You must log in or register to comment.
They would unironically say those out loud if they didn’t think people would judge them, maybe not in so many words though.
If you’re lucky enough to grow up in a heavily conservative family that has a 4th of July weeklong party with all of the extended family parking their RVs and tents on the lawn, then you would also know this as a fact
Most people who are against DEI are against the “E”.
They believe that equality is the end goal, not equity.
Equality = equal opportunity
Equity = equal outcome
Equity = something you made up?
Equity literally means fairness and impartiality.
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?
deleted by creator
I am on your side, but:
You do realize that can totally go the other way, right?
The AFD implements a “ministry of crime-prevention” that surveils the public and squashes political discent. Names don’t necessarily reflect what’s actually happening. You should argue with actual policies they did.
Counterpoint: the phrase first proposed by Serj Tankian, an armenian biblical scholar, reading ‘When Angels deserve to DEI’, implies that even the God’s very servants strive to have DEI programs used in their hiring and career proposals.
Why are you snorting blood my friend, did I say something wrong?
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Not VoltaireDid you know that you can give whatever name you want to something? Even a name that isn’t an accurate description of what it is? I was shocked when I found out!
Oh yeah, I’ve also heard you can make up an imaginary version of something and give it attributes you don’t like to justify your hate. Wild stuff, this.
Why, it’s almost as if people discussing politics often debate in bad faith, performing for spectators who already agree with them rather than trying to convince or even understand the person they’re debating.
Are you telling me people would lie in public for personal gain? Dear God, what an era to live in!
ok but american “dei” is generally insincere, and that’s the problem
Exactly, I dislike DEI practices because they are often fake, performative and discriminatory. The intentions are good, but the execution is crap or outright malicious.
The execution should be called out, then - the specific cases. Hating on the concept because bad actors are able to use it in their own interest is not very thought out.
“We had DEI practices?”
Well, if the intentions are good, but the outcomes are terribly flawed, at what point does it become necessary to re-evaluate or do away with the entire concept?
Given the current popular sentiment, now seems a good time to scrap everything, go back to the drawing board and propose constructive ideas. I don’t have particularly high expectations, though.
‘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.
They want white, cis-male to be the “default” again.
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!”
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.
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
The whole premise of equity is that there is a desired demography of people in a given position, and that positive action should be taken to approach or maintain the desired demography and that qualification, ability and merit are secondary to that. Meaning it doesn’t matter who is better, so long as someone is good enough and the right race or sex they should have preference. Don’t hire the best person, hire the best black person or woman or whatever the desired demographic is (sometimes these will be the same person either way, but not always).
Most of the people who are angry about “DEI” would be fine with things like blind hiring that exclude race/sex from the process entirely but whether or not blind hiring is a valid DEI approach depends on the result - for example a public works department in Australia tried blind hiring to eliminate gender imbalance and killed that project because they found that not knowing the sex of applicants actually reduced the number of women hired which was opposed to the goal (because the goal wasn’t to remove discrimination but rather to hire more women).
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759?login=false
We first note that out of 36 possible outcomes, 23 favour females, as indicated by callback gender ratios > 1. This is interesting, but due to the small sample for each occupation within each country, most of these outcomes are not significant by conventional standards (see right-hand column). In Germany, we find statistically significant hiring discrimination against male applicants for receptionist and store assistant jobs, with callback ratios of 1.4 and 1.9, respectively. In the Netherlands, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants for store assistant jobs, with a callback ratio of 2.2. In Spain, we find clear evidence of hiring discrimination of males in two occupations, with callback ratios of 1.9 (payroll clerk) and 4.5 (receptionist). In the United Kingdom, we find strong evidence of hiring discrimination against males in payroll clerk jobs (callback ratio of 4.8, the highest of all). Interestingly, in the data, we find no evidence of gender discrimination in hiring in Norway or the United States. Thus, the evidence shows hiring discrimination against male, not female, job applicants in 1–3 occupations within four of the six countries.
Based on country-specific regression models, Figure 1 (and Supplementary Table S2) shows the probability of receiving a callback separately for each country. According to these estimates, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants in United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. The gender differences range from 0 per cent in the US to 9 percentage points in Germany. Thus, we observe gender discrimination in hiring against men in four out of six countries.
You left out the important part that actually proves my point.
“In female dominated occupations.”
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.
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.
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.
So funny story, my department had an employee survey and one of the questions that triggered a need for “team discussion” was:
“Do all people, regardless of race and gender, have good opportunities in our workplace?”
Evidently one person in the department said “no, they do not”. So I’m sitting there wondering “oh crap, we are a bunch of white men except one woman and one black guy, which of those two have felt screwed over due to race or gender”. But no, an older white guy proudly spoke up saying there’s no room for white men at the workplace, that white men are disadvantaged. In a place that’s like 90% white men…
It’s the worst of both. They literally enjoy privilege and advantage over others every single day, yet they also get to feel indignant and “discriminated” against.
It’s because he’s an old guy still working in that department. He doesn’t feel privileged and advantaged because he’s not retired yet.
The MAGAts felt unheard by Democrats because they saw this attack on 99%er privilege while the 1% were unaffected.
In his specific case, he was going to retire next year (at 65) and felt he was going to have a relatively comfortable retirement (he was reasonably well off).
He objected to the existence of minority themed professional development organizations at work (there was one each for women, asian, latin, and black folks). The thing was, none of these orgs actually do anything, they just have speakers come and folks can go listen. But he wanted either none to exist or to have one dedicated to white men. He was offended by their existence and was big on replacement theory, even as these minority organizations had no real power and hadn’t made a dent in the 90% white male workforce. He also would brag about how he got a wife from a country where women knew their place and would take care of the house and listen to what he said.
His younger friend was also ranting about how the South should have won the civil war, and the black guy in the department asked him to explain. His friend didn’t bat an eye to explain that the south represented the natural order of things.
There may be some disenfranchised rural poor suckered by the MAGA while neglected by the left, but these dudes were 100% not this, relatively rich, entitled and super racist and misogynist.
“Those other people are starting to get more fair consideration, so now my advantage is being threatened. No fair!”
They believe that they’re struggling financially, and statistically many of them are. The better argument is to show them abolishing DEI doesn’t even give them a better chance, and there are better ways to make opportunities for everyone.
They’ll say they just want the best person for the job to get it, and that DEI gives that job to a [insert minority group] instead of the most qualified person.
To be fair, they may actually believe that. A lot of these people don’t believe they’re racist, sexist, pigs. They are, but they don’t think they are. It’s not part of their calculus. They see a diversity program and feel victimized by it, they may relate troubles they had to getting a job to a diversity program instead of their own qualifications.
Because, these people are terminally self centered and the hero of their own story.
They will tell you that liberals just want a hand out, while sucking down every hand out they can get. But THEY earned it, no one else does, but they did. Regardless of their circumstances they worked hard to get what they have, and no one else is willing to.
There is no argument you can make that they do not have an answer for. They’re almost always misinformed misanthropes. You’re either in their group or you’re the bad guy. There’s no winning when you engage them.
Their monkeys throwing shit. You can throw shit back by the money will have a good time, and you’ll still be covered in shit.
I broke out my thesaurus, so anti diversity, equity and inclusion would be conformity, discrimination and segregation. Does that sound about right?
Conformity, Patronage and Exclusion.
I like the word conformity, because that’s really what they want. They’re afraid of anybody who acts different, or who has different viewpoints. They want a world where nobody ever makes them feel uncomfortable. If they enjoy making racist jokes, they want a world where everybody finds racist jokes funny, not one where they can be made to feel bad, or feel like their boss might get mad for telling a racist joke.
Patronage isn’t the exact opposite of equity. Equity in this context is about impartiality and fairness. But, I think Patronage fits because it describes the kind of system you get when there is no effort whatsoever to give every candidate a fair shot. Instead you get good-old-boys networks, you get nepotism, etc.
Segregation is pretty good for the last one, but I like exclusion a bit more. To me, segregation implies that there might be an alternative place for someone that’s “separate but equal”, but the reality is they don’t care if that other place exists. The key thing is to be able to exclude them from their own workplaces, sports, etc.
How about Uniformity, Segregation, and Adversity? I think we can get people on board with our new USA programs.
I like how this horrible acronym spells out U. S. A.
Just like the US PATRIOT act was definitely about being a patriot, right?
And if you don’t support it, then you’re not a patriot, right?
See how that works?
USA PATRIOT.
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/usa-patriot-act
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Such a stupid title.
If only DEI was that literal. Instead, it allowed companies to discriminate based on race, but to those with left-leaning beliefs, that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!
Somehow “diversity” doesn’t seem to mean diversity of thinking, but of skin color, so you have a room full of left-wing minorities that all think the same way and have the same beliefs.
It’s like when Reddit mods say that their subreddit is all about “inclusion” and “diversity”, and then right below that they say Trump supporters or voters aren’t allowed. The irony is crazy. I hope this platform is less of an echo-chamber but I expect downvotes because apparently you can’t support open source decentralized platforms without being a leftist?
If only DEI was that literal. Instead, it allowed companies to discriminate based on race, but to those with left-leaning beliefs, that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!
That’s a lot of talking with very little to back it up.
I’d like some actual instances of companies that have specifically not hired a qualified candidate because they were white.
And “those with left-leaning beliefs”. That’s me, hand in the air and proud of it. “as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it” You’re chatting shit mate. That’s not what I or any of my “left leaning” friends believe.
Sounds like you’re a normal lefty. Nice! Maybe I’m spending too much time on Reddit because the political opinions there are very extreme, it’s probably giving me a more negative view of the left
If you think Reddit is extreme, wait until you meet the people on Lemmy. There are a couple of normal rational folk around here, but they’re far outnumbered at the moment.
Seems to be the case, although at least it’s real here. Reddit is obviously astroturfed and full of bots, Lemmy is just full of legit leftists. Pick your poison I suppose.
Nah we’re astroturfed hard here too – NONSTOP anti-Harris “can’t vote for genocide” stuff here, until after Trump got elected and then hundreds and hundreds of accounts just vanished overnight. The topic isn’t even so much as discussed any more.
There’s a ton of endpoints in the fediverse, so it’s really easy to spread the account production everywhere, and automation is really easy. I’d do it myself if I were a dishonest person.
It’s like when Reddit mods say that their subreddit is all about “inclusion” and “diversity”, and then right below that they say Trump supporters or voters aren’t allowed.
look up the paradox of tolerance
Right, but I would argue Trump voters by default aren’t “intolerant”. Over half the country voted for him, and I don’t think half the country is intolerant. I think there are extremes on both the left and right that are a vocal minority, and most normal people fall on either the left or right but aren’t extreme or hateful about their beliefs.
Right, but I would argue Trump voters by default aren’t “intolerant”.
I almost want to know how people supporting a someone who’s been openly demonizing minorities and immigrants and praising white supremacist groups, aren’t “intolerant by default”.
He doesn’t praise white supremacist groups… the “good people on both sides” line was taken out of context, doesn’t take much effort to see the full clip with context. The issue with a lot of the left is they view Trump and his supporters as Nazis, and cannot put themselves in the perspective of a Trump voter. Y’all lack the understanding of why he won the popular vote. Why can’t we discuss politics in good faith?
Trump, like most leaning libright, have no issue with “immigrants”. We have an issue with “illegal immigrants”. You are being intentionally obtuse and using bad faith when you phrase things this way. If you don’t enforce border laws, then there is no border. Arresting someone for breaking the law isn’t evil, nor is it intolerant. Do you have an issue with Japan’s immigration system? It’s way more strict and “intolerant” than America’s.
He doesn’t praise white supremacist groups
So are you an idiot or lying on purpose?
Trump, like most leaning libright, have no issue with “immigrants”
ah, so that’s why he throws racist insults left and right, makes sense. that changes everything.
Arresting someone for breaking the law isn’t evil, nor is it intolerant.
yes, because legality automatically implies morality, and the law is always tolerant - something that’s been true through the entirety of America’s history.
Do you have an issue with Japan’s immigration system?
yes I do, but we were talking about the USA here, so this is whataboutism in its purest form.
Why can’t we discuss politics in good faith?
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/113950808191206382
anyway, I’m done listening to your D part, I’m not in the mood for the upcoming ARVO. good luck with your career in acrobatics.
Thanks
Of the 335,893,238 current Americans 77,302,416 voted for him which is 23.01% of the country.
If I only use the voting eligible population of 244,666,890 we get 31.59% of the country who are eligible to vote so where are you getting your numbers?
that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!
As a white guy, I didn’t know that black people were getting the jobs that I deserved based on the color of my skin. Please do go on about how someone else who is also qualified took my potential job that was supposed to go a white guy.
misinformation
I’m just giving my opinion from my own observations. Was every place that practiced DEI doing so in bad faith? I doubt it. But many were.
[citation needed]
Two kinds of people: the heterosexual white man and the diversity hire
Christian heterosexual white man. Can’t have any of those minority religions, or worse atheists, sneaking in.
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.
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.
So any attempt at pretending that there isn’t an anti-meritocracy angle to this would be disingenuous to say the least.
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.
To deny that, or to pretend that such misapplication is the typical mainstream application of DEI principles, would be equally disingenuous.
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 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
DEI is having a job fair at a school for the deaf, it’s having unisex bathroom stalls, it’s allowing religious/traditional holiday celebrations, it’s training against racism. Every person hired is still qualified, but the company expands their hiring practice and their culture.
US (and many other nations) corporate and education systems have long given preferential treatment/selection to white employees and students, to the point where the more qualified candidate was passed by due to their ethnicity. There’s further issues that stem from the same sources, such as banks refusing to loan to Afro-Americans at a disproportionate rate, even with high wages and a more stable income, being refused even an interview because your name doesn’t sound white enough despite being the most qualified applicant, etc etc etc.
DEI being implemented in a way that chooses non-white, women, differently abled, or LGBTQ+ simply to check a box and have diversity to point to is a real issue, but these places weren’t ever really interested in leveling the playing field. They were concerned about optics. Like the 90s movie/tv cliché of the group of popular pretty girls having the one “fat and ugly” friend in the group to show that they’re inclusive, to make themselves look and feel better.
DEI if implemented properly strips the unconscious and systemic bias in American (and other countries) systems to overlook better candidates for white, straight men.
Often times merit is viewed differently. If 2 students both have a 4.0 GPA and 1 has more extra curriculars, and the other had to work instead because they come from a poorer family and needed to help support the family, which has more merit? If being able to stay after every day for practice and afford travel expenses for such means you have more merit, then the rich will always have the advantage to appear with more merit. I would say the person who worked 30 hours a week while maintaining a 4.0 GPA has worked harder and overcome higher odds.
There is more to merit than just numbers in my opinion. Some of it does appear like racism from the outside because if the average black family has less opportunities and you try to give more opportunities to new generations to help close the wealth gap, then you are being called racist by your initial definition.
There are valid points on both sides. DEI in my opinion helps integrate races, sexes, cultures, religions together which provides long term benefits and disincentivizes hatred. If you never come in contact with someone, it is easier to hate them. Easier to commit crimes against them. Ultimately a big portion of DEI is about educating the population to get along with and accept those who may appear or act differently than you do. It may appear easier for an African American to get into Harvard, but they are still less than 7% of the population there while being over 12% of the U.S. population total. There are other factors always at play standing in the way of comparing 2 people just off a single number.
opportunities to new generations to help close the wealth gap
So… New age trickle down economics instead of making stronger labor law and helping workers take part of the wealth stolen by the rich?
Thank you for the explanation. It was informative, even if some of it sounds… irrelevant?
It may appear easier for an African American to get into Harvard, but they are still less than 7% of the population there while being over 12% of the U.S. population total.
It’s harder for African American folks to go to Harvard because of wealth disparity as you explained, but the suggestion there should be a proportional number of races in Harvard is (benevolently) racist.
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, (see comment from @[email protected] below) 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.
They don’t like any of them, because those are the concepts that defeated the Nazis.
They were defeated by a group of countries (diversity), which allowed anyone to join (inclusivity) and didn’t think they were better than others (equity).
Haha, nice one.
Equality != Equity. Equity is equal outcome regardless of capability. Equality is equal opportunity, and merit-based.
Equity is the wrong thing to strive for when we don’t even have equality yet.
