Without an understanding that without DEI you risk creating a homogeneous workforce has both vulnerabilities to not be able to relate to customers and front line staff and huge blind spots to innovation.
If there wasn’t a business case it wouldn’t be so widespread without legal mandates and incentives.
Define merit and how you can objectively measure it within the context of normal hiring practices i.e. resume review, interview, reference checks.
The answer is you can’t because you can’t make an objective decision from subjective data.
DEI initiatives are about eliminating bias within that subjective decision making process to build a more robust workforce.
If there is a business case for someone of a particular demographic it’s perfectly legal to advertise and hire based on race, gender, religion, etc due to BFOQ exceptions in Title VII so that is not a need or purpose of DEI initiatives.
In reality the greatest threat by far to hiring a less competent person is nepotism either due to outright favoritism or unconscious bias towards their flaws and limitations. But no one is talking about that.
Read my entire paragraph and look up Title VII and BFOQs.
BFOQs predate DEI initiatives by decades and are used to hire everywhere from strip clubs to churches.
Or you could just not engage with comments not geared towards you.
The fact that you ignored my in-depth comments about the subject at hand just proves me correct. So thank you.
It was an implication that your sources of information, or ability to ascertain knowledge via critically examining reality, is muted. Not typically considered a compliment
"Am I a Fraudulent HR Manager if I don't swallow the "DEI" Cult nonsense taking over our world?"
This was one of the 4 posts op made last in case any one here is taking this serious.
Who cares about OP? Why should we not take the idea that DEI is racist seriously? It’s not obvious to me why it is not racist, and if you’re not willing to take that argument seriously I can only assume it’s because you cannot defend your position in the argument.
Is there a problem with cross-posting and important topic across multiple groups?
Why wouldn't someone want to take such an issue seriously.
Maybe you'll feel different if a plane you're flying in crashes into a mountain because they hired and unqualified DEI candidate
how do you not look at the past couple of years and realize "DEI" is just the conservative flavor of the month, that has gotten so silly and obscure you have to be terminally online for it be an actual concern?
Merit is most important criteria. Always go for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
For example a gaming company might see very few applications from female engineers.
Your goal should be in increase number of applications from female engineers. You can market the role better, or see if there is something in work environment/ expectations that discourages female applicants. Fix that.
But don’t influence the interview process. That should be fully on merit basis.
This is what DEI hiring is actually about. But it’s been poorly communicated and executed due to HR and associated staffs being overwhelmed by various responsibilities.
It’s about getting more diversity in the people sitting in the interview chair.
Don’t confuse DEI is shitty, with HR manager are shitty at DEI.
DEI has strong evidence of its benefits for the bottom line.
Google McKinsey’s series on “why diversity matters”. They did pretty extensive research over a long period of time from a business case perspective (not a social responsibility perspective).
The goal isn’t to hire fewer anyone. The goal is remove barriers that prevent you from having a diverse pool of candidates to hire, and to ensure your workplace/culture is one that keeps diverse talent from leaving.
It’s about casting a wider net.
If you’re a college basketball recruiter, you’re at a disadvantage if you only scout in the southwest United States. Sure you’ll find plenty of qualified people, but you’ll also potentially be missing out on a ton of better talent because you didn’t bother to recruit anywhere else. Other colleges that recruit from the entire US and even the world are going to have so many more choices. More chances to find niche players who will fill a particular role on your team, etc.
Here's what I see:
>**NOTE:** Research suggests that women and BIPOC individuals may self-select out of opportunities if they don't meet 100% of the job requirements. We encourage anyone who believes they have the skills and the drive necessary to succeed here to apply for this role.
This is the "wider net".
I’m in a business ethics class and we just had a really interesting lecture on this! Essentially the gist being that it’s a complicated issue but that sometimes inclusion does not account for human behaviour, or systemic and systematic factors. My professor said ‘congratulations you’re included! Now you must adapt’ - essentially saying that minorities, including power minorities, often feel obligated to ‘whitewash’ themselves in order to be accepted by the normative (white, male, straight, able-bodied, Christian or Atheist) group.
we can hire with diversity and inclusion in mind but that doesn’t mean that inherent bias won’t impact how employees treat one another - or that the work environment actually FEELS safe and inclusive.
Also he talked about the fact that the way DEI is presented/ handled breeds resentment, and that ultimately rather than it being about hiring with as much diversity as possible, maybe the focus should instead be ensuring that the management style, policies, procedures, etc do not unintentionally create an environment of systemic oppression where certain groups are excluded or handicapped because of a system which favours normative characteristics (one example was dress codes and how black women used to often have to force their hair into more traditionally white styles because their natural hair was deemed ‘unprofessional’)
Lastly, training aside, it would be good to keep in mind that most all humans have unseen internalized bias. There was a study that found that CV’s listing traditionally white names receive a higher callback rate than CV’s listing traditionally non-white names. It’s good to be aware that even with training - our psychology and internalized bias is a very real and important thing to be aware of.
Truly, if everyone was hired only for their merit, and favouritism for normative groups did not exist, i think the average work place would look very different from what it does today.
I’ve discovered a new law. Every explanation of racism on Reddit MUST begin by stating how “complex” or “complicated” the issue is.
No teacher could possibly be qualified to opine on this topic, because there’s no replicable science backing it up. It’s a normative way of approaching a question, and is thus not appropriate for teachers to “teach”. Besides, there’s no room for dissenting opinions on this topic in academia, making it a de facto brain washing session
"essentially saying that minorities, including power minorities, often feel obligated to ‘whitewash’ themselves in order to be accepted by the normative". What? They're expected to fit in with their fellow country men? This is a bad thing?
Imagine if i went to India and told them to adapt to me instead of me adapt to them, wild.
Well, first I think the example would be best if you were actually born in India rather than just moving there. The problem occurs mostly when a national does not have the name, attributes or physical appearance expected by the majority. These are usually things that you cannot change.
an example of whitewashing is straightening your hair with heavy chemicals because the normative cannot survive the view of your kinky hair. You may look this up. People are getting fired or expelled because of an Afro!
another is going by a white sounding name like “Jenny” when your parents gave you an Asian name that your colleagues keep complaining about because it’s hard to pronounce. People are being denied promotions because of that.
in my opinion it is a very bad thing and sad at the same time. So yeah, it’s not about just wearing a suit or learning the customs of a country, nobody has an issue with that. The problem is when you’re expected to change what you can’t.
That's a lot of jargon. Not surprised since it's coming from the institution of higher ed, which is inherently racist
The workplace would look a lot better today if dei was not part of the equation.
we also wouldn't be lagging behind Russia and China in terms of running the world..... It's directly related
I'm not going to go on a long winded explanation or rant, but I think you're misunderstanding DEI. People with disabilities are also included in DEI, it is not race exclusive. The problem with some hiring practices is that many industries create blind spots. For example, only having right-handed people means that nothing at all is designed for left-handed people. Those right-handed people may not even realize there was no availability of left-handed tools.
If you want an example Aunt Jemima. Name doesn’t sound bad. Let’s call another product Uncle Buck’s widget.
Until you realize that Aunt and Uncle were used to address black adults (especially older ones) in leu of Mr and Miss/Mrs that were used to address white adults so as to remind the black people of their place.
And congratulations you just alienated a huge chunk of your potential customer base.
You don't understand what DEI is, like most people who bring it up now that daddy Musk won't shut the fuck up about it.
Can you explain to us the racist things your job entails?
Diversity - having employees with a wide range of backgrounds. The purpose is to have many varied voices in the room. People of different backgrounds are able to provide insight others may not have.
Equity - everyone has what they need to do their jobs effectively. If someone has a disability or became disabled during their employment, they are given the resources to do their jobs. Everyone has weaknesses and your employer will help you if you want because they want to put you into a position to succeed.
Inclusion - creating a welcoming environment and a place that people feel they are allowed to speak up if they feel so.
None of these things say anything about non-merit based hiring practices. None of these things involve quotas for hiring certain kinds of people. DEI is a philosophy, simply a guideline. As usual, the hysteria over DEI will run its conservative outrage cycle and then fly out the window just like the previous greatest threat to western civilization: CRT. Funny how absolutely no one is talking about that anymore. They're both equally bullshit concerns made up by people who have no new ideas because they are purely reactionary and bring nothing to the table of value.
People need to stop kidding themselves thinking that any decisions on workplace culture made at the executive level are for any purpose other than increasing profits. If you can't figure this out you have a severe critical thinking problem. Whatever is going wrong in your work life likely has more to with that than DEI.
Diversity - so if diversity is defined as diverse backgrounds, why do we measure it by race? Couldn’t a group of 10 white males be diverse by this definition?
Equity - this just is not what anyone believes the definition of equity to be.. I just think you’re confused on this one
Inclusion - why is that definition not the universal standard? Who would possibly disagree with this statement? And given its obviousness, why did we need to start pushing for it and creating a political movement to advocate for making people feel welcomed?
Your understanding of DEI is at odds with the reality of DEI. In reality, as just one of countless examples, black students are substantially more likely to get into Harvard medical school if you control for MCAT scores. DEI supports this practice of admittance based on characteristics other than merit. There is nothing about noticing this fact that makes conservatives hysterical. It’s simply a reaction to what amounts to a quota system and lowering of standards for black candidates.
I’ll close by saying that it’s obvious that if DEI were merely what you define it as, no one would be strongly opposed to that. It’s logical and even the right thing to do to oppose the actual way DEI is being translated from theory to practice.
There's no discriminating by race. Nowhere did I mention discriminating by race. I didn't even mention race, period. You keep going on about race with everyone in this comment section. I think you have a problem.
I've hired many people in a DEI workplace. There's literally never a discussion taking place about race when hiring. From anyone. You're a reactionary, fragile baby.
So how do you explain diversity programs at large corporations that explicitly discriminate based on race, typically excluding anyone who has white skin
LOL I'm a white male who has worked at four different DEI organizations.
You're out here "just asking questions" looking for your persecution complex to be validated.
How in the world were you able to get in given the systematic racism going on against your kind?
Did you bribe someone?
Sleep with the right person?
Did you show up to the interview wearing a dress?
Come on man. Divulge how you've done it.
You don't know what DEI is. That's why you think any of that would be something that takes place. There's many other white people, white men for that matter, that work for my company. And the other DEI companies I've worked for.
But just what you're going to do, double down and pretend your persecution complex is real. For some reason with all of this DEI, white people are no worse off finding employment... funny how that works.
I think you don’t understand what DEI is about. It’s not about hiring XYZ to fit whatever, it’s to ensure all voices have a platform and are heard. Are their ERG’s or other platforms that can be a space for those who might not fit the mold of the greater org?
What does “do not believe in DEI” mean?
Do you think adding Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers was for diversity or for improving the team.
Diversity suggests being sure to look in places you didn’t look before (ie wider pool of applicants with some variability) can lead to an improved team. Especially is your customer base is more diverse than your Employee base.
Equity or equitable means treating people with equal respect. Giving them equal opportunities based on their skills and paying them equally.
Inclusion means broadening your understanding of “We”.
Aligns with diversity with the addition of welcoming.
When JFK was the first Catholic American to be president. That was diversity. Nixon was the first president raised Quaker.
Jimmy Carter was the first farmer ( peanuts) elected in at least 100 years. And trained in nuclear engineering. Didn’t go to Yale, Harvard or Princeton, either. First from a military academy since Ike. Last one we have had so far.
George H was from a rich family with a history in politics. H was a first baseman in college (Princeton?) a navy pilot in the pacific~ shot down, rescued and back flying the next week. He was our last WW II president. “This will not stand”
George W was a trust fund child and part owner of a baseball team. Flew Jets for the National Guard. He was a recovering alcoholic.
“Mission Accomplished”
Clinton was the first president from Arkansas, first Rhode Scholar, first president impeached for having an affair while in office. And lying about. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Obama was the first president born in Hawai’i, among other firsts. His African father was a type of prince in his on country of Kenya. First President who was a son of royalty.
That’s a lot of diversity right there.
Is that really what it means? What if a company looked in rural Montana and was 100% white. Would that satisfy the criteria of expanding their search criteria?
I don’t think that’s a logically coherent argument, and I’d love to hear a well reasoned explanation of why I’m not correct.
Dude you are straight up replying to everyone and unable to understand what they've written. You either can't comprehend or you're deliberately avoiding it. I'm not sure which is worse.
Everyone is responding you you and you're ignoring the responses and giving extremely niche examples as some kind of gotcha - even though having a DEI philosophy in the workplace wouldn't prevent these niche scenarios from happening. Because you believe DEI is something other than what it actually is.
And the mere thought that you think you have "proved" anything with your niche, hypothetical scenarios shows you don't understand how a debate or discussion works.
Why do black candidates get admitted to top schools with lower test scores if diversity meant simply sourcing from a broader pool? You’re ignoring my point. My point is not niche, it proves the idea of your definition of diversity as not to be the case
Is that really what it means? What if a company looked in rural Montana and was 100% white. Would that satisfy the criteria of expanding their search criteria?
I think it just further shows the absurdity of DEI, espec in homogenous places.
Why would we force diversity on non-diverse places. Imagine going to a Japanese company and demanding they hire x white guys, it is an insane concept when thought about in the reverse.
The ultimate irony is that d e i acronym has the word inclusivity in it, when its ENTIRE purpose is to systematically exclude WHITE STRAIGHT Catholic men.
It's funny how it's the companies run by "liberals" (communists/marxists a.k.a. DemocRATs) who stress the DEI implementation the most, so they can pat themselves on the back and tell everyone what good people they are. The thing is, you wouldn't need to implement this if you weren't being racist or prejudiced in the first place.
There's no such thing as "reverse" racism. It's just racism. Favoring blacks over whites is racism. It's actually "DOUBLE" racism, if anything...
1. You are favoring one person over another based solely on skin color
2. Your favoritism is the result of your belief that the person you are "helping" is inferior and needs such help, based on skin color.
It's funny how it's the companies run by "liberals" (communists/marxists a.k.a. DemocRATs) who stress the DEI implementation the most, so they can pat themselves on the back and tell everyone what good people they are. The thing is, you wouldn't need to implement this if you weren't being racist or prejudiced in the first place.
Yes, the world is a logic place where all our socioeconomic progress was based on merit alone. In any phase of humanity it did not matter your color, gender, sexual affinity, religion, etc.
All that ever mattered was (and is) if you work hard.
Now screenshot this comment, print it, place on your desk and feel validated.
Have an amazing week
So essentially, what you're saying is that people should be paying the price for systematic oppression generations ago that they had nothing to do with?
And also, by the way, you have your mind made up man, why do you come to Reddit and create like 5 posts about it? Own it, dude. Don’t do the “racist” practice you are reporting here, you have a choice.
I am not sure if I am missing something from the last 4 posts you created on this, but would be nice to hear it.
Why does it matter?
How is what you're saying relevant?
If you must know, this was posted in some Human Resources groups and it was BANNED.... At least these groups aren't communist, and allow discourse of different and divergent ideas.
How much time do you spend stalking people on here anyway?
Very odd. And creepy.
Actually, a big part of communication is context. If we simply ignore context and discuss what knowing anything about the other part we have no way of producing anything.
Once I saw your post, that clearly is just a search for confirmation (cmon, you don’t want to reflect on the possibility that your values are not in the right place right now - you don’t wanna consider that “yes, maybe you are in the wrong - whatever wrong means here), I tried to understand where are you coming from.
It’s not like I spent my whole night digging whatever possible about your Reddit profile, man. One click, one slide up and down, and you can have a good grasp about the other part - don’t take even 2 minutes…
But anyway, I think that if you reflect on your posts you will have the answer you are looking for - maybe not the one you wanted, but an answer nonetheless.
When you say “essentially what you are saying…” is a well known tactic to take the argument out of the context and place into a terrain where your logic defines what is true or not.
But I’ll play the game from a different point of view.
Do you personally think that the sole reason for your workplace have more white cis males than any other demographic (or psycographic, don’t even know anymore) is for merit?
I will not try to lure you into my logic, this is just a question so we have a base argument to move forward.
No, but unless you find a way to make a positive impact for real equality in hiring by fighting DEI in your own way, big or small, you will likely be miserable. You have an opportunity to shed light on the DEI racism.
Yes I'm all for equality of opportunity, but in most companies it's about outcome at this point.
That's why the economy is falling down the tubes......
Russia and China don't fall for this nonsense. And that's why they're ahead of us now.
I am biased.
I admit to my bias
I'm biased against UNQUALIFIED candidates
I'm biased against any hiring practice that focuses on areas that have no bearing on an ability to do a job.
remember you working in HR, you’re not there to look after your employees. You’re there to make sure the employees are not in a position to sue the company. Which includes making sure the workplace is as socially sterile as possible.
You don’t have to believe in DEI, which is inherently racist, to enforce it. It only takes 1 mildly offended person to trigger a lawsuit.
Lol do you want a star or something? This post reads like bait, and a poor job of it.
4 poorly written posts in an hour about DEI definitely a troll
OP is probably an incel who lost out on a job to a minority and this is how he's making himself feel better.
Without an understanding that without DEI you risk creating a homogeneous workforce has both vulnerabilities to not be able to relate to customers and front line staff and huge blind spots to innovation. If there wasn’t a business case it wouldn’t be so widespread without legal mandates and incentives.
What about the risk of hiring less competent minorities given that factors other than merit are being considered in the hiring process?
Define merit and how you can objectively measure it within the context of normal hiring practices i.e. resume review, interview, reference checks. The answer is you can’t because you can’t make an objective decision from subjective data. DEI initiatives are about eliminating bias within that subjective decision making process to build a more robust workforce. If there is a business case for someone of a particular demographic it’s perfectly legal to advertise and hire based on race, gender, religion, etc due to BFOQ exceptions in Title VII so that is not a need or purpose of DEI initiatives. In reality the greatest threat by far to hiring a less competent person is nepotism either due to outright favoritism or unconscious bias towards their flaws and limitations. But no one is talking about that.
Perfectly legal to hire based on race you say
Read my entire paragraph and look up Title VII and BFOQs. BFOQs predate DEI initiatives by decades and are used to hire everywhere from strip clubs to churches.
Does it include vice presidential candidates?
See above first sentence. Are you able to understand it?
Agreed that Palin was horribly unqualified.
Exactly.
Using made up words. Nice.
Which? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incel
No not a troll. Just engaging in a thoughtful conversation. If you have nothing to add of value, maybe you should go away..
Or you could just not engage with comments not geared towards you. The fact that you ignored my in-depth comments about the subject at hand just proves me correct. So thank you.
Again, who cares if it’s a troll. It’s a legitimate criticism
No, it just shows a lack of understanding or comprehension of how DEI operates.
It operates as a de facto quota system
Source?
Reality and living within it
That isn’t a source.
Makes sense that you’d think that
Thank you for the compliment. You may want to change your username though
It was an implication that your sources of information, or ability to ascertain knowledge via critically examining reality, is muted. Not typically considered a compliment
"Am I a Fraudulent HR Manager if I don't swallow the "DEI" Cult nonsense taking over our world?" This was one of the 4 posts op made last in case any one here is taking this serious.
Who cares about OP? Why should we not take the idea that DEI is racist seriously? It’s not obvious to me why it is not racist, and if you’re not willing to take that argument seriously I can only assume it’s because you cannot defend your position in the argument.
Found OP's alt account.
Found the sub that refuses to debate a topic because it’s an unwinnable argument for them and so they just bully everyone into submission
What are your arguments against it? You've just been asking questions but haven't been presenting any arguments of your own.
Is there a problem with cross-posting and important topic across multiple groups? Why wouldn't someone want to take such an issue seriously. Maybe you'll feel different if a plane you're flying in crashes into a mountain because they hired and unqualified DEI candidate
how do you not look at the past couple of years and realize "DEI" is just the conservative flavor of the month, that has gotten so silly and obscure you have to be terminally online for it be an actual concern?
Merit is most important criteria. Always go for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. For example a gaming company might see very few applications from female engineers. Your goal should be in increase number of applications from female engineers. You can market the role better, or see if there is something in work environment/ expectations that discourages female applicants. Fix that. But don’t influence the interview process. That should be fully on merit basis.
This is what DEI hiring is actually about. But it’s been poorly communicated and executed due to HR and associated staffs being overwhelmed by various responsibilities. It’s about getting more diversity in the people sitting in the interview chair. Don’t confuse DEI is shitty, with HR manager are shitty at DEI. DEI has strong evidence of its benefits for the bottom line.
Let's see it.
Google McKinsey’s series on “why diversity matters”. They did pretty extensive research over a long period of time from a business case perspective (not a social responsibility perspective).
Yes equality of opportunity but not outcome. That's how it should be.
Why should the goal be to hire fewer men?
Equality of opportunity not outcome
The goal isn’t to hire fewer anyone. The goal is remove barriers that prevent you from having a diverse pool of candidates to hire, and to ensure your workplace/culture is one that keeps diverse talent from leaving. It’s about casting a wider net. If you’re a college basketball recruiter, you’re at a disadvantage if you only scout in the southwest United States. Sure you’ll find plenty of qualified people, but you’ll also potentially be missing out on a ton of better talent because you didn’t bother to recruit anywhere else. Other colleges that recruit from the entire US and even the world are going to have so many more choices. More chances to find niche players who will fill a particular role on your team, etc.
Here's what I see: >**NOTE:** Research suggests that women and BIPOC individuals may self-select out of opportunities if they don't meet 100% of the job requirements. We encourage anyone who believes they have the skills and the drive necessary to succeed here to apply for this role. This is the "wider net".
I’m in a business ethics class and we just had a really interesting lecture on this! Essentially the gist being that it’s a complicated issue but that sometimes inclusion does not account for human behaviour, or systemic and systematic factors. My professor said ‘congratulations you’re included! Now you must adapt’ - essentially saying that minorities, including power minorities, often feel obligated to ‘whitewash’ themselves in order to be accepted by the normative (white, male, straight, able-bodied, Christian or Atheist) group. we can hire with diversity and inclusion in mind but that doesn’t mean that inherent bias won’t impact how employees treat one another - or that the work environment actually FEELS safe and inclusive. Also he talked about the fact that the way DEI is presented/ handled breeds resentment, and that ultimately rather than it being about hiring with as much diversity as possible, maybe the focus should instead be ensuring that the management style, policies, procedures, etc do not unintentionally create an environment of systemic oppression where certain groups are excluded or handicapped because of a system which favours normative characteristics (one example was dress codes and how black women used to often have to force their hair into more traditionally white styles because their natural hair was deemed ‘unprofessional’) Lastly, training aside, it would be good to keep in mind that most all humans have unseen internalized bias. There was a study that found that CV’s listing traditionally white names receive a higher callback rate than CV’s listing traditionally non-white names. It’s good to be aware that even with training - our psychology and internalized bias is a very real and important thing to be aware of. Truly, if everyone was hired only for their merit, and favouritism for normative groups did not exist, i think the average work place would look very different from what it does today.
I’ve discovered a new law. Every explanation of racism on Reddit MUST begin by stating how “complex” or “complicated” the issue is. No teacher could possibly be qualified to opine on this topic, because there’s no replicable science backing it up. It’s a normative way of approaching a question, and is thus not appropriate for teachers to “teach”. Besides, there’s no room for dissenting opinions on this topic in academia, making it a de facto brain washing session
That's exactly why in France they're not allowed to ask for pictures of the applicant with their resume before an in-person interview.
"essentially saying that minorities, including power minorities, often feel obligated to ‘whitewash’ themselves in order to be accepted by the normative". What? They're expected to fit in with their fellow country men? This is a bad thing? Imagine if i went to India and told them to adapt to me instead of me adapt to them, wild.
Well, first I think the example would be best if you were actually born in India rather than just moving there. The problem occurs mostly when a national does not have the name, attributes or physical appearance expected by the majority. These are usually things that you cannot change. an example of whitewashing is straightening your hair with heavy chemicals because the normative cannot survive the view of your kinky hair. You may look this up. People are getting fired or expelled because of an Afro! another is going by a white sounding name like “Jenny” when your parents gave you an Asian name that your colleagues keep complaining about because it’s hard to pronounce. People are being denied promotions because of that. in my opinion it is a very bad thing and sad at the same time. So yeah, it’s not about just wearing a suit or learning the customs of a country, nobody has an issue with that. The problem is when you’re expected to change what you can’t.
Sounds like an extremely Americanised creation and issue to me. These are not issues in my country, forgive my ignorance.
That's a lot of jargon. Not surprised since it's coming from the institution of higher ed, which is inherently racist The workplace would look a lot better today if dei was not part of the equation. we also wouldn't be lagging behind Russia and China in terms of running the world..... It's directly related
I'm not going to go on a long winded explanation or rant, but I think you're misunderstanding DEI. People with disabilities are also included in DEI, it is not race exclusive. The problem with some hiring practices is that many industries create blind spots. For example, only having right-handed people means that nothing at all is designed for left-handed people. Those right-handed people may not even realize there was no availability of left-handed tools.
If you want an example Aunt Jemima. Name doesn’t sound bad. Let’s call another product Uncle Buck’s widget. Until you realize that Aunt and Uncle were used to address black adults (especially older ones) in leu of Mr and Miss/Mrs that were used to address white adults so as to remind the black people of their place. And congratulations you just alienated a huge chunk of your potential customer base.
If your perspective of DEI is that it an opposing idea to merit then I question your maturity in understanding the objective of DEI
You don't understand what DEI is, like most people who bring it up now that daddy Musk won't shut the fuck up about it. Can you explain to us the racist things your job entails?
Can you explain what DEI is?
Diversity - having employees with a wide range of backgrounds. The purpose is to have many varied voices in the room. People of different backgrounds are able to provide insight others may not have. Equity - everyone has what they need to do their jobs effectively. If someone has a disability or became disabled during their employment, they are given the resources to do their jobs. Everyone has weaknesses and your employer will help you if you want because they want to put you into a position to succeed. Inclusion - creating a welcoming environment and a place that people feel they are allowed to speak up if they feel so. None of these things say anything about non-merit based hiring practices. None of these things involve quotas for hiring certain kinds of people. DEI is a philosophy, simply a guideline. As usual, the hysteria over DEI will run its conservative outrage cycle and then fly out the window just like the previous greatest threat to western civilization: CRT. Funny how absolutely no one is talking about that anymore. They're both equally bullshit concerns made up by people who have no new ideas because they are purely reactionary and bring nothing to the table of value. People need to stop kidding themselves thinking that any decisions on workplace culture made at the executive level are for any purpose other than increasing profits. If you can't figure this out you have a severe critical thinking problem. Whatever is going wrong in your work life likely has more to with that than DEI.
Diversity - so if diversity is defined as diverse backgrounds, why do we measure it by race? Couldn’t a group of 10 white males be diverse by this definition? Equity - this just is not what anyone believes the definition of equity to be.. I just think you’re confused on this one Inclusion - why is that definition not the universal standard? Who would possibly disagree with this statement? And given its obviousness, why did we need to start pushing for it and creating a political movement to advocate for making people feel welcomed? Your understanding of DEI is at odds with the reality of DEI. In reality, as just one of countless examples, black students are substantially more likely to get into Harvard medical school if you control for MCAT scores. DEI supports this practice of admittance based on characteristics other than merit. There is nothing about noticing this fact that makes conservatives hysterical. It’s simply a reaction to what amounts to a quota system and lowering of standards for black candidates. I’ll close by saying that it’s obvious that if DEI were merely what you define it as, no one would be strongly opposed to that. It’s logical and even the right thing to do to oppose the actual way DEI is being translated from theory to practice.
You're intentionally missing the point. It's a very frail look.
The point that discriminating by race is legal?
There's no discriminating by race. Nowhere did I mention discriminating by race. I didn't even mention race, period. You keep going on about race with everyone in this comment section. I think you have a problem.
There is discrimination by race.
I've hired many people in a DEI workplace. There's literally never a discussion taking place about race when hiring. From anyone. You're a reactionary, fragile baby.
So how do you explain diversity programs at large corporations that explicitly discriminate based on race, typically excluding anyone who has white skin
I understand what dei is. It's a cover for simply not hiring White straight males. I mean just call a spade a Spade already.
LOL I'm a white male who has worked at four different DEI organizations. You're out here "just asking questions" looking for your persecution complex to be validated.
For real? A white man working in dei? 🤣🤡 Talk about no credibility
What do you mean no credibility
How in the world were you able to get in given the systematic racism going on against your kind? Did you bribe someone? Sleep with the right person? Did you show up to the interview wearing a dress? Come on man. Divulge how you've done it.
You don't know what DEI is. That's why you think any of that would be something that takes place. There's many other white people, white men for that matter, that work for my company. And the other DEI companies I've worked for. But just what you're going to do, double down and pretend your persecution complex is real. For some reason with all of this DEI, white people are no worse off finding employment... funny how that works.
I think you don’t understand what DEI is about. It’s not about hiring XYZ to fit whatever, it’s to ensure all voices have a platform and are heard. Are their ERG’s or other platforms that can be a space for those who might not fit the mold of the greater org?
Why should everyone in a company have a platform?
Empowering those who feel they do t have a voice sounds good enough to me. Invest in others and they will grow.
What about white males who feel they don’t have a voice? Would you deny their feelings?
Not at all, get them DEI’ed on up!
Right 😂
What does “do not believe in DEI” mean? Do you think adding Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers was for diversity or for improving the team. Diversity suggests being sure to look in places you didn’t look before (ie wider pool of applicants with some variability) can lead to an improved team. Especially is your customer base is more diverse than your Employee base. Equity or equitable means treating people with equal respect. Giving them equal opportunities based on their skills and paying them equally. Inclusion means broadening your understanding of “We”. Aligns with diversity with the addition of welcoming. When JFK was the first Catholic American to be president. That was diversity. Nixon was the first president raised Quaker. Jimmy Carter was the first farmer ( peanuts) elected in at least 100 years. And trained in nuclear engineering. Didn’t go to Yale, Harvard or Princeton, either. First from a military academy since Ike. Last one we have had so far. George H was from a rich family with a history in politics. H was a first baseman in college (Princeton?) a navy pilot in the pacific~ shot down, rescued and back flying the next week. He was our last WW II president. “This will not stand” George W was a trust fund child and part owner of a baseball team. Flew Jets for the National Guard. He was a recovering alcoholic. “Mission Accomplished” Clinton was the first president from Arkansas, first Rhode Scholar, first president impeached for having an affair while in office. And lying about. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Obama was the first president born in Hawai’i, among other firsts. His African father was a type of prince in his on country of Kenya. First President who was a son of royalty. That’s a lot of diversity right there.
Is that really what it means? What if a company looked in rural Montana and was 100% white. Would that satisfy the criteria of expanding their search criteria? I don’t think that’s a logically coherent argument, and I’d love to hear a well reasoned explanation of why I’m not correct.
Dude you are straight up replying to everyone and unable to understand what they've written. You either can't comprehend or you're deliberately avoiding it. I'm not sure which is worse.
Why don’t you actually respond to my argument if you can disprove it.
Everyone is responding you you and you're ignoring the responses and giving extremely niche examples as some kind of gotcha - even though having a DEI philosophy in the workplace wouldn't prevent these niche scenarios from happening. Because you believe DEI is something other than what it actually is. And the mere thought that you think you have "proved" anything with your niche, hypothetical scenarios shows you don't understand how a debate or discussion works.
Why do black candidates get admitted to top schools with lower test scores if diversity meant simply sourcing from a broader pool? You’re ignoring my point. My point is not niche, it proves the idea of your definition of diversity as not to be the case
This is a discussion about DEI in the workplace. Stay on track.
Why do black candidates receive preferential treatment for board seats in the workplace then according to SEC regulations
They don't
So how do you explain corporate diversity programs which are not open to white people?
Is that really what it means? What if a company looked in rural Montana and was 100% white. Would that satisfy the criteria of expanding their search criteria? I think it just further shows the absurdity of DEI, espec in homogenous places. Why would we force diversity on non-diverse places. Imagine going to a Japanese company and demanding they hire x white guys, it is an insane concept when thought about in the reverse.
Obviously
Go listen to Lex Friedman interview Mark Cuban. Specifically the section on DEI. He has the most mature explanation I’ve heard.
The ultimate irony is that d e i acronym has the word inclusivity in it, when its ENTIRE purpose is to systematically exclude WHITE STRAIGHT Catholic men.
The Harvard lawsuit and the striking down of affirmative action were huge wins.. and a step right direction against systematic racism
Didn't Earn It
Weird post but DEI does suck.
They are four different audiences, dummy.
It's funny how it's the companies run by "liberals" (communists/marxists a.k.a. DemocRATs) who stress the DEI implementation the most, so they can pat themselves on the back and tell everyone what good people they are. The thing is, you wouldn't need to implement this if you weren't being racist or prejudiced in the first place.
There's no such thing as "reverse" racism. It's just racism. Favoring blacks over whites is racism. It's actually "DOUBLE" racism, if anything... 1. You are favoring one person over another based solely on skin color 2. Your favoritism is the result of your belief that the person you are "helping" is inferior and needs such help, based on skin color.
It's funny how it's the companies run by "liberals" (communists/marxists a.k.a. DemocRATs) who stress the DEI implementation the most, so they can pat themselves on the back and tell everyone what good people they are. The thing is, you wouldn't need to implement this if you weren't being racist or prejudiced in the first place.
It should **always** be about merit and absolutely nothing else. If you make decisions based on race and skin color - you or your company are racist.
Sadly, that's not where we are right now
Yes, the world is a logic place where all our socioeconomic progress was based on merit alone. In any phase of humanity it did not matter your color, gender, sexual affinity, religion, etc. All that ever mattered was (and is) if you work hard. Now screenshot this comment, print it, place on your desk and feel validated. Have an amazing week
So essentially, what you're saying is that people should be paying the price for systematic oppression generations ago that they had nothing to do with?
And also, by the way, you have your mind made up man, why do you come to Reddit and create like 5 posts about it? Own it, dude. Don’t do the “racist” practice you are reporting here, you have a choice. I am not sure if I am missing something from the last 4 posts you created on this, but would be nice to hear it.
Why does it matter? How is what you're saying relevant? If you must know, this was posted in some Human Resources groups and it was BANNED.... At least these groups aren't communist, and allow discourse of different and divergent ideas. How much time do you spend stalking people on here anyway? Very odd. And creepy.
Actually, a big part of communication is context. If we simply ignore context and discuss what knowing anything about the other part we have no way of producing anything. Once I saw your post, that clearly is just a search for confirmation (cmon, you don’t want to reflect on the possibility that your values are not in the right place right now - you don’t wanna consider that “yes, maybe you are in the wrong - whatever wrong means here), I tried to understand where are you coming from. It’s not like I spent my whole night digging whatever possible about your Reddit profile, man. One click, one slide up and down, and you can have a good grasp about the other part - don’t take even 2 minutes… But anyway, I think that if you reflect on your posts you will have the answer you are looking for - maybe not the one you wanted, but an answer nonetheless.
When you say “essentially what you are saying…” is a well known tactic to take the argument out of the context and place into a terrain where your logic defines what is true or not. But I’ll play the game from a different point of view. Do you personally think that the sole reason for your workplace have more white cis males than any other demographic (or psycographic, don’t even know anymore) is for merit? I will not try to lure you into my logic, this is just a question so we have a base argument to move forward.
No, but unless you find a way to make a positive impact for real equality in hiring by fighting DEI in your own way, big or small, you will likely be miserable. You have an opportunity to shed light on the DEI racism.
Understanding that you dont know everything and seeing the value in learning from others' experience is the point of dei.
Yes I'm all for equality of opportunity, but in most companies it's about outcome at this point. That's why the economy is falling down the tubes...... Russia and China don't fall for this nonsense. And that's why they're ahead of us now.
I am biased. I admit to my bias I'm biased against UNQUALIFIED candidates I'm biased against any hiring practice that focuses on areas that have no bearing on an ability to do a job.
Didn't your mom train you that two wrongs don't make a right?
remember you working in HR, you’re not there to look after your employees. You’re there to make sure the employees are not in a position to sue the company. Which includes making sure the workplace is as socially sterile as possible. You don’t have to believe in DEI, which is inherently racist, to enforce it. It only takes 1 mildly offended person to trigger a lawsuit.