8 ms·
I’ve interviewed candidates for DEI specific roles. Not sure how that aligns with your narrative.
by notyourwork 2y ago
I’ve interviewed candidates for DEI specific roles. Not sure how that aligns with your narrative.
- edoceo 2y agoWhat is a DEI specific role? Isn't that against EoE rules?
- ceejayoz 2y agoSomeone tasked with making sure your site works on a screen reader? Adding alt tags to images? Plenty of inclusive roles are non-controversial.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI would classify that as a role tasked with ADA compliance, not "DEI".
- ceejayoz 2y agoOne might readily describe the ADA as a DEI initiative, yes.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- grues-dinner 2y agoI would say that DEI has sucked a huge amount of oxygen out of the room on accessibility. It's all out of the same budget, but as you can see, most people don't think of accessibility when they think of DEI, they think of race, gender and sexuality. And out of those, accessibility is the one that has actual measurable metrics and requires expensive technical skill and compromises with non-accessible functions to implement well. Everything else on the list is PR work.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago> I would say that DEI has sucked a huge amount of oxygen out of the room on accessibility Which is a real shame because accessibility features and policies actually make things better and easier for everyone.
- pc86 2y agoOne would be objectively wrong, though.
- ceejayoz 2y agoDisabilities come in a diverse variety. People with disabilities wanted to be included in society. The goal of the Act was to provide a more equitable society for those people. It would absolutely be derided as "woke DEI nonsense" if proposed today.
- pc86 2y agoYes I see you doing this all over the thread italicizing the same words and using them slightly differently, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. ADA predates DEI by a couple decades. Lots of people, including Republicans, support the ADA and support expanding its protections. This is a pretty standard tactic of partisans when their pet issue becomes unpopular - take something unrelated, or at best tangentially related, and pretend it's related or that that's what they've been advocating for all along. I don't care if you support the ADA or you don't. I don't care if you support DEI or you don't. But they're different, they've never been related, and any attempt by partisans on the left to lump them together is just trying to reframe the issue as "against DEI == against the ADA" because of course everyone on the right hates disabled people right?
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Lots of people, including Republicans, support the ADA and support expanding its protections. Now, sure. At the time? Same sort of bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Opposition_from_religious_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac... Both are rooted in the same concept - that people should have fair opportunity to participate in society even if different in some ways.
- pc86 2y agoScroll up a couple lines from your link and take a look at the sponsor, who Republicans nominated to be President. So no, your partisan assertion is nonsense.
- throwaway48476 2y agoThat's called accessibility.
- ceejayoz 2y agoWhich means being inclusive towards a diverse set of different conditions, so those people may equally access content others have access to?
- throwpoaster 2y agoThe “E” doesn’t mean “equal”…
- ceejayoz 2y agoChange it to "equitably" if you prefer. The point remains the same.
- throwpoaster 2y agoDo you think there is a functional difference between those words?
- ceejayoz 2y agoI think you could easily describe accessibility efforts to be an attempt to provide both equal and equitable access to content.
- throwpoaster 2y agoEquity requires unequal treatment so do you have an example?
- ceejayoz 2y agoSure. Equal is giving everyone a printout. Equity is giving the blind student a Braille version. The latter is an attempt at providing equal access to the contents to those with different needs, so that they may learn equitably. (The alternative term JEDI might argue that this is the just result.)
- Geee 2y agoNo, it's not that. DEI would be hiring a blind person, over a more qualified non-blind person.
- ceejayoz 2y agoNo, that's a flat out lie. DEI would be concerned with encouraging applicants by and consideration of blind people to a role they can still effectively perform. It's based on the generally logical idea that if your company with 10k people is staffed with 99% white males in a place where that doesn't reflect the workforce, the most logical conclusion is probably not "only white males can perform this role".
- Geee 2y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Maybe men are indeed better firefighters than women generally? On average? Maybe! The woman in that video looks like she could severely kick my ass; I strongly suspect she could carry me. (I also suspect there are multiple roles in a fire call, and "carry big man" may be balanced by "squeeze into tight spot" tasks at times.) If you can't hear the joking tone in that statement in the video, I'm not sure how to help you. "You're in a fire, I'm helping you, don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
- Geee 2y agoYes, she is making fun of people who say that increasing the number of women firefighters will result in more people dying. I think firefighting is an extreme example, where the actual job competence should be the most important qualification, and DEI should absolutely have no place.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> I think firefighting is an extreme example, where the actual job competence should be the most important qualification, and DEI should absolutely have no place. DEI simply posits "there are probably some women just as qualified (or more!) as some of the men you already hire, so be open to it and perhaps encourage their consideration". Very few organizations manage to hire the absolute best person on the planet for a particular role and over-estimate the extent to which their interview process manages to successfully filter for it. There are absolutely differences between men and women, but there's a lot of overlap. The absolute six-sigma ends of the bell curves likely matter if you're, say, at the Olympics, but my local fire department has visibly overweight men in their 60s on staff. And that's fine! But it probably tells you that quite a few women (like the one in your video) are also capable of doing what they do - of which a significant portion is not carrying unconscious people out of burning houses. (I've selected male/female simply as an example here. There'll be different excuses offered for not hiring black firefighters or gay firefighters in reasonable proportions.)
- ttpphd 2y agoIt is extremely telling that when you hear "DEI specific role" you wrongly imagint that refers to the identity of the person rather than someone who's role it is to work on issues around diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago[flagged]
- pc86 2y agoThat's one interpretation but the next sentence doesn't really track with that. Of course there are roles in DEI departments, and roles focused on DEI. That doesn't do anything to weaken the argument the GP was making but that second sentence sounds like it should. The reasonable interpretation then is that this isn't the right interpretation. The only other one I can think of is having prescribed immutable characteristics you're hiring for.
- Jcampuzano2 2y agoWell I interpreted it the way you're saying and I still don't understand the real world need of that role in most companies. Why not simply hire the most qualified/best people for the job? If it ends up being diverse, great. If not well thats not really a big issue either as long as the hiring is fair. What does that role provide outside of forced diversity i.e. racism. If it helps I am not a white male myself, but Mexican.
- edoceo 2y agoIt was me telling you I'm ignorant. Was it telling something else?
- ApolloFortyNine 2y agoIf a role is specifically set to be filled by diversity hires, I really don't understand how that's not racist (or choose your descriptor here) towards whoever has been excluded for that role.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoIt is racist. Proponents of such diversity hiring try to redefine racism in such a way that their definition excludes diversity hiring, but that's bad faith rhetorical tricks.
- LightBug1 2y agoI've actually never seen a 'diversity hire' take place. When we set DEI policy and act on it, it was about trying to encourage a more diverse pool and a more diverse group of choosers. That's it. Then let the talent speak. However, let's assume a 'diversity hire' did take place in the negative scenario you imagine. Quota's, I imagine. It still wouldn't be racist as it wouldn't be based on racial superiority. You can call it something else, if you like. But it wouldn't be racist. A 'mistake' perhaps. There are many out there who beat their chest and say that 'the word racist is overused so as to become meaningless'. You've just fallen into that hole. EDIT: (it appears I've been blocked from replying here so to my children, lol: @Shawabawa: "For as long as I've been conscious and with a dictionary (40 years), 'racism' has always been about a belief in the superiority and supremacy of one race over the other, and the actions that stem from that. Sure, your simple version is included also, but the fundamental (and meaningful) definition was always about supremacy. But really ... based on some of the comments here and the prevailing political climate in the US, let's call it quits. It really doesn't matter. The 'winners' write the history, as they say." @seryoiupfurds: "Well, better than your first attempt. But the thrust of your comment is still that 'diversity hiring' is the norm. My experience says it's not - and certainly not in the way we apply DEI.")
- seryoiupfurds 2y agoOK, so it's "just" systematic racial discrimination then. Much better.