3 ms·

DEI is/was predicated on the false assumption that workplace diversity is a solution to societal inequality. I find it fascinating and frustrating that the tab

DEI is/was predicated on the false assumption that workplace diversity is a solution to societal inequality. I find it fascinating and frustrating that the taboo around examining DEI critically was so strong it took an autocrat to break it.

piva00 1y ago
From personal experience working through the early 2000s where there was no talk about DEI, and nowadays where there was a huge PR push for it, I don't feel it was all about solving societal inequality, that was just corporate messaging, the real benefit comparing workplaces that didn't care about diversity vs the ones that cared: - Men would create a hostile environment for women, I worked in a couple of companies which were 85%+ men, any new hire that was a woman suffered some kind of harassment, over or covert ("locker room talk" bullshit). This constantly pushed women out. - Diversity of ethnicities/nationalities brought a lot of different perspectives, having different cultures working together always helped teams I worked at to consider points of view that would only have surfaced later. Even ways of working that would cross-pollinate, like living a different culture would make you adopt practices that you think are improvements over yours. - Inclusion of people with disabilities, in 2005 I would never imagine the company I was working for to hire a blind person, there was an extreme bias they wouldn't be able to do the work. Nowadays I've worked with a few blind people, a few with reduced mobility that didn't even use a keyboard for typing, accommodations were needed but nothing that actually impacted work while improving their lives tremendously. Who would be caring about doing this effort if DEI didn't become a thing? I find it fascinating how the USA can go to either extreme so quickly, I do understand why it might have become such an annoyance to people opposed to it, feels like activism is so overboard that ended up being detrimental to the cause. I don't work in the USA so I really don't feel this need to push against any of the actions I've experienced in my life, at all points it actually helped people with minimal impact to myself while also helping me to realise biases and work on them, and I feel that's the actual societal change that DEI initiatives helps with: de-estranging others that are not 100% similar to you.
duxup 1y ago
I think the resistance to criticism was really just at the places where you had people invested in it. I think DEI most places was pretty light / inconsequential… but you only hear about the extreme cases because that’s more interesting.

piva00 1y ago

From personal experience working through the early 2000s where there was no talk about DEI, and nowadays where there was a huge PR push for it, I don't feel it was all about solving societal inequality, that was just corporate messaging, the real benefit comparing workplaces that didn't care about diversity vs the ones that cared: - Men would create a hostile environment for women, I worked in a couple of companies which were 85%+ men, any new hire that was a woman suffered some kind of harassment, over or covert ("locker room talk" bullshit). This constantly pushed women out. - Diversity of ethnicities/nationalities brought a lot of different perspectives, having different cultures working together always helped teams I worked at to consider points of view that would only have surfaced later. Even ways of working that would cross-pollinate, like living a different culture would make you adopt practices that you think are improvements over yours. - Inclusion of people with disabilities, in 2005 I would never imagine the company I was working for to hire a blind person, there was an extreme bias they wouldn't be able to do the work. Nowadays I've worked with a few blind people, a few with reduced mobility that didn't even use a keyboard for typing, accommodations were needed but nothing that actually impacted work while improving their lives tremendously. Who would be caring about doing this effort if DEI didn't become a thing? I find it fascinating how the USA can go to either extreme so quickly, I do understand why it might have become such an annoyance to people opposed to it, feels like activism is so overboard that ended up being detrimental to the cause. I don't work in the USA so I really don't feel this need to push against any of the actions I've experienced in my life, at all points it actually helped people with minimal impact to myself while also helping me to realise biases and work on them, and I feel that's the actual societal change that DEI initiatives helps with: de-estranging others that are not 100% similar to you.

duxup 1y ago

I think the resistance to criticism was really just at the places where you had people invested in it. I think DEI most places was pretty light / inconsequential… but you only hear about the extreme cases because that’s more interesting.