Which part of DEI do you hate?

Can also use "Elon" for the E.

Segregation and hate raise crime, wealth disparity, and breed unhappiness. The best way to dispell racism is through education and integration of all the people's. That is what DEI is about. Slowly they all learn they are not much different and they blend together until all is forgot. So why does someone want it gone when it will cause only problems long term one may ask? Because it is easier to divide and conqueur using hate than education. CRT is taught to lawyers in college, anyone who thinks it is being taught to their kids has been fed lies and likely doesn't know what it is. So someone divides the population by blaming all problems on a specific people, keeps repeating everything being their fault, and you build hate. Block efficiency in the current government, blame the peoples struggles on the chosen group of hate. Keep blowing in those flames and spread the hatred far and wide until the hate for those people means more to the majority than their own wants. Once you have that majority vote and get in then your sink your anchor, and have 2 options. Unite the people by using a war with a foreign power and in the midst use executive powers during the state of emergency to make the presidency all powerful with no intention of giving up that power, or option 2, strain the economy and stoke the hatred until a civil war breaks out, and declare the emergency powers the same. Either way the reason to attack DEI was always the same, to gain power without reguard to how many people get hurt along the way. Racism and sexism are weapons being weilded by politicians manipulating the people's priorities. They control the media, the Treasury, the military, they bought the judges and now we go the way of Turkey and Russia. A dictatorship is being born, the question left is just what will be the state of emergency used to grab the rest of the power to ensure the legislative branch s is powerless to take the powers back after 90 days

Often times merit is viewed differently. If 2 students both have a 4.0 GPA and 1 has more extra curriculars, and the other had to work instead because they come from a poorer family and needed to help support the family, which has more merit? If being able to stay after every day for practice and afford travel expenses for such means you have more merit, then the rich will always have the advantage to appear with more merit. I would say the person who worked 30 hours a week while maintaining a 4.0 GPA has worked harder and overcome higher odds.

There is more to merit than just numbers in my opinion. Some of it does appear like racism from the outside because if the average black family has less opportunities and you try to give more opportunities to new generations to help close the wealth gap, then you are being called racist by your initial definition.

There are valid points on both sides. DEI in my opinion helps integrate races, sexes, cultures, religions together which provides long term benefits and disincentivizes hatred. If you never come in contact with someone, it is easier to hate them. Easier to commit crimes against them. Ultimately a big portion of DEI is about educating the population to get along with and accept those who may appear or act differently than you do. It may appear easier for an African American to get into Harvard, but they are still less than 7% of the population there while being over 12% of the U.S. population total. There are other factors always at play standing in the way of comparing 2 people just off a single number.

The biggest issue with this take is that merit/test score is still the biggest factor. For example, a law firm is not passing over well-qualified white candidates to hire unqualified black candidates, they're just trying to hire more well-qualified black candidates because they're currently an all-white firm. Nobody is ever getting a job as an act of charity, and typically it just helps to avoid implicit hiring bias. To go back to the example, why has the law firm become all white? Well the first two partners were white, and even if they aren't offensively racist they still have enough internal bias that they only hired other white workers. Like in this example, most DEI initiatives are about reducing existing internal biases.

DEI is having a job fair at a school for the deaf, it's having unisex bathroom stalls, it's allowing religious/traditional holiday celebrations, it's training against racism. Every person hired is still qualified, but the company expands their hiring practice and their culture.

US (and many other nations) corporate and education systems have long given preferential treatment/selection to white employees and students, to the point where the more qualified candidate was passed by due to their ethnicity. There's further issues that stem from the same sources, such as banks refusing to loan to Afro-Americans at a disproportionate rate, even with high wages and a more stable income, being refused even an interview because your name doesn't sound white enough despite being the most qualified applicant, etc etc etc.

DEI being implemented in a way that chooses non-white, women, differently abled, or LGBTQ+ simply to check a box and have diversity to point to is a real issue, but these places weren't ever really interested in leveling the playing field. They were concerned about optics. Like the 90s movie/tv cliché of the group of popular pretty girls having the one "fat and ugly" friend in the group to show that they're inclusive, to make themselves look and feel better.

DEI if implemented properly strips the unconscious and systemic bias in American (and other countries) systems to overlook better candidates for white, straight men.

There is a manifesto that is literally titled the "The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto" which a lot of people unironically agreed with, at least when those were hot topics a few years ago.

So any attempt at pretending that there isn't an anti-meritocracy angle to this would be disingenuous to say the least.

That same person behind the manifesto is a primary figure in introducing CoC's to software projects btw.

Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics. It includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, religion, or opinion.

Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and "decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged", and taking "into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal."

Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where "all employees feel their voices will be heard", and a sense of belonging and integration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion

That explains Trump's problem with it. He can't stand the idea he'd be the bottom.

Rearrange the letters to I, C, and E, and they are fully in support.

They know what it stands before, but if you ask them to drop the mask they'll start saying racial slurs.

Unfortunately, they'll just claim it's a "newspeak" term...

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..."

More like Democracy (Jan 6), Elections (Voter-Roll Purges, and other forms of Voter Suppression), and International Cooperation (Paris Agreement Withdrawl)

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.

The way it was explained to me is, equality is giving everyone equal support. Equity is allocating support unevenly to those who need it most.

Those who advocate meritocracy in bad faith really don't like equity.

"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.

But that should come under equity.
There should be funding to help you.
I think it's fine to be criticise badly implemented DEI.

It was interesting that there was this program my kid qualified for that was DEI oriented. Which I found strange because we are relatively well off and could easily pay for what this program covered.

To their credit, you might have been qualified too, since this program also accepted people under a household income threshold, and as a result had quite a few white boys in it too.

Care to describe the extreme implementation?

This anecdote ignores what the broader statistics prove, though. There will always be outliers. But in general, there are groups that are not white kids that are more likely to be disenfranchised and excluded at large scale.

I think for the"normal" people who aren't frothing at the mouth racists, it's specifically about the HR enforced corporate perversion of diversity, equity and inclusion that they hate. Patronising lecturers and dehumanising metrics often leave a sour taste in peoples mouths, even if the cause is a good one

Reminds me of that time (as if it was only once) a depressing amount of people, mostly conservatives, didn't know that the ACA and "Obamacare" mean the same thing.

Conservative politics depend heavily on placing labels on everything because it's a built-in way of telling the rubes what they should think and feel.

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.

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.

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.

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

I have been apart 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.

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.

How about Uniformity, Segregation, and Adversity? I think we can get people on board with our new USA programs.

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?

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.

Shenanigans. We're not hiring unqualified people. It's capitalism afterall. There's no tolerance for throwing out money.

DEI is about making sure you interview people you normally wouldn't for whatever reason. If they suck, they suck and don't get the job. It's not a quota.

It isn't, but it sure is an improvement

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.

Christian heterosexual white man. Can't have any of those minority religions, or worse atheists, sneaking in.

I oppose the existing "DEI" as it exists today because it's openly racist. It's openly racist to the people it basically purports to help

I can make that shorter for you for next time:

I don't understand DEI at all

Here you go bud, hope it helps.

Haha, nice one.

Equality != Equity. Equity is equal outcome regardless of capability. Equality is equal opportunity, and merit-based.

Equity is the wrong thing to strive for when we don't even have equality yet.

If only DEI was that literal. Instead, it allowed companies to discriminate based on race, but to those with left-leaning beliefs, that’s okay as long as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it!

That's a lot of talking with very little to back it up.

I'd like some actual instances of companies that have specifically not hired a qualified candidate because they were white.

And "those with left-leaning beliefs". That's me, hand in the air and proud of it. "as it only negatively affects white people, because they deserve it" You're chatting shit mate. That's not what I or any of my "left leaning" friends believe.

It's like when Reddit mods say that their subreddit is all about "inclusion" and "diversity", and then right below that they say Trump supporters or voters aren't allowed.

look up the paradox of tolerance

misinformation

Are you sure the reason they don’t hire anyone isn’t lack of budget to do so?

I’m opposed to insufficient funding for vital services but you don’t see me blaming DEI

Your comment makes no sense, have a nice day!

Oh yeah, I've also heard you can make up an imaginary version of something and give it attributes you don't like to justify your hate. Wild stuff, this.