6 ms·

DEI in practice is illegal (we don't get to make decisions based on race, or other protected categories of a person's identity). I get trained on this once a ye

by 762236 1y ago

DEI in practice is illegal (we don't get to make decisions based on race, or other protected categories of a person's identity). I get trained on this once a year at work. What we do instead is improve the probability that underrepresented people can enter the hiring pipeline, e.g., by investing in schools.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> DEI in practice is illegal No, it isn't, and this assumption is based on a poor understanding of what DEI is. The right paints DEI as a directive to hire less-qualified people based on their race. In reality, DEI just ensures that everyone gets a fair chance regardless of their race.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  You speak of equal opportunity. What happens in practice is enforced equal outcomes which entails compromising on principles and standards to get the desired result. i.e. "Group X is under-performing at math" so therefore the problem is with inherent bias in math and we won't expect engineers and scientists to have competency in this domain to get the makeup of people we have decided upon from the start.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > You speak of equal opportunity. What happens in practice is enforced equal outcomes which entails compromising on principles and standards to get the desired result. Yes, I am aware of what you think DEI hiring practices are, but speaking as someone who has actually applied these policies, I'm telling you that that's not what happens. The propaganda simply is not true. Under DEI hiring policies, we were required to document *outreach* to underrepresented groups in order to get a more diverse hiring pool. We *never* lowered our standards and always hired the best applicant.
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
    I'll add the people that promoted it often said that amongst themselves while more publicly just talking about "diversity." They usually believed in imtersectionality, redistribution of wealth/power, etc. Their fix is systematic discrimination against specific groups to redistribute power to achieve the outcomes. And, if other groups become dominant, they still favor them over white people. We've seen that these ideologies are conflict-oriented, racist, and less effective. They were forced on us by policy and law by people who in no way represented most of Americans' thinking. Now, a different group favoring no racism, equal opportunity, and generosity to all groups based on need is reversing the prior group's work. Everyone who had been discriminated against will appreciate ending that discrimination.
    - hackyhacky 1y ago
      > I'll add the people that promoted it often said that amongst themselves while more publicly just talking about "diversity." They usually believed in imtersectionality, redistribution of wealth/power, etc. Their fix is systematic discrimination against specific groups to redistribute power to achieve the outcomes. And, if other groups become dominant, they still favor them over white people. You say this without any evidence at all. As I describe in my comment above, DEI hiring practices do not promote discrimination against anyone. The right opposes DEI because they genuinely can't understand that someone would want a fair, diverse workplace, so, as you aptly demonstrate, they insert all kinds of imaginary (and obviously false) conspiracy theories in an attempt to show that DEI is actually a disguised attempt to win power for certain favored classes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. > We've seen that these ideologies are conflict-oriented, racist, and less effective. You say "we've seen" as if it were established fact, but it isn't. You might as well as "I heard once" or "I saw on Facebook that", insofar as you're attempting to provide a factual basis for your opinions. > Now, a different group favoring no racism, equal opportunity, and generosity to all groups based on need is reversing the prior group's work. Everyone who had been discriminated against will appreciate ending that discrimination. No, the current administration is favoring a return to racism by shutting down hiring practices that would have allowed for a diverse hiring pool. Moreover, the administration is transparently also cracking down on viewpoints it doesn't like, by punishing, for example, law firms and universities that are known to to oppose the administration's cause du jour.
- pelagicAustral 1y ago
  [flagged]
mjevans 1y ago
(DEI:) Instead of focusing on any aspect of someone's genetics of beliefs, efforts should instead be made to provide opportunity to those without. Not at the inherent cost of others whom are qualified but in the sense of doing what a government should do: civil infrastructure. Everywhere should have plentiful good quality housing, medical, schools, everything else that is part of the infrastructure of society. Give those kids, and even the poor workers, nutritious meals to ensure they are ready to function as members of society. Welfare / unemployment 'insurance' shouldn't be about just getting a paycheck, they should be about connecting those without work to work that benefits society and the people who are now getting a job or furthering training towards a job rather than sitting around hoping someone will hire. Generally: government (of the people, by the people, for the people) should be about stewardship of the commons, the shared space between private areas.
fhdkweig 1y ago
It isn't just about hiring, it is about the research too. If I make a grant proposal about making a better wheelchair, that's on the ban list too.
beej71 1y ago
Every DEI program I've ever been involved in has been 100% about selecting people _purely_ on merit. Not race, not gender, not whether or not they're trans. The DEI trainings are about completely ignoring those factors when hiring. I'm curious what they call your trainings on the matter.
- fallingknife 1y ago
  Every large company I have ever worked for has had noticeably lower standards for women and minorities (except for Asians of course because fuck them in particular). They will never say it in the trainings because they know it's illegal. They will never tell anyone anything except for "don't discriminate" but then they will incentivize discrimination by things like "diversity goals" (quotas) and setting recruiter bonuses higher when they bring in favored "victim" groups. Of course if they set higher bonuses for hiring white people the courts would immediately smack them down for discrimination, but it's apparently "legal" as long as - 1. it's implicit, 2. you deny it exists, and 3. it favors a group that the liberals approve of.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.
  - electriclove 1y ago
    This is the unspoken, unadmitted truth of what has been going on. Too bad you are getting downvoted for providing perspective
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    > Of course if they set higher bonuses for hiring white people Are you saying that (straight) (white) (men) have not had (nor continue to enjoy) unfair advantages in our society? And is that not an injustice? Saying "racism is bad" is correct but only the first step. Step two is recognizing the accumulated results of long-standing historical (and continuing, frankly) discrimination against minority groups and working to right that injustice. But would like to hear your perspective.
gitremote 1y ago
DEI is not illegal. Some implementations can be illegal (racial quotas), but other implementations are not (setting up a job fair booth in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) instead of only Ivy League universities; not preferring Ivy League dropouts over HBCU graduates).
- tstrimple 1y ago
  I took their statement to mean more that "DEI as described by conservatives is already illegal" not that the concept of DEI is illegal. But they did say "in practice" which seems to throw my interpretation off. In practice, DEI initiatives are exactly as you've described. Sometimes with more specific mentoring opportunities and more or less investment in the college or earlier pipeline.
freejazz 1y ago
Sorry, what's the difference between the former and the latter? My whole understanding of DEI is perfectly described by the thing you said is illegal. Otherwise, you did not describe what "DEI" is, so I hope you can understand my confusion.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  "DEI" is the rebranding of "affirmative action",† which was itself a euphemism for distributing special privileges (most notably jobs, higher education placements, and loan approvals) to members of legally favored racial groups while punishing members of disfavored groups. All of the relevant laws specify that (1) you are not allowed to treat anybody differently based on their race, and (2) if your outcome numbers don't match what the government wants to see, there will be hell to pay. Only (2) can be directly measured, so that is the part of the law that's enforced. People report that they treat all races equally for the same reason that Soviet agriculture officials reported that the grain harvest was better than expected. † It's not clear to me why a rebranding was felt to be necessary. "Affirmative action" was popular; a lot of the loss in status of this type of initiative seems to be fairly directly related to the fact that, once the name was changed, people could reevaluate the concept without being confused by the preexisting knowledge that they approved of it.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? And that it was also at the cost of "disfavored groups"? Is there anything to back this up? Redlining was a real phenomenon. You might not agree with Coates or his proposed solution, but I've not seen anyone attack the numbers, which speak for themselves. I don't agree with pretty much the entirety of your post but that stuck out.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      > You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? Of course; it is a major focus of governmental affirmative action efforts. > Is there anything to back this up? Again, of course. > Redlining was a real phenomenon. And? Do you think it was a real phenomenon after the 1960s? School segregation was a real phenomenon too; in your opinion, does that mean that modern schools do not admit applicants because they are favored minorities? Before deciding whether you approve of a government program, maybe you should learn what it involves.

by 762236 1y ago

hackyhacky 1y ago

> DEI in practice is illegal No, it isn't, and this assumption is based on a poor understanding of what DEI is. The right paints DEI as a directive to hire less-qualified people based on their race. In reality, DEI just ensures that everyone gets a fair chance regardless of their race.

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
You speak of equal opportunity. What happens in practice is enforced equal outcomes which entails compromising on principles and standards to get the desired result. i.e. "Group X is under-performing at math" so therefore the problem is with inherent bias in math and we won't expect engineers and scientists to have competency in this domain to get the makeup of people we have decided upon from the start.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > You speak of equal opportunity. What happens in practice is enforced equal outcomes which entails compromising on principles and standards to get the desired result. Yes, I am aware of what you think DEI hiring practices are, but speaking as someone who has actually applied these policies, I'm telling you that that's not what happens. The propaganda simply is not true. Under DEI hiring policies, we were required to document *outreach* to underrepresented groups in order to get a more diverse hiring pool. We *never* lowered our standards and always hired the best applicant.
- nickpsecurity 1y ago
  I'll add the people that promoted it often said that amongst themselves while more publicly just talking about "diversity." They usually believed in imtersectionality, redistribution of wealth/power, etc. Their fix is systematic discrimination against specific groups to redistribute power to achieve the outcomes. And, if other groups become dominant, they still favor them over white people. We've seen that these ideologies are conflict-oriented, racist, and less effective. They were forced on us by policy and law by people who in no way represented most of Americans' thinking. Now, a different group favoring no racism, equal opportunity, and generosity to all groups based on need is reversing the prior group's work. Everyone who had been discriminated against will appreciate ending that discrimination.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > I'll add the people that promoted it often said that amongst themselves while more publicly just talking about "diversity." They usually believed in imtersectionality, redistribution of wealth/power, etc. Their fix is systematic discrimination against specific groups to redistribute power to achieve the outcomes. And, if other groups become dominant, they still favor them over white people. You say this without any evidence at all. As I describe in my comment above, DEI hiring practices do not promote discrimination against anyone. The right opposes DEI because they genuinely can't understand that someone would want a fair, diverse workplace, so, as you aptly demonstrate, they insert all kinds of imaginary (and obviously false) conspiracy theories in an attempt to show that DEI is actually a disguised attempt to win power for certain favored classes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. > We've seen that these ideologies are conflict-oriented, racist, and less effective. You say "we've seen" as if it were established fact, but it isn't. You might as well as "I heard once" or "I saw on Facebook that", insofar as you're attempting to provide a factual basis for your opinions. > Now, a different group favoring no racism, equal opportunity, and generosity to all groups based on need is reversing the prior group's work. Everyone who had been discriminated against will appreciate ending that discrimination. No, the current administration is favoring a return to racism by shutting down hiring practices that would have allowed for a diverse hiring pool. Moreover, the administration is transparently also cracking down on viewpoints it doesn't like, by punishing, for example, law firms and universities that are known to to oppose the administration's cause du jour.
pelagicAustral 1y ago
[flagged]

mjevans 1y ago

(DEI:) Instead of focusing on any aspect of someone's genetics of beliefs, efforts should instead be made to provide opportunity to those without. Not at the inherent cost of others whom are qualified but in the sense of doing what a government should do: civil infrastructure. Everywhere should have plentiful good quality housing, medical, schools, everything else that is part of the infrastructure of society. Give those kids, and even the poor workers, nutritious meals to ensure they are ready to function as members of society. Welfare / unemployment 'insurance' shouldn't be about just getting a paycheck, they should be about connecting those without work to work that benefits society and the people who are now getting a job or furthering training towards a job rather than sitting around hoping someone will hire. Generally: government (of the people, by the people, for the people) should be about stewardship of the commons, the shared space between private areas.

fhdkweig 1y ago

It isn't just about hiring, it is about the research too. If I make a grant proposal about making a better wheelchair, that's on the ban list too.

beej71 1y ago

Every DEI program I've ever been involved in has been 100% about selecting people _purely_ on merit. Not race, not gender, not whether or not they're trans. The DEI trainings are about completely ignoring those factors when hiring. I'm curious what they call your trainings on the matter.

fallingknife 1y ago
Every large company I have ever worked for has had noticeably lower standards for women and minorities (except for Asians of course because fuck them in particular). They will never say it in the trainings because they know it's illegal. They will never tell anyone anything except for "don't discriminate" but then they will incentivize discrimination by things like "diversity goals" (quotas) and setting recruiter bonuses higher when they bring in favored "victim" groups. Of course if they set higher bonuses for hiring white people the courts would immediately smack them down for discrimination, but it's apparently "legal" as long as - 1. it's implicit, 2. you deny it exists, and 3. it favors a group that the liberals approve of.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.
- electriclove 1y ago
  This is the unspoken, unadmitted truth of what has been going on. Too bad you are getting downvoted for providing perspective
- nielsbot 1y ago
  > Of course if they set higher bonuses for hiring white people Are you saying that (straight) (white) (men) have not had (nor continue to enjoy) unfair advantages in our society? And is that not an injustice? Saying "racism is bad" is correct but only the first step. Step two is recognizing the accumulated results of long-standing historical (and continuing, frankly) discrimination against minority groups and working to right that injustice. But would like to hear your perspective.

gitremote 1y ago

DEI is not illegal. Some implementations can be illegal (racial quotas), but other implementations are not (setting up a job fair booth in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) instead of only Ivy League universities; not preferring Ivy League dropouts over HBCU graduates).

tstrimple 1y ago
I took their statement to mean more that "DEI as described by conservatives is already illegal" not that the concept of DEI is illegal. But they did say "in practice" which seems to throw my interpretation off. In practice, DEI initiatives are exactly as you've described. Sometimes with more specific mentoring opportunities and more or less investment in the college or earlier pipeline.

freejazz 1y ago

Sorry, what's the difference between the former and the latter? My whole understanding of DEI is perfectly described by the thing you said is illegal. Otherwise, you did not describe what "DEI" is, so I hope you can understand my confusion.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
"DEI" is the rebranding of "affirmative action",† which was itself a euphemism for distributing special privileges (most notably jobs, higher education placements, and loan approvals) to members of legally favored racial groups while punishing members of disfavored groups. All of the relevant laws specify that (1) you are not allowed to treat anybody differently based on their race, and (2) if your outcome numbers don't match what the government wants to see, there will be hell to pay. Only (2) can be directly measured, so that is the part of the law that's enforced. People report that they treat all races equally for the same reason that Soviet agriculture officials reported that the grain harvest was better than expected. † It's not clear to me why a rebranding was felt to be necessary. "Affirmative action" was popular; a lot of the loss in status of this type of initiative seems to be fairly directly related to the fact that, once the name was changed, people could reevaluate the concept without being confused by the preexisting knowledge that they approved of it.
- freejazz 1y ago
  You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? And that it was also at the cost of "disfavored groups"? Is there anything to back this up? Redlining was a real phenomenon. You might not agree with Coates or his proposed solution, but I've not seen anyone attack the numbers, which speak for themselves. I don't agree with pretty much the entirety of your post but that stuck out.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > You think people were getting loan approvals because they were minorities? Of course; it is a major focus of governmental affirmative action efforts. > Is there anything to back this up? Again, of course. > Redlining was a real phenomenon. And? Do you think it was a real phenomenon after the 1960s? School segregation was a real phenomenon too; in your opinion, does that mean that modern schools do not admit applicants because they are favored minorities? Before deciding whether you approve of a government program, maybe you should learn what it involves.