4 ms·

No. But people like this speaking in the way he did can be a step in the right direction. Most pundents of D&I have their ass so far up their head they don't r

No. But people like this speaking in the way he did can be a step in the right direction. Most pundents of D&I have their ass so far up their head they don't realize that they fail at D&I because the only reconize a 3rd grade level of what that means. This guy at least from the single post I have read -- seems to get it, and get it in a way that might actually spark real change.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Unfortunately, most D&I efforts appear to be “push non white, non male candidates to the front of the pipeline”. No amount of window dressing fixes D&I efforts that are sexist or racist. To your point, equality of opportunity should be strived for. Everybody should get a fair crack at success. But that’s not what’s on order in the current political climate. Real change occurs when employees report all discrimination to regulators, including that of D&I efforts that are similarly against the law (roles held open specifically for a certain gender or race, candidate pipelines prioritizing by gender or race, purposely seeking out candidates for their gender or race, etc).
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  >Unfortunately, most D&I efforts appear to be “push non white, non male candidates to the front of the pipeline”. No amount of window dressing fixes D&I efforts that are sexist or racist. This is just objectively wrong. The goal of D&I efforts is that non-white and non-male candidates already suffer from less opportunity than similarly talented white male candidates. Whenever you argue for a reset to 'equality of opportunity', you're arguing for a return to even less opportunity for minority candidates. In order to fix this problem, you first have to recognize that equality of opportunity does not exist. D&I efforts are a bandaid fix while new generations hopefully don't face as much racism or lack of opportunity.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    If you’re doing anything other than blind interviews and stripping personal info off of resumes, you’re discriminating, regardless of your objectives. The road to hell needs no further paving. I encourage those who witness or are impacted by D&I activities that violate labor law to report them to regulators, and even an employment attorney, whenever possible.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      Blind interviews do not help like you think [1] and overall the fact of the matter is that it's just not proven to work yet. It sounds like you're making up a lot of hysteria for absolutely nothing, considering I have rarely seen any D&I efforts that would negatively impact me as a white man. Ultimately if you want to argue about D&I efforts being ineffectual you need to be less sensationalist and more grounded in facts. [1] http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-...
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        I don’t think I’m being sensationalist, generating hysteria, nor am I asking to discuss this with you. I made my comments primarily so that those with grievances about D&I activities in their orgs that don’t adhere to labor law have an idea how to seek redress. No more, no less. Edit: continuing to argue here is simply going to pollute the thread and risks a mod detachment. My email is in my profile if you want to continue the discussion.
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        And if you're not willing to argue or discuss your point, then you're admitting you're just here to spit out politics rather than discuss them or the topic in any meaningful manner. D&I activities are worthy of critique and discussion because there is a lot that can be improved, but putting your foot down and acting like all D&I efforts are racist, sexist or should involve talking to a lawyer is absolutely sensationalist and generating hysteria.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Unfortunately, most D&I efforts appear to be “push non white, non male candidates to the front of the pipeline”. No amount of window dressing fixes D&I efforts that are sexist or racist. To your point, equality of opportunity should be strived for. Everybody should get a fair crack at success. But that’s not what’s on order in the current political climate. Real change occurs when employees report all discrimination to regulators, including that of D&I efforts that are similarly against the law (roles held open specifically for a certain gender or race, candidate pipelines prioritizing by gender or race, purposely seeking out candidates for their gender or race, etc).

fzeroracer 8y ago
>Unfortunately, most D&I efforts appear to be “push non white, non male candidates to the front of the pipeline”. No amount of window dressing fixes D&I efforts that are sexist or racist. This is just objectively wrong. The goal of D&I efforts is that non-white and non-male candidates already suffer from less opportunity than similarly talented white male candidates. Whenever you argue for a reset to 'equality of opportunity', you're arguing for a return to even less opportunity for minority candidates. In order to fix this problem, you first have to recognize that equality of opportunity does not exist. D&I efforts are a bandaid fix while new generations hopefully don't face as much racism or lack of opportunity.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  If you’re doing anything other than blind interviews and stripping personal info off of resumes, you’re discriminating, regardless of your objectives. The road to hell needs no further paving. I encourage those who witness or are impacted by D&I activities that violate labor law to report them to regulators, and even an employment attorney, whenever possible.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Blind interviews do not help like you think [1] and overall the fact of the matter is that it's just not proven to work yet. It sounds like you're making up a lot of hysteria for absolutely nothing, considering I have rarely seen any D&I efforts that would negatively impact me as a white man. Ultimately if you want to argue about D&I efforts being ineffectual you need to be less sensationalist and more grounded in facts. [1] http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-...
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      I don’t think I’m being sensationalist, generating hysteria, nor am I asking to discuss this with you. I made my comments primarily so that those with grievances about D&I activities in their orgs that don’t adhere to labor law have an idea how to seek redress. No more, no less. Edit: continuing to argue here is simply going to pollute the thread and risks a mod detachment. My email is in my profile if you want to continue the discussion.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        And if you're not willing to argue or discuss your point, then you're admitting you're just here to spit out politics rather than discuss them or the topic in any meaningful manner. D&I activities are worthy of critique and discussion because there is a lot that can be improved, but putting your foot down and acting like all D&I efforts are racist, sexist or should involve talking to a lawyer is absolutely sensationalist and generating hysteria.