You must log in or # to comment.
‘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.
I’m not sure “it’s the same as nepotism” is a good defense for it.
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!”
They want white, cis-male to be the “default” again.
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.
Look, everyone agrees the best candidate should be the one that’s hired.
Unfortunately, there’s no objective truth in how to rank candidates - minus anything obvious. Humans make the choices and humans are prone to bias. Consciously or not, people are going to favor candidates that meet the expected stereotypes for said positions.
There are plenty of studies out there documenting it. For example, resume response rates can vary drastically based solely on the name of the applicant. (The same resume sent to various companies with changes to the applicant’s name. Masculine names, feminine names, “white” names, “black” names, etc).
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.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They’re something ““everyone”” should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
minus anything obvious
Honestly, not even that.
I’ve been on a hiring panel (for want of a better term) where we interviewed on the ground floor. We all worked up in the building. Post-interview we wouldn’t say anything, we’d just write “yes” or “no” on a piece of paper. In the elevator going back up we’d turn our cards around. It gave a simple litmus test, if we all agreed then we can go to the pub. If we disagree then we find a meeting room and discuss.
To my point. One hire, technically brilliant. They were technically, absolutely the best candidate we’d had for that role. It was clear. We got into the elevator, and all turned around “no”. The candidate was an absolute arse of a person. Clearly the best person for the job. Clearly the last person I wanted to spend 8 hours a day sitting next to. They knew they were fucking good, and they spoke like it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that person, knowing they were good, still goes home and rants about DEI hires or similar. But entirely misses the point on why they were not hired for that role.
Yep… the “best” candidate is not the same as being the most “talented.” Maybe they’re a bad fit because they’re an asshole, or because they’d want a team structure that’s incompatible with the current one.
It all adds to the complexity and subjectivity recruitment inheritly has.
That’s why I was suggesting blind recruitment where possible. Name, gender, all that sort of things are hidden so they won’t affect that part of the recruitment process.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They’re something ““everyone”” should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
What is it you think the “not agreeing” people want?
If the statement is that everyone should be treated equally then those opposing are hoping for unequal treatment
I think it’s important to distinguish between diversity, equity, and inclusion as CONCEPTS and DEI as an organization and initiative.
It is possible to be pro- diversity, equity, and inclusion and be opposed to mismanaged efforts in DEI as a PROGRAM.
This post assumes that DEI as a government initiative is working perfectly and has no downsides, presenting it in a way that closes it off to criticism.
Does every system have to be perfect? Of course not. It’s better to have a system pushing for good that’s imperfect than none at all, but framing it like this is gaslighting and hurts discussion on both sides.
It’s even worse in the corporate world. That acronym is usually attached to consultants who would extort huge fees and not really do much of anything towards actual inclusion, equity, or diversity. It would let the company check a box for PR, though.
That’s not what this post assumes. This post is aimed at those using DEI as a dog whistle for their disgusting bigotry. Present all the nuance you want but if you’re missing that then you’re turning a blind eye to the blatant racism gaining power and leverage in the US gov today.
Respectfully I disagree. I think the way the argument is presented here discourages open discussion
I think diversity and inclusion is a net benefit to society, I don’t think government is capable to enforce diversity and inclusion in private spaces in any real way. Over time I think market forces will result in that diversity naturally as the companies who hire the best qualified people incisively do better than those who prioritize traits that don’t create better outcomes
I’m not sure what equity is in the context of government enforcement but I’m 100% for equality if opportunity. Maybe someone can help me understand equity in the context of these programs: for instance, what equity programs was Biden promoting for the previous for years?
Don, Eric, Ivanka
DEI
Can also use “Elon” for the E.
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’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
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.
Has someone actually been on an interview panel, where you decide to hire someone because they’re black?
(I definitely haven’t. Although, I haven’t been in a position that was in charge of mass hiring.)
I have been a part 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.
apart means separated from, you mean “a part”.
Right on
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
No but everyone’s uncle knows a guy who was so it’s definitely real.
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
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.
At a place I used to work, they didn’t hire people specifically because of their skin colour. OTOH, they did arrange for people who were visible minorities to sometimes get a second chance at interviews if they were on the bubble. As a result, sometimes someone did well in their second set of interviews and was hired.
The thing is, we’re all biased. It’s not just overt racism, it’s often subtle things like liking a candidate more when they’re easy to talk to, and sometimes they’re easy to talk to because they come from a similar background and have similar experiences and interests.
Does that mean that sometimes a straight, white, male candidate had a bad day, messed up his interviews, didn’t get a second chance, and didn’t get hired? Yep. I’m sure there were occasionally times where the 100% most qualified candidate wasn’t the one who got the job. But, the idea was to try to slightly tilt the playing field to account for unconscious bias. In the end, nobody was hired who didn’t meet a very high bar.
As an aside though, some of the best people I worked with were at a previous job before that. They were much more diverse than the people at the bigger company I worked at later that did that second-round stuff. I wasn’t ever part of the hiring process at that first place, but however they did it, they brought in people from really diverse backgrounds who were really great. These same people wouldn’t have even been given an interview at the second place because they didn’t have some of the right things on their resumes.
As someone outside of the US, all I can see is people fighting over who has a right to a job and who doesn’t, while the rich hoard wealth. DEI wouldn’t be an issue if there was a safety net, maybe with UBI based on the minimum liveable wage, public housing, public education, public healthcare and government grants to start small business ventures.
Europe is top of the world despite seeing communism first hand. Once you get rid of the ethnic cleansing, genocide, authoritarianism and planned economy, there’s a lot of social policies that work great and are cheaper than american style.
This is also why “woke” becoming a common word was bad for both sides. Not only is it nonspecific, but it starts to mean different things to different people and diverges over time. It’s easier to demonize something with a nonspecific meaning for exactly that reason.
There’s a meme that says “everything I don’t like is woke”, and while it’s funny, that’s literally the process that happens when such terms become catchalls – what they catch depends on what any individual speaker wants out of using it.
With DEI, the process has been the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are many people who believe it’s bad (because they were told that and lack critical thinking skills) and may not even know what the acronym stands for.
I mean I certainly don’t oppose getting rid of DEI but let’s not be haste in assuming what something is called is actually what it is.
Is North Korea a Democracy? They are called the DPRK no? Democratic people’s republic?
Edit: Meant to say I do oppose getting rid of DEI. English is hard
don’t oppose getting rid of DEI
I want to double check, did you mean to write that, or did you get lost in the negations?
Haha yes I meant to say I do oppose getting rid of DEI. Thanks lol.
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)
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 so 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.
France has always been officially colour blind, and they’re the most racist and racially i equal country in Western Europe.
Colourblind policies don’t help as people in authority’s implicit biases get freer reign.
“Badly implemented colorblind policies didn’t stop racism in this one country, so let’s have explicitly racist policies.”
If they are still racist, they are not colorblind. Make stronger colorblind policies and enforce them. Color aware policies don’t do anything either if they are only on paper.
Besides, you ignore the point of my criticism. Color aware policies don’t prevent inequity, they shift it elsewhere. They keep some places and aspects of life racist while having other be reverse racist. On individual level, the inequity increases, but people pat themselves on the back because when you only look at it based on color, it averages out. It is like saying we should increase the pay of Billionaires to increase average wages. The statistic looks better, but it did not help most people.
I think we may be operating on different suppositions, so addressing that rather than wasting time clarifying details about France’s choice to never record demographic stats for things would be best.
Do you think systemic racism exists and is a large problem in the USA or France?
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.
I’m not sure if this is a “DEI” issue or not, but businesses are bringing people down in the name of equity. A lot of colleges are charging $200k+ for tuition now, and they have programs where if your family’s income is low enough they (supposedly) will waive a lot of it, but if your family is middle class you have to pay full tuition, which is something many of them cannot afford. Meanwhile this is not a barrier for wealthy people, so it’s effectively making most people equally poor and barely able to afford CoL while the rich get richer rather than actually fixing the problem. I’ve heard that other businesses are starting to use similar tactics as well.
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.
-
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Not VoltaireA friend of mine used to do food runs for his office, where about 40% of the employees were black. The team voted on what they wanted, and they almost always chose Wing Stop because it was popular. Despite this, he was called into a meeting and accused of racial profiling for bringing “fried chicken” to a mostly black workplace. This experience reflects the way DEI programs often operate. They focus almost excessively on race, and identity, and thrive on controversy.
Originally, these initiatives created programs where people who came to companies did so to fix the issues and leave. Apparently that didn’t work./ Instead, they’ve become permanent fixtures in workplaces, incentivized to perpetuate problems rather than solve them. With their continued presence, they encourage reporting and policing of behavior, creating a culture of fear and compliance rather than genuine inclusion.
DEI initiatives have failed. They’ve been in place for several years, yet we always hear constant rhetoric that racism and discrimination is becoming more of a problem? Instead, these programs have probably radicalized more people than any fringe political group. Many now define their views in opposition to their perceived opponents rather than on principles.
Ironically, DEI encourages prejudice. I’ve personally been told to create a bias in favor of minorities to combat existing bias, which only results in a new form of discrimination; it doesn’t eliminate the existing biases. The approach based on “privilege” encouraged me to assume all black people are disadvantaged and all white people are privileged and implicitly biased. Guilt and shame are used as tools to enforce conformity, pressuring people to adopt a specific moral stance while condemning those who don’t. People are praised for being sanctimonious. It’s become popular to call out others while simultaneously making self-righteous shows of one’s own behavior.
That’s not what DEI even is. Ironically DEI and affirmative action was used in only a few select places that were historically so opposed to anyone from a minority group that they HAD to have some others be put in order to allow people with qualifications and aren’t white to enter.
If you want to know the reality of a what a world without DEI looks like, look at what Trump and the republicans have been doing for the past 20 years. They aren’t concerned with qualifications or ‘meritocracy’ despite their ceaseless whining about it. They are the ones actually pulling an actual agenda and will only hire people willing to push it, even if they do so very badly.
If you think Pete Hegseth is qualified as secretary of defense, then you aren’t concerned with qualifications.
Fried chicken and watermelon are southern food, not black food. My partner is from the south, white, and we often eat things like red beans and rice, gumbo and cornbread, etc. Her grandad often brought watermelon into work, because he grew them and wanted to share it with his colleagues. Food isn’t a racial thing it’s a regional thing. Pisses me off when people refer to black food or white food. I personally regard lamb vindaloo as the best savoury food that has ever been made. I’m not Indian. Sorry for going off topic.
Everything about this post reeks of racism.
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 its brought back it needs to be packaged different.
A union is one way of enforcing DEI. They’ve taken away the moderate alternative.
I would argue DEI nolonger means diversity equity and inclusion.
I think for the"normal" people who aren’t frothing at the mouth racists, it’s specifically about the HR enforced corporate perversion of diversity, equity and inclusion that they hate. Patronising lecturers and dehumanising metrics often leave a sour taste in peoples mouths, even if the cause is a good one
When a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a good metric.
The alternatives to DEI are:
Conformity Inequity Exclusion
Rearrange the letters to I, C, and E, and they are fully in support.
