7 ms·

DEI is just giving other people the chance to setup the opportunity pipeline that already exists for white people in a white dominated society. It isn't a law.

by chneu 2y ago

DEI is just giving other people the chance to setup the opportunity pipeline that already exists for white people in a white dominated society. It isn't a law. It's just looking at history and going, "They'd probably be as successful if there was a pipeline for those folks to get there, since that pipeline doesn't exist we need to represent them to allow the pipeline to be built." You also don't seem to fully know what DEI is. You assume it's specifically hiring less qualified people because of their skin color. That isn't what DEI is. It isn't racism. It's just giving other people the same chance of success. Representation is important. Anti-DEI is just white people, once again, being offended that someone else is getting equal treatment. Look at trans hate, same thing. Look at book bans, same thing. It's just white folks getting upset and being offended.

leereeves 2y ago
> the opportunity pipeline that already exists for white people There is no opportunity pipeline for white people. There is an opportunity pipeline for a small number of well connected, wealthy people who can get their kids into elite prep schools starting from kindergarten. It's not open to working class white people. Edit: that doesn't mean no working class white person can succeed. Just that the prep school, elite university, big corporation (or startup founder) "pipeline" - which certainly does exist - is for wealthy people.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  What would an opportunity pipeline for white people look like? How would we detect one if it were to exist?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Why ask me? It was chneu who claimed it existed. Edit: Yes, I made a bold assertion, based on the view from the working class and the many intelligent white people I know who were held back by not being wealthy or well-connected. For those outside the elite pipeline, it's an advantage not to be white. If there's a pipeline I don't know about, I'd like to hear it. Point it out so more people can join the pipeline to success!
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      You claimed it didn't exist[1]. Presumably you had some criteria, found no evidence and then made a conclusion. What was your criteria? 1. A substantially different claim than "We have no evidence for its existence" or "We don't know that it exists".
- wredcoll 2y ago
  "Small number" is doing a lot of work. Just as an example: https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-report-gi-bill.html https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-... Quite a few "white people" got a start at accumulating property this way that was denied to "black people". Is it directly tied to going to college? No. Does it help? Probably.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    As others have said, that is now an economic advantage. There are other economic advantages. Why not level the economic playing field for everyone?
    - Larrikin 2y ago
      What if demanding leveling for everyone is a distraction so that it never gets leveled for anyone? Similar to now is not the time, thoughts and prayers, etc. It also never seems to be a problem that businesses don't need everything leveled for all businesses. The PPP loans were all taken up by people with lawyers that could quickly jump on all the money, and didn't actually help many of the businesses that needed it.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        Perhaps it is for some people, but I'm serious. I'd like to see the economic playing field leveled. I was pissed when I saw the Democrats use racism and sexism to sideline Bernie Sanders and real economic change. Remember "Bernie Bros"? Biden's "black firewall"? DEI is a defense of classism.
        wredcoll 2y ago
        > DEI is a defense of classism. That seems like a pretty far-fetched claim. You say you want to see the economic playing field leveled, does spending time and energy trying to tear down the existing DEI systems get you closer to that goal or farther away?
- theshackleford 2y ago
  I come from a working class background, if that’s what you can call two parents who have spent most of their life on welfare of various kinds. I along with many of my white friends are now high six figure earners. I have no high school completion, no university education, no qualifications. So obviously it’s not as closed as you are pretending it is.
- harimau777 2y ago
  That's where the idea of intersectionality comes in. A person who is white and poor might be worse off than someone who is black and rich; however, someone who is black and poor would likely be worse off than both of them. That's also why DEI advocates generally don't advocate focusing exclusively on race. Instead they generally advocate that DEI focus on many factors such as race, wealth, disability, sexuality, gender, military service, etc.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    I think that's a step in the right direction. I'd just take it one step further, consider all the factors of each person's life, and thus treat people as individuals and not as representatives of a few select groups. Intersectionality excludes too many factors as it focuses on just a few.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I guess we don't agree what DEI is. I'm against different criteria for people based on race. This is most apparent in school admissions and affirmative action. I think it is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to have dual standards based on race. Also, I don't appreciate you blatant racism putting all white people into a single stereotype, not do I think it is accurate
- __egb__ 2y ago
  > I'm against different criteria for people based on race. Take away affirmative action and any explicit race-based admissions and hiring programs and we’re still left with different criteria based on race. For example, it’s been shown that resumes with names perceived as “Black” get less attention than those with names perceived as “white”[1][2]. In another of your comments you acknowledged that such discrimination does still exist and that we should work to eliminate it. What does that mean? Educating people about it, right? Perhaps implementing a blind screening process? Everywhere I’ve worked, such programs were part of the DEI group. Now, all of those programs are gone. How can we work to eliminate still-existing discrimination if we can’t even talk about it anymore? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/04/17/new-research-reveals-resumes-with-black-names-experience-bias-in-the-hiring-process/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/04/17/new-res... [2] https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-n...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I would 100% support blind screening and application where possible. Also educating recruiters and diversifying pipelines. My job had the latter, and I supported it. What I don't approve of was my annual bonus depending hitting on targets for % minority hires. That shouldn't be on my mind when I'm interviewing candidates.
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      Blind hiring does not actually work, it's essentially Recruitment Theatre as a way of making you feel like the interview process is more fair when it's actually more discriminatory. There's been studies on this effect where they've attempted to anonymous names, backgrounds and other personal details but it often has little effects or even an opposite effect. People are really good at finding accurate proxies for their bias unfortunately. And it only really works until you get to the actual interview phase which is a really small portion of the process. So you end up with a recruitment pipeline that's racist but now in the opposite direction.

by chneu 2y ago

leereeves 2y ago

> the opportunity pipeline that already exists for white people There is no opportunity pipeline for white people. There is an opportunity pipeline for a small number of well connected, wealthy people who can get their kids into elite prep schools starting from kindergarten. It's not open to working class white people. Edit: that doesn't mean no working class white person can succeed. Just that the prep school, elite university, big corporation (or startup founder) "pipeline" - which certainly does exist - is for wealthy people.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
What would an opportunity pipeline for white people look like? How would we detect one if it were to exist?
- leereeves 2y ago
  Why ask me? It was chneu who claimed it existed. Edit: Yes, I made a bold assertion, based on the view from the working class and the many intelligent white people I know who were held back by not being wealthy or well-connected. For those outside the elite pipeline, it's an advantage not to be white. If there's a pipeline I don't know about, I'd like to hear it. Point it out so more people can join the pipeline to success!
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    You claimed it didn't exist[1]. Presumably you had some criteria, found no evidence and then made a conclusion. What was your criteria? 1. A substantially different claim than "We have no evidence for its existence" or "We don't know that it exists".
wredcoll 2y ago
"Small number" is doing a lot of work. Just as an example: https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-report-gi-bill.html https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-... Quite a few "white people" got a start at accumulating property this way that was denied to "black people". Is it directly tied to going to college? No. Does it help? Probably.
- leereeves 2y ago
  As others have said, that is now an economic advantage. There are other economic advantages. Why not level the economic playing field for everyone?
  - Larrikin 2y ago
    What if demanding leveling for everyone is a distraction so that it never gets leveled for anyone? Similar to now is not the time, thoughts and prayers, etc. It also never seems to be a problem that businesses don't need everything leveled for all businesses. The PPP loans were all taken up by people with lawyers that could quickly jump on all the money, and didn't actually help many of the businesses that needed it.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Perhaps it is for some people, but I'm serious. I'd like to see the economic playing field leveled. I was pissed when I saw the Democrats use racism and sexism to sideline Bernie Sanders and real economic change. Remember "Bernie Bros"? Biden's "black firewall"? DEI is a defense of classism.
      - wredcoll 2y ago
        > DEI is a defense of classism. That seems like a pretty far-fetched claim. You say you want to see the economic playing field leveled, does spending time and energy trying to tear down the existing DEI systems get you closer to that goal or farther away?
theshackleford 2y ago
I come from a working class background, if that’s what you can call two parents who have spent most of their life on welfare of various kinds. I along with many of my white friends are now high six figure earners. I have no high school completion, no university education, no qualifications. So obviously it’s not as closed as you are pretending it is.
harimau777 2y ago
That's where the idea of intersectionality comes in. A person who is white and poor might be worse off than someone who is black and rich; however, someone who is black and poor would likely be worse off than both of them. That's also why DEI advocates generally don't advocate focusing exclusively on race. Instead they generally advocate that DEI focus on many factors such as race, wealth, disability, sexuality, gender, military service, etc.
- leereeves 2y ago
  I think that's a step in the right direction. I'd just take it one step further, consider all the factors of each person's life, and thus treat people as individuals and not as representatives of a few select groups. Intersectionality excludes too many factors as it focuses on just a few.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I guess we don't agree what DEI is. I'm against different criteria for people based on race. This is most apparent in school admissions and affirmative action. I think it is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to have dual standards based on race. Also, I don't appreciate you blatant racism putting all white people into a single stereotype, not do I think it is accurate

__egb__ 2y ago
> I'm against different criteria for people based on race. Take away affirmative action and any explicit race-based admissions and hiring programs and we’re still left with different criteria based on race. For example, it’s been shown that resumes with names perceived as “Black” get less attention than those with names perceived as “white”[1][2]. In another of your comments you acknowledged that such discrimination does still exist and that we should work to eliminate it. What does that mean? Educating people about it, right? Perhaps implementing a blind screening process? Everywhere I’ve worked, such programs were part of the DEI group. Now, all of those programs are gone. How can we work to eliminate still-existing discrimination if we can’t even talk about it anymore? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/04/17/new-research-reveals-resumes-with-black-names-experience-bias-in-the-hiring-process/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/04/17/new-res... [2] https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-names https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/employers-replies-racial-n...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I would 100% support blind screening and application where possible. Also educating recruiters and diversifying pipelines. My job had the latter, and I supported it. What I don't approve of was my annual bonus depending hitting on targets for % minority hires. That shouldn't be on my mind when I'm interviewing candidates.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    Blind hiring does not actually work, it's essentially Recruitment Theatre as a way of making you feel like the interview process is more fair when it's actually more discriminatory. There's been studies on this effect where they've attempted to anonymous names, backgrounds and other personal details but it often has little effects or even an opposite effect. People are really good at finding accurate proxies for their bias unfortunately. And it only really works until you get to the actual interview phase which is a really small portion of the process. So you end up with a recruitment pipeline that's racist but now in the opposite direction.