4 ms·

You are either lying about hard-number racial/gender quotas or you were working for companies that were flagrantly breaking the law. Did you whistle blow? You

You are either lying about hard-number racial/gender quotas or you were working for companies that were flagrantly breaking the law. Did you whistle blow? You see, it doesn't add up, because usually when a company breaks the law so blatantly, it does so in crafty, shady ways intended to make more money, not in an attempt to create diversity that does nothing for the bottom line while also threatening the very existence of the firm.

asdsadasdasd123 1y ago
Ah yes, I'm going to whistle blow and ruin my career over something "illegal" that every university has been doing for the past 50 years. Im perplexed that you find this surprising at all. This stuff happened openly in all hands with pie charts of the existing gender and racial makeup, and the target makeup with struggle session-like questions of why our engineering department doesn't have 50% woman. None of this is inconsistent if the decision makers at the company think that any deviation in demographics is a sign of institutional racism.
- beej71 1y ago
  You can anonymously whistle-blow. Why not do that?
- standardUser 1y ago
  University admittance and workplace hiring are different issues under the law. It sounds like you are purposefully conflating the issue to avoid acknowledging the logical flaws in your original claims.
monero-xmr 1y ago
The gaslighting here post-Trump is insane. I’m not going to pretend that “no white or Asian males” wasn’t standard policy during the DEI hysteria. Pretending DEI was “just all about merit!” is so absurdly revisionist. Pleaseeee
- standardUser 1y ago
  I'm a white male and I got plenty of jobs. Perhaps you just lack qualifications or soft skills.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1920817550301999229?s=46 https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1920817550301999229?s=46
    - const_cast 1y ago
      1. Universities are different, who knows how they decide to admit people 2. In the private sector, white men are not disadvantaged. Give me a fucking break man.
      - monero-xmr 1y ago
        Remember with the SEC tried (and failed after Trump’s win) to mandate every board have at least 2 “diverse” (no white dudes) members? Not a lot of merit there! https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vacates-secs-approval-of-nasdaq-board-diversity-rules/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vac...
        const_cast 1y ago
        Why are you assuming that non-white people cannot have the necessary qualifications? If I didn't know any better, I'd conclude that reasoning is... racist. The reality is there are more non-white, qualified people than you could possibly hire. The world is overflowing with them. So if your board is 100% white men, that's really fucking weird. How did that happen? The elephant in the room here is that white men are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be hired due to the color of their skin. Look at Trump's current admin - full of white men who aren't qualified, who are alcoholics, who are patently stupid, and on and on. But if you look at research, too, just having a white name is enough to increase your chance of being hired by 50%.
anonfordays 1y ago
He wasn't lying, IBM was caught doing just that: https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944 https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944
int_19h 1y ago
When this kind of thing happens - and it absolutely does - it's never put in writing. The company training is always going to say what the law requires it to say. But let's say that the top management in your org have made a public commitment to "increase representation of underrepresented groups". The managers in that org are then required, by company policy, to have their own goals be "aligned" with it, so they write something similar. What do you think then happens when it comes to interviews and hiring decisions?
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Hiring on merit can increase representation of underrepresented groups. There are also shitloads of decisions one can make that increase representation of underrepresented groups without violating Title 7. You can have better parental leave and part-time work policies. Or you can open an office in a region with different racial demographics. Or you can send recruiters to events like Grace Hopper. The idea that leadership saying "we want to increase representation of underrepresented groups" converts to people illegally hiring worse candidates because of their demographics is... odd.
  - anonfordays 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      For years? I have seen this in a very small number of places and never with the idea that actual merit is racist but instead that systems that promote a shallow understanding of individual meritocracy can perpetuate inequality. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the alternative to "meritocracy" in the corporate world is not a sort of affirmative anti-racism but is instead the old-boys club system. Moving from that system to one focused on individual merit will produce greater representation for underrepresented groups. O'Keefe is a remarkable person to cite here, given his history. There are cases of corporations violating Title 7. Duh. They violate it by discriminating against black people or women too. But if you want to claim that when people working at corporations hear about goals to increase representation that they just decide to violate Title 7 at scale, you've got some splaining to do.

asdsadasdasd123 1y ago

Ah yes, I'm going to whistle blow and ruin my career over something "illegal" that every university has been doing for the past 50 years. Im perplexed that you find this surprising at all. This stuff happened openly in all hands with pie charts of the existing gender and racial makeup, and the target makeup with struggle session-like questions of why our engineering department doesn't have 50% woman. None of this is inconsistent if the decision makers at the company think that any deviation in demographics is a sign of institutional racism.

beej71 1y ago
You can anonymously whistle-blow. Why not do that?
standardUser 1y ago
University admittance and workplace hiring are different issues under the law. It sounds like you are purposefully conflating the issue to avoid acknowledging the logical flaws in your original claims.

monero-xmr 1y ago

The gaslighting here post-Trump is insane. I’m not going to pretend that “no white or Asian males” wasn’t standard policy during the DEI hysteria. Pretending DEI was “just all about merit!” is so absurdly revisionist. Pleaseeee

standardUser 1y ago
I'm a white male and I got plenty of jobs. Perhaps you just lack qualifications or soft skills.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1920817550301999229?s=46 https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1920817550301999229?s=46
  - const_cast 1y ago
    1. Universities are different, who knows how they decide to admit people 2. In the private sector, white men are not disadvantaged. Give me a fucking break man.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      Remember with the SEC tried (and failed after Trump’s win) to mandate every board have at least 2 “diverse” (no white dudes) members? Not a lot of merit there! https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vacates-secs-approval-of-nasdaq-board-diversity-rules/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vac...
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Why are you assuming that non-white people cannot have the necessary qualifications? If I didn't know any better, I'd conclude that reasoning is... racist. The reality is there are more non-white, qualified people than you could possibly hire. The world is overflowing with them. So if your board is 100% white men, that's really fucking weird. How did that happen? The elephant in the room here is that white men are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be hired due to the color of their skin. Look at Trump's current admin - full of white men who aren't qualified, who are alcoholics, who are patently stupid, and on and on. But if you look at research, too, just having a white name is enough to increase your chance of being hired by 50%.

anonfordays 1y ago

He wasn't lying, IBM was caught doing just that: https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944 https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944

int_19h 1y ago

When this kind of thing happens - and it absolutely does - it's never put in writing. The company training is always going to say what the law requires it to say. But let's say that the top management in your org have made a public commitment to "increase representation of underrepresented groups". The managers in that org are then required, by company policy, to have their own goals be "aligned" with it, so they write something similar. What do you think then happens when it comes to interviews and hiring decisions?

UncleMeat 1y ago
Hiring on merit can increase representation of underrepresented groups. There are also shitloads of decisions one can make that increase representation of underrepresented groups without violating Title 7. You can have better parental leave and part-time work policies. Or you can open an office in a region with different racial demographics. Or you can send recruiters to events like Grace Hopper. The idea that leadership saying "we want to increase representation of underrepresented groups" converts to people illegally hiring worse candidates because of their demographics is... odd.
- anonfordays 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    For years? I have seen this in a very small number of places and never with the idea that actual merit is racist but instead that systems that promote a shallow understanding of individual meritocracy can perpetuate inequality. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the alternative to "meritocracy" in the corporate world is not a sort of affirmative anti-racism but is instead the old-boys club system. Moving from that system to one focused on individual merit will produce greater representation for underrepresented groups. O'Keefe is a remarkable person to cite here, given his history. There are cases of corporations violating Title 7. Duh. They violate it by discriminating against black people or women too. But if you want to claim that when people working at corporations hear about goals to increase representation that they just decide to violate Title 7 at scale, you've got some splaining to do.