There is no smoking gun that you seem to be looking for. DEI is voluntary and does not actually affect hiring policies beyond the small chance of opening a hiring managers mind to the the possibility of hiring someone different than they are.
A common criticism from bigots is that there is some requirement to hire minorities/women. This is false.
This is why the racist and sexist push back is so ridiculous and why I said the characterization that the pendulum swings progressively forward is garbage.
DEI has ultimately lead to a small number of women getting hired and an even smaller number of minorities. It has in no way accomplished it’s stated goal of creating an inclusive and understanding workplace.
This actually makes sense since it is a very short training and it is up to everyone in the workplace to actually make the positive changes.
Another criticism that has been leveled at DEI is it is just another way to make money. This argument is actually about capitalism itself though which is a system where everything is motivated by money so I don’t really consider it valid.
The most valid criticism is around how effective DEI is at motivating change. It is true diverse organizations make better decisions and that means higher profits. As I said earlier the hard work comes from everyone at the company to improve things not a short presentation that is essentially treat people that are different than you as equals.
It is clear based upon this discussion that you probably hold an extreme belief about DEI. Hence the whole edgelord thing. Maybe you have not completely made up your mind yet.
You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.
I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.
Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.
There is no smoking gun that you seem to be looking for. DEI is voluntary and does not actually affect hiring policies beyond the small chance of opening a hiring managers mind to the the possibility of hiring someone different than they are.
A common criticism from bigots is that there is some requirement to hire minorities/women. This is false.
This is why the racist and sexist push back is so ridiculous and why I said the characterization that the pendulum swings progressively forward is garbage.
DEI has ultimately lead to a small number of women getting hired and an even smaller number of minorities. It has in no way accomplished it’s stated goal of creating an inclusive and understanding workplace.
This actually makes sense since it is a very short training and it is up to everyone in the workplace to actually make the positive changes.
Another criticism that has been leveled at DEI is it is just another way to make money. This argument is actually about capitalism itself though which is a system where everything is motivated by money so I don’t really consider it valid.
The most valid criticism is around how effective DEI is at motivating change. It is true diverse organizations make better decisions and that means higher profits. As I said earlier the hard work comes from everyone at the company to improve things not a short presentation that is essentially treat people that are different than you as equals.
It is clear based upon this discussion that you probably hold an extreme belief about DEI. Hence the whole edgelord thing. Maybe you have not completely made up your mind yet.
You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.
I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.
Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.