Remote View
Which part of DEI do you hate?
Which part of DEI do you hate?
326 comments
-
This post attempts to frame opposition to DEI as opposition to the literal meanings of the words rather than the policies built around them. That’s a false dilemma. One can oppose DEI initiatives that sacrifice meritocracy and individual achievement without rejecting the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their purest forms. A system that prioritizes individual ability, effort, and competence over group identity is the foundation of real progress and innovation.
We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another. Nepotism undermines meritocracy by prioritizing personal connections over competence, but DEI hiring, when based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, does the same by shifting the bias to identity. The goal should be a system that rewards individual ability, effort, and achievement—ensuring opportunities are earned, not granted based on who you know or what group you belong to. True fairness comes from eliminating favoritism altogether, not redistributing it.
It seems we are forgetting the folly of the greater good.
That being said, everything I’ve read about companies that implement DEI—aside from some questionable journalism in the gaming industry—suggests that they are actually about 27% to 30% more profitable than those that don’t.
I just don’t like this post in general; it seems like one large logical fallacy.
-
"We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another"
Sure, except no DEI policy worth its salt ever does that. Day 1 on the job in actual DEI, the difference between tokenism and inclusion is taught, and a policy or practice where unqualified people are put in positions solely because of their identity are not DEI policies.
It's about giving equal access and opportunity to equally qualified diverse candidates that, because of systemic biases and obstacles, they wouldn't have had access to.
Saying "we need a guy on a wheelchair in the legal team, to look good, so hire this guy without a law degree" is dumb tokenism.
Saying "hey now that we don't do 'jog-and-talk' interviews on the 14th floor of a building without an elevator, we were able to interview and hire Joe, a great lawyer in a wheelchair" is implementing a basic DEI change.
Decently done DEI is about making it easier to select the most qualified talent from a qualified, talented and diverse slate of candidates.
NOTE: I don't think you seemed to disagree with the above, it was just funny to me that you started highlighting the false dilemma, then articulated another one :)
-
Your statement is not based on fact. The DEI created metrics that federal employment and federal contractors were required to meet related to DEI.
it's more on the lines of, one of the women quit so we can only interview women because otherwise we won't meet our required diversity goal.
Your statement is the dream goal and not the actual case.
-
I see no facts in your statement either.
And just because something is difficult to achieve automatically means it's wrong to try?
-
-
Lol no.
-
-
-
Source?
-
I’m sure this happens but isn’t it just gaming the system, rather than taking the goal seriously?
It’s exactly like the claim that standardized testing tends to make schools teach to the test rather than teach the subject. Yeah, it happens but it’s not the goal nor what must teachers want to do. It’s a failure at the policy level or a failure of the metrics that creates pressure to game the system
-
Dude, just look up the 3 cue system vs phonics. Talk about teaching to a system... Based on the are of the standard forum user you were likely a 3 cue learner and I'm truly sorry. No exaggeration I've read 1000s of books in my life and I can't imagine struggling to read. I'm sorry.
-
No, I may act like a 12 year old at times, but I’m not. Both phonics and 3 cue seems like strange ideas
-
-
-
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?
-
-
-
-
-
-