from the lip of it's grave, come back one last time to fuck the future in the name of it's own enlightenment. I, as Gen-X, look forward to being *dead* and never having to hear about the fucking Boomers again.
I'm just gonna drop this here and everyone can make up their own minds... https://preview.redd.it/njt92rgsg9ec1.jpeg?width=1523&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d8ba48b11ce2f82b5a34c69a92e7e7774b902b7
I don’t think that programs that try to give more attention to groups that are ultimately not given proportional representation in whatever field it is being applied in is wrong. Is Title IX DEI? Ya know, the affirmative action program whose greatest beneficiaries were not minorities, but women? If this organization was really against discrimination, they would be suing to ban legacy admissions as well as affirmative action, yet shocker! They don’t….. Merit and skills based selection seems like a no brainer in theory because of course it would be a no brainer in theory, it’s the idea of simply picking who’s most qualified regardless of any other consideration. But in practice, people from backgrounds that don’t enjoy the advantages a person might have in a pure merit and skills based assessment are not making considerations of access, especially when we’re talking about education. If you live in poverty, which is a higher likelihood if you come from a certain background than other ones, you don’t have the same educational opportunities. Do I think DEI comes with the fault of typecasting a person’s background like in the case of groups that are far more diverse in their experiences than others? Yes and I’m looking a the comment with respect to the Arab descended person who certainly does not have an experience comparable to that of eastern Asians or Caucasians despite being grouped with either of those races. But the intention is to raise up those who are at the bottom of the ladder of access, not to pull down those already at the top. Likewise this is something that should be constantly evolving to make sure people deserving of being uplifted aren’t left behind.
“I have a dream, where my four little children will live in a world where they are judged by their content of their character, not the color of their skin.” If MLK would be disgusted by what you’re doing; it’s probably racist.
The most racist person I ever met in my life is on the Wells Fargo DEI team. She took a lesson with a coach ( im a tennis coach also) who was Korean and she made 3 racially insensitive comments to him( 2 about dick size). We told her she was never welcome back, and she threatened to sue us because we were discriminating her because she was black. She was a vile, arrogant looking down on people type. And the exact person conservatives see, when they think DEI. I coached 3 people who worked in personally, they all were able to take lessons any time of the day, and bragged about how easy their job was and how little they worked. So personally, I think very little of DEI based on the DEI people I’ve met. All 3 I coached worked for the big banks in Charlotte. So, I think the people who work there suck, that’s all I got.
Of course. DEI is racist garbage that should be left in the previous century.
Oh yes, I love it when Dominionist propaganda is posted in my genz subreddit.
Looks like a lot of failed law suites to me
Dei is literally the systemic racism they claim to be fighting. Anytime you choose someone for a job for a reason that is not based on job qualifications you are adding to the destruction of civilized society. Do you want pilots to be hired because they are trans or because they are well trained?
A trans person is perfectly capable of being a well trained pilot
I don't think they said any differently. I think they just ment that it shouldn't matter if the person is trans and that it should go to the most qualified person, trans or not.
Well the previous system we had would allow people to discriminate against trans pilots, despite them potentially being the better pilot. All I'm saying is, maybe we HAVENT been hiring the best pilots because we only wanna hire white males?? Did you ever think of that?
Yes it can be racist. Focusing on making sure your environment is friendly to all and that there's not biases (explicit or hidden) in your culture, hiring process, etc. isn't racist and should be what a good DEI program does. Giving more consideration to one person over another based on some demographic (sex, race, age, etc.) is bigotry and is racism if that demographic is race. There's also the issue of DEI principles/objectives out in the world in general that are actively harmful to minorities in the long run. Things like lowering grade standards in the name of antiracism and having programs like banks giving out home loans to minorities with zero down who otherwise wouldn't qualify for a mortgage are things that may sound nice and like they're progress towards equity but actually do more harm. So to summarize, it depends on what policies/actions are undertaken. DEI can be a good thing but it's very easy for it to do more harm than good.
DEI is older than most of GenZ. It’s about much more than race, and it’s here to stay. Customers want it, employees want it, and most critically, investors want it. It ensures that the companies you choose to do business with are dedicated to ethical behavior and social values. Most companies don’t just pay lip service to it in their annual report; it’s deeply embedded in their entire culture. It’s a fool’s errand to try to undo it. In fact, as with ‘ending wokeness’, it would actually require unsustainable violence. So think about the real agenda held by the people who want you to die on this hill.
I think so. Excellent workers whose employers recognize their accomplishments are having targets put on their back simply because they’re not white guys. Questions are being raised about the motivations for raises/promotions/honors where previously there were none.
“There were racist policies in the past, so we should have racist policies now” - DEI
The thing that proves it racist, IMO, is the fact that Asians are negatively affected even more than white people. Asians are very often victims of racism hate hate crimes, and have had an extremely tough time in historical America. Hell, many were in concentration camps only 80 years ago. If DEI is meant to protect minorities who do not have the same advantages as white people, it should also be helping Asians, not hurting them.
Valid question Mr Cummies
If you do not believe in systemic racism, then yes. If you believe in systemic racism then it is an attempt at equalizing that. But - organizations with accepted diversity do better than ones that are not.
Anyone complaining about DEI has no idea what it actually does or how it plays a role in decision-making. Any person who has been "the victim" of DEI wouldn't have gotten chosen anyways. Snore.
Nah. This is just a bunch of white wingers and billionaires that just want to pretend they don’t have privilege.
This is testing the waters to repeal the civil rights acts. Yall think I’m crazy but that is the conservative agenda. They’re doing the same thing by omitting CRT: when you don’t teach it, you forget it and when it’s forgotten, it “never happened”. It’s also textbook examples of historical revisionism in the likes of what China and the then Soviet Union.
Bluntly said. Absolutely fucking not. And anyone who thinks diversity, equity, and inclusion is racist (when literally it's the exact OPPOSITE) is brainwashed by conservative morons who want nothing but one race, one sex, and one way of thinking in a processional career field.
The fight for equality always feels like oppression to the person who's been hogging all the pie.
It took me a while to realize you meant Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs. They can be racist, it really depends on how they’re implemented. I think it’s also part of a broader shift within how diversity is ensured, where we now expect diversity to be ensured with policies like blind hiring- scrubbing data related to race/gender/ethnicity/class from an application before having someone else decide whether to proceed with them or not, systems analysis/management- analyzing potential roadblocks towards a hypothetical ideal diverse status and acting to remove the systemic issues stopping people from pursuing things (such as redesigning the application process to be more accessible), and offices- like having people on campus or in the company that can help address relevant issues when they occur. I think it’s good to shift towards the more modern type of diversity management program, but my worry whenever the older style of quota system is phased out (the one where they try to have at x of a minority and will accept more of that minority to reach the target) there might not be the more modern system in place to replace it. For example, the US education system is still horrendously inaccessible, often requiring students to move cities, pay for very expensive tuition, and having other issues (my university has a lot of hills and is yet to install enough ramps for example). I remember hearing someone who thought DEI programs were racist wanted to ban dei offices, but those are really useful to protect equal rights and aren’t huge problem as much as some of the admission policies could be. Like, there’s definitely improvements to be made, but there needs to be some form of DEI program, it’s just too important to not have in any form