3 ms·

What is the end goal, end state of DEI programs ? Once the numbers (quotas, designated equity proportions, etc.) are reached, are DEI administrators then thinn

What is the end goal, end state of DEI programs ? Once the numbers (quotas, designated equity proportions, etc.) are reached, are DEI administrators then thinned out ? I'm talking a future, theoretical situation. In order to answer 'what happens when the goals are met' we first need to establish what are the goals and then see if they are transparent from the outset or loose and forever adapting. If not then the risk is a future self-important bureaucratic arm that exists for its own sake. The answer can't possibly be, "they will forever be needed due to the racist and sexist nature of society" because now we're saying something interesting and possibly self-contradictory about our natures (we're not supposed to have natures, we're products of society/class/culture, is the foundational belief of the DEI ideas as they must be). Therefore an end goal is a must-have.

tharne 4y ago
> Therefore an end goal is a must-have. I agree, but this will never ever happen, which is one of the many reasons these programs are unethical money pits that only benefit people who make a career out of DEI. If you're head of DEI at a fortune 500, you're likely getting at least $500k a year in total compensation; more at some companies. Given that reality, it's only human nature to convince yourself that doing that particular job in perpetuity is massively important. Here's what will happen instead. If they start to hit their initial goals, they'll just move the goalposts. Mostly likely these will be in the form of slicing and dicing workers into ever smaller groups - you can always find a group within a group. Let's say that the DEI group at $BIG_CORP gets it so that workers from group X are represented at the company in a way that matches the proportion of the overall population they comprise. The folks in DEI will just say, "Oh no, we've made great progress with group X, but we don't have enough people in group X from the LGBTQ community; more work must be done, more money must be spent!" So, they get the LBGTQ numbers up for group X. "Oh, No!", they say, "We don't have enough people from group X who are disabled; more work must be done, more money must be spent!". The point is not, and never was, to accomplish a goal. It's to make it appear that progress toward a vaguely-state goal of diversity is continuously being made, while also making sure never to actually accomplish the goal; less the make-work jobs and juicy consulting contracts dry up. And honestly, I can't blame these folks. If I had a half million dollar a year job, I'd also find a way to keep it as long as I possibly could.

tharne 4y ago

> Therefore an end goal is a must-have. I agree, but this will never ever happen, which is one of the many reasons these programs are unethical money pits that only benefit people who make a career out of DEI. If you're head of DEI at a fortune 500, you're likely getting at least $500k a year in total compensation; more at some companies. Given that reality, it's only human nature to convince yourself that doing that particular job in perpetuity is massively important. Here's what will happen instead. If they start to hit their initial goals, they'll just move the goalposts. Mostly likely these will be in the form of slicing and dicing workers into ever smaller groups - you can always find a group within a group. Let's say that the DEI group at $BIG_CORP gets it so that workers from group X are represented at the company in a way that matches the proportion of the overall population they comprise. The folks in DEI will just say, "Oh no, we've made great progress with group X, but we don't have enough people in group X from the LGBTQ community; more work must be done, more money must be spent!" So, they get the LBGTQ numbers up for group X. "Oh, No!", they say, "We don't have enough people from group X who are disabled; more work must be done, more money must be spent!". The point is not, and never was, to accomplish a goal. It's to make it appear that progress toward a vaguely-state goal of diversity is continuously being made, while also making sure never to actually accomplish the goal; less the make-work jobs and juicy consulting contracts dry up. And honestly, I can't blame these folks. If I had a half million dollar a year job, I'd also find a way to keep it as long as I possibly could.