You must log in or register to comment.
If you’re opposed to DOGE, does that mean you’re opposed to efficiency in government?
‘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 (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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Please just stop. It is explicitly illegal to hire based on any quota in the federal government or for federal contractors.
The point of affirmative action is to hire so that the composition of a contractor’s workforce reflects, over time, the composition of qualified workers in the relevant labor market from which applicants are recruited and selected.
This just boils down to if there are women and minorities in the field they should be considered instead of just white males.
I am really getting sick of all the DEI propaganda. Jesus Christ, I am a hiring manager and I have taken multiple DEI trainings. There are no quotas and the entire point is to get an average hiring manager, which are mostly white males, to consider hiring someone different than themselves.
You have taken zero FEDERAL DEI training programs. This is obvious by the article you linked and your comment. DEI had no effect outside of working in a federal position or federal contractor. Honestly if I were you I’d be embarrassed of this post. Of course that was when I thought I was on lemmy. I didn’t realize the education level had already dipped to reddit levels.
Btw the DEI explicitly contradicts the civil rights act of 1962 and the protected characteristics of hiring someone and actually makes them the deciding factor. So maybe do 10 mins of research and you will probably change your mind. I understand independent research is difficult but I promise the payoff is worth it.
Please tell me what I have or have not done. I highly doubt you have administered grants for the federal government, hired hundreds of people, worked at the state, or really know anything at this point.
Honestly, after I explained the law you should have crawled back under your rock.
Btw you have no clue what DEI is because you never had the training yourself. I have many times in both the private sector and the public sector. Also you are not a hiring manager like I am so you have no expertise or clue what you are babbling about.
If you continue to make a buffon out of yourself I will happily block you.
The true skilled arguer. Upset that I tell you what you have or have not done and then proceed to do the exact same thing.
You didn’t answer the question. Regardless of who’s more right, the end result is the same. There are diversity “goals or mandates” whatever you want to call it. So you are actively looking for people to fill roles based on protected characteristics. Do you not agree this is a direct contradiction of the civil rights act of 1962?
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.
-
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.
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?
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
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…”
I think qualified people should be hired. May the best person for the job be hired, without even considering race, or anything other than skill. DEI is veiled discrimination.
I don’t think you understand what DEI is or how it works if you feel that it is discriminatory.
It just exists to make sure that people are given a fair shake not that anyone gets an automatic leg up.
DEI programs are what let the best person for the job be hired. Without them people are discarded simply because of their name or race or etc etc.
If you truly want the best person for the job to be hired you support DEI initiatives because that’s the whole idea and point of it.
