You must log in or # to comment.
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.
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.
If you’re opposed to DOGE, does that mean you’re opposed to efficiency in government?
Do you support democracy?
If so then that must mean you support the DPRK.
Yes. Emphatically so.
The more efficient government is, the easier it is to usurp power.
Government should not be efficient, at least not in what the business class calls “efficiency”.
Government is the entity that performs those tasks that need to be done, but nobody wants to do. If those essential tasks can be done “efficiently”, everyone is going to want to get paid for doing them.
Yes I am
I guess it depends on what is efficient.
The “inefficient” splurges, like the moon project, lead to significant scientific advances…balancing people on a knife edge when it comes to healthcare, etc.
‘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.
“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.
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.”
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!”
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same thing as when old people said they were against Antifa or antifa was causing violence. Anti Fascist. You don’t support the Anti Fascists. Are you ok with the Fascists then? Shuts the boomers up because they remember daddy fought the Fascists even if their lead addled brains can’t remember what that is
It’s not civil rights, it’s woke
It’s not anti intellectualism, it’s anti woke.
I mean, branding doesn’t always accurately describe a group. It does in this case, antifa is indeed anti-fascist, but people love to say the National Socialist party were socialists because “it’s right there in the name!” You know, despite “First they came for the socialists…”
Unfortunately, they’ll just claim it’s a “newspeak” term…
Don, Eric, Ivanka
DEI
Can also use “Elon” for the E.
Trump can’t remember his name anyway
When Enlong goes to Mars, can you believe it? They said on Twitter, well, now it’s X but you still tweet. They banned me before Lonnie bought it. They said, “When Eenlin goes to mars, which is a planet by the way. Like Earth but orange. Orange, don’t get me started. They say I’m orange. Do I look orange? Maybe the radical left will call me Marsolini. You people are beautiful. But mars is a planet and Erod is gonna take us there folks. I’ll be the president of mars if you can believe that. Kennedy wanted to go to the moon. Ellen wants to go to mars. Very smart people, with the rockets. They can land them now. Rockets is very powerful stuff. My uncle, very smart, good genes, he said, “Donald, rockets is very powerful stuff.” I always thought that, but who knew? Now everybody is talking about it.
Lmao, I was thinking about Eric but this is way better.
I’ve seen the Right’s answer to DEI.
They deny that there is/was inequality so they claim that pushing equality gives an unfair advantage.
They say that any perceived inequality is the lack in the sum of experience and expertise.
They say that forced inclusion is unfair on the meritocracy of others.
They also tend to think that racism and sexism are overblown because they are incapable of believing (or it is otherwise too inconvenient for them to believe) that other people actually have problems if they don’t themselves experience them.
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.
It’s just like the anti work stuff, being against artifa, etc. They are openly signaling their intention and the fact they won’t just say they are fascists is childish.
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?
This post attempts to frame opposition to DEI as opposition to the literal meanings of the words rather than the policies built around them. That’s a false dilemma. One can oppose DEI initiatives that sacrifice meritocracy and individual achievement without rejecting the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their purest forms. A system that prioritizes individual ability, effort, and competence over group identity is the foundation of real progress and innovation.
We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another. Nepotism undermines meritocracy by prioritizing personal connections over competence, but DEI hiring, when based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, does the same by shifting the bias to identity. The goal should be a system that rewards individual ability, effort, and achievement—ensuring opportunities are earned, not granted based on who you know or what group you belong to. True fairness comes from eliminating favoritism altogether, not redistributing it.
It seems we are forgetting the folly of the greater good.
That being said, everything I’ve read about companies that implement DEI—aside from some questionable journalism in the gaming industry—suggests that they are actually about 27% to 30% more profitable than those that don’t.
I just don’t like this post in general; it seems like one large logical fallacy.
“We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another”
Sure, except no DEI policy worth its salt ever does that. Day 1 on the job in actual DEI, the difference between tokenism and inclusion is taught, and a policy or practice where unqualified people are put in positions solely because of their identity are not DEI policies.
It’s about giving equal access and opportunity to equally qualified diverse candidates that, because of systemic biases and obstacles, they wouldn’t have had access to.
Saying “we need a guy on a wheelchair in the legal team, to look good, so hire this guy without a law degree” is dumb tokenism.
Saying “hey now that we don’t do ‘jog-and-talk’ interviews on the 14th floor of a building without an elevator, we were able to interview and hire Joe, a great lawyer in a wheelchair” is implementing a basic DEI change.
Decently done DEI is about making it easier to select the most qualified talent from a qualified, talented and diverse slate of candidates.
NOTE: I don’t think you seemed to disagree with the above, it was just funny to me that you started highlighting the false dilemma, then articulated another one :)
Your statement is not based on fact. The DEI created metrics that federal employment and federal contractors were required to meet related to DEI.
it’s more on the lines of, one of the women quit so we can only interview women because otherwise we won’t meet our required diversity goal.
Your statement is the dream goal and not the actual case.
I’m sure this happens but isn’t it just gaming the system, rather than taking the goal seriously?
It’s exactly like the claim that standardized testing tends to make schools teach to the test rather than teach the subject. Yeah, it happens but it’s not the goal nor what must teachers want to do. It’s a failure at the policy level or a failure of the metrics that creates pressure to game the system
I see no facts in your statement either.
And just because something is difficult to achieve automatically means it’s wrong to try?
Source?
You’ll never know how important representation is until you have no one who represents you.
A 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.
Everything about this post reeks of racism.
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
What was the point?
It’s a reaction to a reporter at a NASCAR event hearing the crowd yell “Fuck Joe Biden” and pretending they said “Let’s Go Brandon” - they basically just ran with it. The entire connection between the two is a reporter openly lying about what a crowd was audibly yelling. This resonates hard with the sort of people who believe the mainstream media (meaning all major news media except the largest cable news network, of course) is extremely deceitful at every turn to protect a Democrat agenda.
From another answer the user provided in this thread, it sounds like the point was saying “Fuck Joe Biden” while self-censoring themselves because they felt like the reporter who said the NASCAR fans yelling “Fuck Joe Biden” said they were saying “Let’s Go Brandon” as an act of censorship.
So pretty much the point is saying “Fuck Joe Biden” without actually saying the words, which is what we all thought they were doing, while adding some sort of ironic anti-censorship tweak to it by censoring it.
Sounds like a long way to go when they could have just said “Fuck Joe Biden.”
Yeah, basically, exactly what I said.
A bunch of pussy fucks who think “Fuck Joe Biden” is too naughty.
Bunch if pansy coward.
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
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.
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
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.
So three scenarios come up when I think of my experiences on selecting candidates.
One time, we had a woman apply. Which was almost unheard of, it was the first time I could ever remember a woman applicant. The thing was, she was also by far the best candidate. In a round of applicants that otherwise I’m sure we wouldn’t have bothered hiring, she nailed it. Retroactively, they declared the white guy that was interviewed the previous day the one to hire, who was kind of the best of the worst. Something vague about him having more years in the industry, but I overheard a concern that they didn’t trust one of our employees to behave himself in front of a very attractive hire, and that it was best for everyone to head off the sexual harassment by keeping him away from her. In which case a DEI policy would have actually been nice to counter the really bad behavior going on.
Another time, different company, we were about to do the interviews and then suddenly they were all canceled. Why? Management picked the person to fill the spot, and decided to skip all technical assessment. Because this time another woman actually applied and that was it, they needed a woman to make numbers. The person was about as well as you can expect for accepting the first person to come along. This was a position intended for an experienced industry veteran, but instead we got someone with zero experience and their education wasn’t even consistent with the work needed.
A third time, it was a hiring position where only black people were even allowed to apply. I don’t have complaints about the results here, because we got one of the best employees we’ve ever had out of it. But I can’t pretend that the specific hiring practice was fair. However the place is still, after all this, like 90% white men, so it’s not like white guys aren’t getting their chances.
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.
There are a dozen first-hand experiences in this thread, and you’re discounting them all because you lack real-life experience.
I was put in a team as a “care lead” because I was Polish and the team was Polish too. Weren’t allowed to be the actual teamleader, that was given to a dude from the US. He was absent like 99% of the time, made like two one hour meetings to “transfer knowledge” over 6 months. Then he came back, started getting pissy that people treated me as the teamlead instead of him, went to his manager and got me “transferred” out. Also, all of the scrummasters (like 8 different teams) were black, went through the company “academy” (basically a 3 month bootcamp) without any prior IT / programming experience, with completely incomprehensible accents. Some of them were later fired for security issues (one took a company laptop with medical software and client data, hardcore HIPAA shit, to Africa, without disclosing it, getting it cleared / secured), incompetence or bad fit. I think three were left after a year I was there.
I broke out my thesaurus, so anti diversity, equity and inclusion would be conformity, discrimination and segregation. Does that sound about right?
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.
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.
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.
