3 ms·

DEI acknowledges that there is a historical legacy of disenfranchisement that produced certain inequalities at community-scale. For instance, discrimination aga

DEI acknowledges that there is a historical legacy of disenfranchisement that produced certain inequalities at community-scale. For instance, discrimination against some groups was actually codified for the overwhelming majority of U.S. history and, beyond that, the biases, social networks, etc. that arose over that history didn't suddenly end when the laws changed. They exist today. So, DEI accounts for this reality and is not inherently toxic. It's just been characterized as such to sow division in a cynical, revisionist effort to re-frame attempts to rectify the legacy of discrimination as the actual discrimination.

leereeves 2y ago
There are so many historic (and present) inequalities. DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups of particular political importance to Democrats. In fact, sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality, like women in college, where they are nearly 60% of students.
- mancerayder 2y ago
  Even worse - it created a new class that never really existed in the current form, namely 'of color', which includes a vast group of people both that have been historically disenfranchised as well as those who are in the highest tiers of per capita wealth in the U.S. by current statistical measures. People who have a generational claim to U.S. inequal structures, as the person you are replying to might say, as well as recent immigrants who have gone to top tier tech schools in their home countries, raised in the top caste of their home countries. A similar category is 'Hispanic', which within it has some people of extraordinary wealth. I know of one who used a half-Hispanic heritage to get into an undergrad Ivy League school, and proudly said he was gaming the system - extremely wealthy family. There are so many 'but that's an edge condition' situations one can come up with, that what ends up happening is a random collection of ways that you can 'register' to be in such an oppressed class (it's not hard to do, especially if you are an immigrant with immigrant parents, depending on where they were born, or if you want to be REALLY cynical and claim gender identity differences). And if you don't, you are left out and hence we have a big backlash and massive suspicion in the large corporations where these HR departments are taking a hammer in enforcing DEI in a sweet but firm tone. Even one who supports DEI efforts should at least understand this backlash. (This reply isn't geared specifically to the person I'm replying to, who seems to agree, but more broadly)
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups Not sure what "most sources of inequality" is supposed to mean. In any case, DEI is not intended to address every "source of inequality". By definition: "DEI are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability." So, it is specifically intended to address historical targets of underrepresentation and discrimination. >...of particular political importance to Democrats The corollary is that anti-DEI favors a single group of particular importance to Republicans. Anti-DEI was a thing before there was DEI. That's the point of DEI. It's a response. >sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality... nearly 60% of students. It's easy to pick a statistic that we like. But, of course, this single stat is not dispositive of anything.

leereeves 2y ago

There are so many historic (and present) inequalities. DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups of particular political importance to Democrats. In fact, sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality, like women in college, where they are nearly 60% of students.

mancerayder 2y ago
Even worse - it created a new class that never really existed in the current form, namely 'of color', which includes a vast group of people both that have been historically disenfranchised as well as those who are in the highest tiers of per capita wealth in the U.S. by current statistical measures. People who have a generational claim to U.S. inequal structures, as the person you are replying to might say, as well as recent immigrants who have gone to top tier tech schools in their home countries, raised in the top caste of their home countries. A similar category is 'Hispanic', which within it has some people of extraordinary wealth. I know of one who used a half-Hispanic heritage to get into an undergrad Ivy League school, and proudly said he was gaming the system - extremely wealthy family. There are so many 'but that's an edge condition' situations one can come up with, that what ends up happening is a random collection of ways that you can 'register' to be in such an oppressed class (it's not hard to do, especially if you are an immigrant with immigrant parents, depending on where they were born, or if you want to be REALLY cynical and claim gender identity differences). And if you don't, you are left out and hence we have a big backlash and massive suspicion in the large corporations where these HR departments are taking a hammer in enforcing DEI in a sweet but firm tone. Even one who supports DEI efforts should at least understand this backlash. (This reply isn't geared specifically to the person I'm replying to, who seems to agree, but more broadly)
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>DEI is toxic because it ignores most sources of inequality and favors a few groups Not sure what "most sources of inequality" is supposed to mean. In any case, DEI is not intended to address every "source of inequality". By definition: "DEI are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability." So, it is specifically intended to address historical targets of underrepresentation and discrimination. >...of particular political importance to Democrats The corollary is that anti-DEI favors a single group of particular importance to Republicans. Anti-DEI was a thing before there was DEI. That's the point of DEI. It's a response. >sometimes DEI even favors groups who are on the advantaged side of inequality... nearly 60% of students. It's easy to pick a statistic that we like. But, of course, this single stat is not dispositive of anything.