You must log in or register to comment.
That’s a stupid take tbh. Nobody is against those things. What people have a problem with is the side effects. Very obvious to see in the entertainment sector where entire historic events and facts are ignored for the sake of DEI. Saw that with the cleopatra movie and is currently a big problem with assassins creed shadows which is literally insulting large parts of japanese culture just so they can put their western morals into it.
That’s not DEI as far as I understand it though. DEI would be hiring people of different abilities and backgrounds in the other parts of film making such as costume, music etc. The Cleopatra mockumentary was a piece of propaganda trash based on fan fiction.
People don’t have a problem saying they oppose dei or the full phrase and will happily explain that they do not like workplace policy designed around diversity equity and inclusion.
Dei is absolutely something that should be considered but the right managed to absolutely annihilate it with their fake news propaganda campaign. When its brought back it needs to be packaged different. I think having every corporation parrot the phrase over and over doesn’t not help.
I think people vastly overestimate the impact of DEI anyway. Where I have worked it’s basically you can’t discriminate against women or minorities.
There were no extra points for hiring or promotion. HR had their diversity goals, but it was really out of their hands other than targeted advertising.
The elephant in the room that the anti DEI folk dance around is simply “But we want to discriminate!”
When they cannot do their job, and complain about it.
Don, Eric, Ivanka
DEI
Can also use “Elon” for the E.
Simple: It’s diversity. They hate diversity and would rather live their lives only interacting with people like themselves and never having their world view challenged.
It’s racism and there’s a shocking amount of folks who will just straight up tell you that they are racist if it’s not in public where it could affect their jobs. There’s also plenty of losers who don’t care and are just openly racist, but they don’t tend to have careers on the line.
You know what, let’s give it a shot. 3 things I dislike.
-
Equity based on gender or skin color. So many people pretend that somehow one average working class person should be put ahead in line compared to another, if the other person has the same skin color as some unrelated asshole slaver whose descendants still profit from their riches.
Most of you would probably agree that a world where the majority are exploited by a few billionaires is not equitable just because the billionaires are diverse. So why push policies that pretend all is equitable as long as you give a few minorities preferential treatment.
Not only does it not make any real sense, but more importantly, it is divisive. No person struggling in this f**ked up economy wants to hear they should be even worse of, because they have the same skin color as the billionaires exploiting them and they should feel ashamed for that. I would not be surprised if these ideas are intentionally pushed by the rich to divide the working class people and turn them on each other.
-
Bringing people down in the name of Equity. Equity is definitely what we should strive for, but by lifting disadvantaged people up, not tearing “privileged” people down. The whole message that you should be ashamed for not being disadvantaged is ridiculous to me. Maybe you should be ashamed if you are in a privileged position and you refuse to use it to help the disadvantaged, but just be ashamed of privilege period is a wild take to me. We should be aiming to make everyone privileged enough that they don’t have to fear being shot every time they see a cop, that they can make a living wage, …
If your movements/policies are hostile towards the very people whose support can help you most, then no wonder you can’t make any progress and radicals like Trump take advantage of the divisiveness.
-
Low quality diversity in media. Adding diverse characters to media should ideally be like adding trees. You add them when it makes sense without even thinking about it and don’t add them when it doesn’t make sense. We should work slowly and carefully towards that goal. Unfortunately, so many movies, shows and games have tried to awkwardly add diversity with no regard for how it negatively affects the enjoyability of the product. So your goal presumably was to make diverse people feel included and to normalize diversity in peoples mind. But the result for minorities often is that they repeatedly see character like them being badly and lazily written, either by having no proper character beyond being diverse or conversely feel like straight cis white character that just happens to mention they are diverse. On the other hand, the majority just sees these poorly made products and associate diversity and DEI with bad products. So failure on both goals. The answer is of course quality over quantity. It may take a while to get where we want to be, but it will get there without making things even worse with good intentions.
By the way, there of course are great examples of well made diverse shows, but they are drowned out by the slop. My favorite example is the Owl house. The plot of the first episode is literally about being captured and placed into “the conformatorium” for being different and then escaping and dismantling the place. And it did this so smoothly I did not even realize there was any messaging in it until long after seeing it.
1
So how do you account for the fact that, in many instances where a white person and a black person have the exact same qualifications, the white person will be far more likely to be hired?
How do you account for the fact that many people who are racial minorities aren’t born into families that can afford things like living in a house that doesn’t have leaded paint on the walls, meaning that a black person who has the exact same qualifications as a white person has had to work a lot harder to overcome their disadvantages to get those qualifications?
How do you account for the fact that diverse teams of individuals simply produce better results in the free market than homogeneous ones as a result of their more varied viewpoints?
There are so many reasons why “equity based on gender or skin color” for hiring and college applications and so on is absolutely necessary to address the inequities in our society, and why the baby steps that we’ve made since the civil rights movement haven’t been nearly enough to address the problems that they were meant to address. Frankly we should be talking about reparations in the form of just straight up giving large swathes of land and fat stacks of cash to certain groups, especially African Americans and American Indians, not these piddly little affirmative action programs that only kind of exist in colleges but everyone assumes exist everywhere else too.
2
Nobody is brought down in the name of equity. What is brought down are the systems that privilege certain people based on aspects of themselves that they cannot control. If you think that tearing down white supremacy and patriarchy is the same as tearing down white people and men, then you need to ask yourself why you think that those groups of people are inseparable from their privileges
3
No argument here, Hollywood has always had lazy and awful shit and their attempts at lazy and awful inclusion are bad. Often the very groups that Hollywood directors purport to represent come out hard against bad representation too - like that french trans cartel leader film that just came out where the director said he didn’t bother researching Mexico or Mexican culture before making a film that takes place there and where everyone speaks Spanish really badly.
So how do you account for the fact that, in many instances where a white person and a black person have the exact same qualifications, the white person will be far more likely to be hired?
By making policies to prevent that. Color blind policies. Just don’t swing all the way to racist in the other direction.
How do you account for the fact that many people who are racial minorities aren’t born into families that can afford things like living in a house that doesn’t already have leaded paint on the walls, meaning that a black person who has the exact same qualifications as a white person has had to work a lot harder to overcome their disadvantages to get those qualifications?
I answered this question in my original comment. By helping people based on their situation, not skin color. There are rich black people. There are poor white people. Extremely poor people need support, rich people don’t. Skin color is irrelevant.
There are so many reasons why “equity based on gender or skin color” for hiring and college applications and so on is absolutely necessary to address the inequities in our society, and why the baby steps that we’ve made since the civil rights movement haven’t been nearly enough to address the problems that they were meant to address.
Sure, baby steps are slow. Cheating with this “affirmative action discrimination” hides the underlying issues while making them significantly worse. The white people they discriminate against are largely not the same people who profiteered on slavery and discrimination. You are just creating a new group of disadvantaged and oppressed people and push them towards raising up against your policies and to hate the people who benefit on their expense. This is what Trump took advantage of to win despite most people knowing what a shitty person he is.
Frankly we should be talking about reparations in the form of just straight up giving large swathes of land and fat stacks of cash to certain groups, especially African Americans and American Indians, not these piddly little affirmative action programs that only kind of exist in colleges but everyone assumes exist everywhere else too.
You are not entirely wrong, but there is a reason statues of limitations exist. Good luck finding the people who perpetuated and profited from racism and slavery or the people that were directly hurt. And making random rich white people, or even worse working people pay for it will cause so many more issues than it solves. I think it is too late to do this.
Nobody is brought down in the name of equity.
Maybe you don’t do that, which, good for you. Many people do that. I don’t like people who do that. If you don’t do that, why are you all defensive?
What is brought down are the systems that privilege certain people based on aspects of themselves that they cannot control.
I explicitly wrote we should do that.
No argument here, Hollywood has always had lazy and awful shit and their attempts at lazy and awful inclusion are bad. Often the very groups that Hollywood directors purport to represent come out hard against bad representation too - like that french trans cartel leader film that just came out where the director said he didn’t bother researching Mexico or Mexican culture before making a film that takes place there and where everyone speaks Spanish really badly.
👍
Color blind policies.
I don’t think you understand. A color blind policy will, by definition, be unable to address issues which are not color blind.
Color blind hiring policies. We were talking about hiring.
If there are issues not related to the hiring process that make disadvantaged people less qualified, you fix those issues at the source. Ignoring them at hiring just hides the issues making it less likely to be fixed while creating new issues I pointed out.
Besides, what issue is actually not colorblind? Race is basically always a proxy for a different cause. You should not be lazy and identify the real cause, then solve it based on that to ensure people don’t fall through the cracks.
I appreciate your comment. I feel that DEI in its current form has a lot of things to hate about it. However I usually don’t say anything because I’m worried someone will just call me a Nazi or something.
I’m a Jewish democrat, but as a white man I feel like I’m basically guilty of original sin in these types of conversations.
I know what you mean. The whole being incredibly hostile to like minded people over minor disagreements is it’s own massive issue, but let’s only open one can of worms at a time.
-
Probably why they latch on to “woke” to and they never fully explain what’s so woke about the subject
The alternatives to DEI are:
Conformity Inequity Exclusion
Rearrange the letters to I, C, and E, and they are fully in support.
Reminds me of the “Lets Go Brandon” crap.
Like, if you really dislike Biden, just say “Fuck Joe Biden.”. I have zero issue saying “Fuck Trump,” because, fuck trump.
Locally in Illinois there were also these signs everywhere that said “Pritzker Sucks” in huge letters, then at the bottom in tiny print “the life out of small business.”
Like seriously, I am less disgusted by your stance, than I am about your pussy ass lack of conviction.
That wasn’t the point of the “Let’s Go Brandon” crap. At all.
Then yeah the Pritzker Sucks…the life out of small businesses is a simple double-play, a cheeky “gotcha”. Not a lack of conviction at all.
It’s the equivalent of children thinking they are clever for speaking in pig latin
But I would probably try to backpedal if I said that stupid shit too
…no… Still not the story behind Let’s Go Brandon. It’s a constant call to attention that a reporter tried to lie about a crowd of young men yelling “Fuck Joe Biden” at a NASCAR race. Insisting they were instead chanting, “Let’s Go Brandon”.
So much like the Pritzker signs with dual meaning, when they were saying Let’s Go Brandon, it’s not only saying Fuck Joe Biden, but also fuck the people censoring speech.
I get the origin. I understand it.
Thatbdoesn’t change that its a cop out for people to try to be edgy but think saying “Fuck” is a little too edgy.
I’m sure the people who midlessly chant that know the etymology of the phrase and aren’t just screaming fuck joe biden in pig latin
As far as I understand, DEI as a policy in a university or workplace means giving place to a candidate because not of their merits or test scores, but because of their race or background.
Isn’t that racism?
Be gentle, am not USian.
The biggest issue with this take is that merit/test score is still the biggest factor. For example, a law firm is not passing over well-qualified white candidates to hire unqualified black candidates, they’re just trying to hire more well-qualified black candidates because they’re currently an all-white firm. Nobody is ever getting a job as an act of charity, and typically it just helps to avoid implicit hiring bias. To go back to the example, why has the law firm become all white? Well the first two partners were white, and even if they aren’t offensively racist they still have enough internal bias that they only hired other white workers. Like in this example, most DEI initiatives are about reducing existing internal biases.
As far as I understand, DEI as a policy in a university or workplace means giving place to a candidate because not of their merits or test scores, but because of their race or background.
Isn’t that racism?
This is the distorted mudslinging version. It may not be what you intended, but it’s what you’ve learned via right wing propaganda.
DEI seeks to correct biases that have been inherent in US hiring practices for years - things as fundamental as “if your name sounds too black you don’t get called for interviews as often, even with the same qualifications”. (Linked literally the first article I found about it, but there are plenty more, and this is just an easy example.)
Some of these biases come from people actually being bigots, but some of them come from “that’s just how we’ve always done it” or even just simple unconscious bias that we all have.
Some of the shitty outcomes are from the fact that in the early, early foundational days of many aspects of US government and law, the country was by and large run by people who weren’t too unhappy about lynchings of black people or even participated themselves, and those attitudes found their way overtly and subtly into many practices and regulations that remain in place to this day.
It’s a complicated topic deeply interwoven with our history, our geography, and our culture.
DEI initiatives aren’t perfect, and like anything else you have individuals who may misapply or overzealously apply their principles, causing a different sort of problem.
But the Republican/Conservative objections to them are, like the Conservative assessments of literally any topic I can think of, based at best upon a shallow, incomplete understanding of cherrypicked details, and at worst based on exactly the bigotry and racism they shout about not having in their hearts despite their every action proving how untrue that is.
Edited to add - DEI isn’t limited to racism, and racism isn’t limited to black people. There is of course sexism, homophobia, etc in there as well. But this is a comment on a forum, not a research paper, and the more dimensions we try to add to the discussion here, the more complicated it will get. So I focused on racism against black folks because it’s an easily visible, and sadly, familiar topic.
Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics. It includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, religion, or opinion.
Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and “decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged”, and taking “into consideration a person’s unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal.”
Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where “all employees feel their voices will be heard”, and a sense of belonging and integration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion
There is a manifesto that is literally titled the “The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto” which a lot of people unironically agreed with, at least when those were hot topics a few years ago.
So any attempt at pretending that there isn’t an anti-meritocracy angle to this would be disingenuous to say the least.
That same person behind the manifesto is a primary figure in introducing CoC’s to software projects btw.
I was going to say this sounds a lot like the conservative strawman that postmodernism means the total rejection of objective reality.
Then I read the post-meritocracy manifesto and wow some of those “our values” bullet points are facepalm worthy.
‘Diversity hire’ is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.
They don’t know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.
They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.
The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won’t make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that’s because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires. No amount of memes or conversation will convince them how ridiculous that is.
Because they already believe that you are better because you are white. So two people with equal qualifications, the white is more qualified in their eyes.
nevermind that under qualified candidates are chosen all the time based on a variety of factors. Like nailing an interview, having an agreeable personality, available hours, or, just, you know, having the same skin color or genitals as the hiring manager. But DEI programs are a problem. Sure.
Yes - if a non-white person and/or woman has a job, it’s only because they were chosen over a more qualified white man, because obviously they’re superior in every way. But they’re not racist or sexist - they just believe in a “meritocracy!”
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate. This is why “blind” hiring is a good idea in the situations where it can be implemented.
Except that’s not what’s happening. Or rather, that’s not what DEI was doing.
DEI programs are just making underrepresented people more visible. No one’s being hired because they look different.
And for centuries white men have been getting jobs that more qualified people were passed for, because they were white and male. DEI was just to level the playing field.
What does making more visible mean? I’d personally rather try to make things like race, sex and whatnot less visible so they’d have less effect on the hiring process.
Are you sure it’s not Democrats, Education and Immigrants?
More like Democracy (Jan 6), Elections (Voter-Roll Purges, and other forms of Voter Suppression), and International Cooperation (Paris Agreement Withdrawl)
I Oppose Deathcamps, Extermination, and Invasion (aka: the nazi f’ Elon and the Felon’s policies)
I’ve heard the E as both Equity and Equality. Anyone know which it’s supposed to be?
The way it was explained to me is, equality is giving everyone equal support. Equity is allocating support unevenly to those who need it most.
Those who advocate meritocracy in bad faith really don’t like equity.
Has someone actually been on an interview panel, where you decide to hire someone because they’re black?
(I definitely haven’t.)
I manage a team of about 50. I’ve been in management for about the past decade. Prior to that, I was a technical lead heavily involved in hiring. I’ve also run multiple intern programs that hire by the dozen each summer. I’ve hired hundreds and been in thousands of interviews.
Ive never once seen someone hired because of the color of their skin.
I do however aggressively look for people from different backgrounds to be in my candidate pools when hiring. That can really mean anything. Mono culture is a huge detriment to the org because then everyone ends up thinking the same way. I look for people willing to challenge the status quo and bring unique perspectives while still being a great teammate.
There are probably people I’ve hired who normally wouldn’t have gotten an interview based on their background but then were the best candidate. When I’ve had candidates that are equal, I’ve occasionally hired the one who is most dissimilar in skills/thought process/goals to my current team because that helps us grow. The decision was never someone’s skin color, but their background certainly could have influenced the items I chose as my hiring decisions.
DEI is not just hiring. DEI is creating a culture where people of different backgrounds can succeed. There are so many different ways to be successful at the vast majority of the roles I hire. It’s my job to make sure my org is setup so that people can be successful through as many approaches as possible. This is the part I see most often missed. If your culture only allows the loud, brash to lead, I would have missed many of my best hires over the years who led in varied ways.
I have been apart of interviews (at a computer repair shop, mostly men) where my boss said we had to hire the only woman interviewee because it looked bad to not to, and we needed diversity, even though she wasn’t very qualified. So we hired her instead of the person who had excelled in the interview.
At my next job we had some diversity hires. It was pre-DEI, but we had a diversity intern program. We hired a guy because he was black, he was qualified and was amazing. Later we hired a person who was also black and wasn’t very qualified, they struggled for months and eventually quit - we had hired them based on skin color too.
Not saying I’m for or against, but I’ve seen situations where diversity became more important than qualifications. I’ve also seen where both were equally important, and that was preferred.
Tbh, being labeled as hired in a “diversity program” sounds humiliating. You’ll have to work twice as hard to prove you’re actually capable of doing the job.
Possibly. In that situation the people were grateful to be hired, and they worked hard anyway. They didn’t express any qualms about how they were hired. If they did, maybe they kept it to themselves.
My company (major conglomerate) keeps track of demographics like this, at every level. Even as specific KPIs like “women in semior executive roles.” While ive never actually seen any written plans or anyone admitting they hired someone for a role to meet a metric, there are a handful of things that do stick out as fishy.
There have been roles that have been upgraded in title but not scope when a non white male has taken over, and there are certainly a few people who you look at and think, “how the hell did you get this job.” That said, there is one person who is in charge of almost all my questionable experiences, and hes the kind of person who would do that to meet a metric because HR told him he had to, not because he sees value in it.
Most of our other managers approach it much differently. We try to widen our recruiting pool by going different places and by consciously making sure our recruiter team is diverse
Does it count if you’re saying: hire him as the best candidate but you have to make a high offer to get him because he’s black and in high demand
My field is white and Asian male dominated, so when the best candidate is an underrepresented demographic we need to jump on it
No but everyone’s uncle knows a guy who was so it’s definitely real.
