6 ms·

DEI as a philosophy is fundamentally flawed. Its whole premise is alleviating racism in the workplace, yet its practical effect is giving certain races a favora

DEI as a philosophy is fundamentally flawed. Its whole premise is alleviating racism in the workplace, yet its practical effect is giving certain races a favorable edge in the hiring process, independent of merit. Is this not in itself inherently racist? I raised this with colleagues on a few separate ocassions and was promptly shunned, yet they didn't have an answer. Most recently when he hired an engineer from one of these "favorable races" even when half of the interview panel recommended a no-hire.

xvector 3y ago
Yes, hiring a no-hire engineer to meet DEI quotas is completely unacceptable, but who is going to risk their job to suggest that? A culture of fear has been created around speaking out against stuff like this. Your coworkers probably agree with you, but conversations critical of DEI efforts in the workplace are radioactive as HR will come down on you for being racist or whatever. Thus, the DEI bubble in any corporation is completely insulated from checks and balances or internal critical feedback.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
anonporridge 3y ago
DEI and affirmative action are systemic racism in a very literal sense.
rglover 3y ago
> Is this not in itself inherently racist? Yes. It's assuming that the non-white person is in some way incompetent or lesser than (soft bigotry of low expectations) and needs a boost from the feigned-benevolence of the white man (or opportunistic "person of color"). FWIW, I'm mixed-race (white/black) and was mouth-agape at how this got as far as it did the past few years.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  I don’t think it assumes that the candidate is in any way not as qualified. It assumes the candidate is not as likely to get hired because of bias in the hiring process.
  - rglover 3y ago
    > I don’t think it assumes that the candidate is in any way not as qualified. It assumes the candidate is not as likely to get hired because of bias in the hiring process. That's the sneaky part. There's an assumed "bias," but it's rarely rooted in fact or backed by statistical evidence and more of a religious statement. At best, it's admission of a guilty conscience [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs
  - anonporridge 3y ago
    If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group. Then you end up with a wider range of quality levels among the underrepresented group (because you had to scrape deeper in the barrel to fill your quota, and the overrepresented group ends up being in the higher quality band (because scooping the cream off the top filled the quota). This has the really perverse effect of creating a true observation (in the context of your organization) that the average quality of the underrepresented group is lower than the average quality of the overrepresented group. e.g. the asian men you hired are all the cream of the crop and the black women you hired are everything from the cream to the dregs. I suppose you could artificially hire lower quality overrepresented groups to correct for this, but then you're really setting yourself up to be outcompeted by companies that only hire the highest quality employees they can.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      "If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group." This is uninteresting thinking. If the pool doesn't have enough qualified candidates, you expand the pool. That requires more effort. That's good effort that should be taken. It's lazy to do otherwise.
KaiserPro 3y ago
> yet its practical effect is giving certain races a favorable edge in the hiring process, independent of merit. Is this not in itself inherently racist? yes, which is why that kind of thing is illegal in the UK. Proper DEI is about creating a decent pipeline of people, that includes outreach, or having training programmes for non-traditional juniors. And, if done properly, its a great way to lower your wage bill, as you hire people at more junior levels and keep them longer. (you need to job hop to get good wage increases.) But that requires a commitment to develop your own team. (regardless of who they are)
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  It's not illegal in the UK. Go read the Equality Act again. You're allowed to engage in racist and sexist discrimination if you're doing it to achieve affirmative action. That's why executives can say they discriminate against men in parliamentary testimony and nothing happens.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Anybody can say anything in parliamentary testimony and enjoy the protection of parliamentary freedom of speech. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lords-publications/rules-and-guides-for-business/companion-to-the-standing-orders/companion-chapter-12/ https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lor... Actions outside of parliamentary testimony are not protected .. but these have to be seperately observed | evidenced as the testimony cannot be used to convict.
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    Oh you mean: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter... Specifically outlaws having a policy of lowering the bar. You can only choose one protected character over another if they are equally qualified. Specifically the guidance that comes with this says that its legally unwise to do anything past pipeline stage, once you have reached interviewing, its a bad idea. Its certainly something I'm not going to do. Now, in the uk we do not have "affirmative action" thats an americanism. We do not need to import american racism issues, we have enough of our own. I have worked in IT long enough, and recruited enough people to know that the people who complain about the "bar" generally are never privy to the actual data.
Hnrobert42 3y ago
Your assertions have two potentials flaws. 1. You assume that giving a certain race a favorable edge is unfair. If the premise of DEI is correct, that the field is tilted against certain races, then having a preference for those races is leveling the playing field, not tilting it in their favor. 2. Perhaps hiring a no-hire was exactly the right thing to do. Perhaps the interviewers were prejudiced against the candidate for reasons other than merit. Of course, I don’t know the exact situation, so I said “potential” flaws.
MyShawdowySelf 3y ago
> Its whole premise is alleviating racism in the workplace No, as a non american living in the US i find american obsession with race fascinating. DEI is about every characteristic on which human can differ and how those difference play a role in the work place. Race is of course a factor , but so are neuro divergence, language, culture, gender and sexuality. Hell even things like "Don't schedule a meeting before 9 AM" is a form of inclusion for the non morning people. > yet its practical effect is giving certain races a favorable edge in the hiring process, independent of merit. Then that's a badly designed program. However the other side of the equation, if there some aspect of the workplace ( such as say every important meeting are at 8 AM) are needlessly preventing certain people of expressing their talent... we should also look into it. > Most recently when he hired an engineer from one of these "favorable races" even when half of the interview panel recommended a no-hire. Yeah sounds like a problem. Maybe look into the statistics to see if usually those type of candidate would have been rejected.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > No, as a non american living in the US i find american obsession with race fascinating. Especially super weird is the hiring practises of (non-US) businesses OUTSIDE the US who've blindly copied this US DEI stuff without thinking if it even applies. Several major Australian universities (and some gov departments) practically don't hire white males any more. As several friends already working at these places have complained about in private. Sometimes forwarding the "new and updated policy" mass emails from HR about it, just to show how insane things have become.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Specially at the same time when we are seeing gender-ratios going the other way. For some reason we are not working hard to aim it squarely to match general population...
- lopkeny12ko 3y ago
  > However the other side of the equation, if there some aspect of the workplace ( such as say every important meeting are at 8 AM) are needlessly preventing certain people of expressing their talent... we should also look into it. This is a disingeuous point of comparison, because this is a behavior that can easily be corrected. Just set an alarm clock like everyone else. On the other hand, I cannot correct the fact that I am from a non-minority background. How is it in any way fair for me to be disadvantaged in the hiring process for something I cannot control? > Maybe look into the statistics to see if usually those type of candidate would have been rejected. This sounds like a question asked in bad faith. Rather than analyzing hiring outcomes by background, does it not make a lot more sense to analyze hiring decisions based on interview performance, totally independent of race/language/gender/etc. If this data is then correlated against race, and hiring decisions are provably equitable across races, then great! But anecdotal evidence suggests this is not the case.
dayvid 3y ago
DEI != affirmative action Most DEI work I've seen at my company was in reducing HR complaints from women, LGBT and different ethnic groups. When it comes to hiring, it was in showing up at recruiting events and other areas to encourage people to apply. I've done interviews and I think they're more fair/merit-based than other places. I view it as a positive. Also barely any minority applicants. A lot of DEI was to counterract really annoying people on one side who were very racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. and ruin the environment or opportunities for people. I think this is just the pendulum swinging the other direction where some people are very vocal or unfair in dealing with men, white people, republican, etc. and/or creating an unproductive work environment getting mired in politics. Also recession creates more economic pressure for results, but I honestly think DEI has barely had an impact in most companies and most revenue loss is hiring consultats or bad hires.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  And at two of the three companies I've worked at, diversity initiatives came in the form of explicit discrimination. Both instituted explicit percentage quotas, and at Dropbox we straight up reserved a segment of our headcount for women and URM candidates. Ostensibly, these quotas were for both URM of any gender, and women of any race. In practice, nearly 100% of people benefitting from these policies were non-URM women. So at least in my experience, DEI == affirmative action for white and Asian women.
normalaccess 3y ago
I think the idea that it's "fighting radicalism" has always been a ploy. Take a real moment to look at it and it's flawed on almost every level. I believe it's a candy coated "virtue" shell they wrap around their hatred for white people and white culture. The color wars have been going on for at least 100 years in the US. Just look at the testimony of Manning Johnson. The communists of the 1920s realized that race was the weakest point in the American social fabric and bent a large quantity of resources on that point (and probably still do). If they figured that out then others have too. EDIT: Spelling

xvector 3y ago

Yes, hiring a no-hire engineer to meet DEI quotas is completely unacceptable, but who is going to risk their job to suggest that? A culture of fear has been created around speaking out against stuff like this. Your coworkers probably agree with you, but conversations critical of DEI efforts in the workplace are radioactive as HR will come down on you for being racist or whatever. Thus, the DEI bubble in any corporation is completely insulated from checks and balances or internal critical feedback.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

anonporridge 3y ago

DEI and affirmative action are systemic racism in a very literal sense.

rglover 3y ago

> Is this not in itself inherently racist? Yes. It's assuming that the non-white person is in some way incompetent or lesser than (soft bigotry of low expectations) and needs a boost from the feigned-benevolence of the white man (or opportunistic "person of color"). FWIW, I'm mixed-race (white/black) and was mouth-agape at how this got as far as it did the past few years.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
I don’t think it assumes that the candidate is in any way not as qualified. It assumes the candidate is not as likely to get hired because of bias in the hiring process.
- rglover 3y ago
  > I don’t think it assumes that the candidate is in any way not as qualified. It assumes the candidate is not as likely to get hired because of bias in the hiring process. That's the sneaky part. There's an assumed "bias," but it's rarely rooted in fact or backed by statistical evidence and more of a religious statement. At best, it's admission of a guilty conscience [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs
- anonporridge 3y ago
  If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group. Then you end up with a wider range of quality levels among the underrepresented group (because you had to scrape deeper in the barrel to fill your quota, and the overrepresented group ends up being in the higher quality band (because scooping the cream off the top filled the quota). This has the really perverse effect of creating a true observation (in the context of your organization) that the average quality of the underrepresented group is lower than the average quality of the overrepresented group. e.g. the asian men you hired are all the cream of the crop and the black women you hired are everything from the cream to the dregs. I suppose you could artificially hire lower quality overrepresented groups to correct for this, but then you're really setting yourself up to be outcompeted by companies that only hire the highest quality employees they can.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    "If the pool of candidates doesn't itself have the race or sex proportions that you're hoping to hire, then you intrinsically have to lower your standards at least for the underrepresented group." This is uninteresting thinking. If the pool doesn't have enough qualified candidates, you expand the pool. That requires more effort. That's good effort that should be taken. It's lazy to do otherwise.

KaiserPro 3y ago

> yet its practical effect is giving certain races a favorable edge in the hiring process, independent of merit. Is this not in itself inherently racist? yes, which is why that kind of thing is illegal in the UK. Proper DEI is about creating a decent pipeline of people, that includes outreach, or having training programmes for non-traditional juniors. And, if done properly, its a great way to lower your wage bill, as you hire people at more junior levels and keep them longer. (you need to job hop to get good wage increases.) But that requires a commitment to develop your own team. (regardless of who they are)

nvm0n2 3y ago
It's not illegal in the UK. Go read the Equality Act again. You're allowed to engage in racist and sexist discrimination if you're doing it to achieve affirmative action. That's why executives can say they discriminate against men in parliamentary testimony and nothing happens.
- defrost 3y ago
  Anybody can say anything in parliamentary testimony and enjoy the protection of parliamentary freedom of speech. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lords-publications/rules-and-guides-for-business/companion-to-the-standing-orders/companion-chapter-12/ https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lor... Actions outside of parliamentary testimony are not protected .. but these have to be seperately observed | evidenced as the testimony cannot be used to convict.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  Oh you mean: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter... Specifically outlaws having a policy of lowering the bar. You can only choose one protected character over another if they are equally qualified. Specifically the guidance that comes with this says that its legally unwise to do anything past pipeline stage, once you have reached interviewing, its a bad idea. Its certainly something I'm not going to do. Now, in the uk we do not have "affirmative action" thats an americanism. We do not need to import american racism issues, we have enough of our own. I have worked in IT long enough, and recruited enough people to know that the people who complain about the "bar" generally are never privy to the actual data.

Hnrobert42 3y ago

Your assertions have two potentials flaws. 1. You assume that giving a certain race a favorable edge is unfair. If the premise of DEI is correct, that the field is tilted against certain races, then having a preference for those races is leveling the playing field, not tilting it in their favor. 2. Perhaps hiring a no-hire was exactly the right thing to do. Perhaps the interviewers were prejudiced against the candidate for reasons other than merit. Of course, I don’t know the exact situation, so I said “potential” flaws.

MyShawdowySelf 3y ago

> Its whole premise is alleviating racism in the workplace No, as a non american living in the US i find american obsession with race fascinating. DEI is about every characteristic on which human can differ and how those difference play a role in the work place. Race is of course a factor , but so are neuro divergence, language, culture, gender and sexuality. Hell even things like "Don't schedule a meeting before 9 AM" is a form of inclusion for the non morning people. > yet its practical effect is giving certain races a favorable edge in the hiring process, independent of merit. Then that's a badly designed program. However the other side of the equation, if there some aspect of the workplace ( such as say every important meeting are at 8 AM) are needlessly preventing certain people of expressing their talent... we should also look into it. > Most recently when he hired an engineer from one of these "favorable races" even when half of the interview panel recommended a no-hire. Yeah sounds like a problem. Maybe look into the statistics to see if usually those type of candidate would have been rejected.

justinclift 3y ago
> No, as a non american living in the US i find american obsession with race fascinating. Especially super weird is the hiring practises of (non-US) businesses OUTSIDE the US who've blindly copied this US DEI stuff without thinking if it even applies. Several major Australian universities (and some gov departments) practically don't hire white males any more. As several friends already working at these places have complained about in private. Sometimes forwarding the "new and updated policy" mass emails from HR about it, just to show how insane things have become.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Specially at the same time when we are seeing gender-ratios going the other way. For some reason we are not working hard to aim it squarely to match general population...
lopkeny12ko 3y ago
> However the other side of the equation, if there some aspect of the workplace ( such as say every important meeting are at 8 AM) are needlessly preventing certain people of expressing their talent... we should also look into it. This is a disingeuous point of comparison, because this is a behavior that can easily be corrected. Just set an alarm clock like everyone else. On the other hand, I cannot correct the fact that I am from a non-minority background. How is it in any way fair for me to be disadvantaged in the hiring process for something I cannot control? > Maybe look into the statistics to see if usually those type of candidate would have been rejected. This sounds like a question asked in bad faith. Rather than analyzing hiring outcomes by background, does it not make a lot more sense to analyze hiring decisions based on interview performance, totally independent of race/language/gender/etc. If this data is then correlated against race, and hiring decisions are provably equitable across races, then great! But anecdotal evidence suggests this is not the case.

dayvid 3y ago

DEI != affirmative action Most DEI work I've seen at my company was in reducing HR complaints from women, LGBT and different ethnic groups. When it comes to hiring, it was in showing up at recruiting events and other areas to encourage people to apply. I've done interviews and I think they're more fair/merit-based than other places. I view it as a positive. Also barely any minority applicants. A lot of DEI was to counterract really annoying people on one side who were very racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. and ruin the environment or opportunities for people. I think this is just the pendulum swinging the other direction where some people are very vocal or unfair in dealing with men, white people, republican, etc. and/or creating an unproductive work environment getting mired in politics. Also recession creates more economic pressure for results, but I honestly think DEI has barely had an impact in most companies and most revenue loss is hiring consultats or bad hires.

Manuel_D 3y ago
And at two of the three companies I've worked at, diversity initiatives came in the form of explicit discrimination. Both instituted explicit percentage quotas, and at Dropbox we straight up reserved a segment of our headcount for women and URM candidates. Ostensibly, these quotas were for both URM of any gender, and women of any race. In practice, nearly 100% of people benefitting from these policies were non-URM women. So at least in my experience, DEI == affirmative action for white and Asian women.

normalaccess 3y ago

I think the idea that it's "fighting radicalism" has always been a ploy. Take a real moment to look at it and it's flawed on almost every level. I believe it's a candy coated "virtue" shell they wrap around their hatred for white people and white culture. The color wars have been going on for at least 100 years in the US. Just look at the testimony of Manning Johnson. The communists of the 1920s realized that race was the weakest point in the American social fabric and bent a large quantity of resources on that point (and probably still do). If they figured that out then others have too. EDIT: Spelling