6 ms·

"DEI discimination". Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion... Discrimination. What is it with Donald's administration that they so eagerly embrace DoubleThink?

by shakna 1y ago

rwaksmunski 1y ago
[flagged]
- notsayinmch 1y ago
  [flagged]
winrid 1y ago
I've literally been in meetings were managers said they couldn't hire someone because they weren't a minority. (edit: also to clarify I think what the Trump admin is doing - bribing to take a different political stance - and allowing monopolies - is bad)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ok_dad 1y ago
  I’ve been in a meeting where my boss said he didn’t want to hire any more Indians because they aren’t fun to talk to at lunch, so I guess our two stories cancel out?
  - netik 1y ago
    Two racists make a right (winger) I guess.
  - jjtheblunt 1y ago
    > so I guess our two stories cancel out? and emit a photon and antineutrino? (nerd alert...). https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-antimatter/matter-antimatter-creation-and-annihilation/ https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/...
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      No, just some gamma radiation and maybe pions or something.
  - neverbehind 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - jdonaldson 1y ago
    Are you saying that all we have to do is hire a few boring Indians to cancel out one DEI hire? This is huge news!
  - 9283409232 1y ago
    I've been in meetings where we had minorities that killed the interviews but leadership gave us shifty reasons as to why they weren't hired. They landed on "bad cultural fit"
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      When you say minority are these like East Asians or Indians? I’ve never heard of anyone rejecting a high performing African American or Hispanic for cultural fit, I’d be curious to hear what part of the country this happened in if it was from the latter group.
      - 9283409232 1y ago
        This happened about a decade ago on the west coast when I still worked for big business. The candidates I'm thinking of were Hispanic.
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - foogazi 1y ago
      I’ve worked with/for/hired by Indians & Chinese from startups, corporate to FAANG - smartest, kindest people I’ve ever worked with I don’t know or care who they invest with or if they own hotels
      - nickpsecurity 1y ago
        The parent said their boss didn't want to hire Indians. The seem to support DEI with that company as evidence that (white?) systematically discriminate against Indians. That power and status stay within one group those people werent allowed to join. I posted a counter-example showing Indians systematically discriminate against non-Indians and shift almost all money to Indians across an entire, industry segment. So, they're no different. Also, the intersectionality (DEI) proponents strictly focus on whites as the problem, but non-whites as the opposite, when non-whites do the same things structurally when in power and should be talked about the same way. That DEI proponents never treat non-whites as advantaged and whites as disadvantaged, even when company or industry data supports it, shows they're actually racists who are anti-white. They'll be inconsistent with their own principles to work against white people. If called on it, like that whites can't get hired in company X or no power in industry Y, they start making excuses or denying a disadvantage or they deny that they even give advantages to non-whites like in this tthread. They certainly don't follow standard DEI or intersectionality principles to support shifting jobs or power to white people from the non-white majorities like they would if white people were the majority. We noticed the double standards. Their principles are therefore lies if specific groups can never benefit from them.
  - everdrive 1y ago
    Two wrongs do not make a right. Both practices are wrong.
    - ok_dad 1y ago
      I agree. No singular story like either of ours represents the hiring practices of any company except those we were part of. That was my point, but I guess subtlety doesn’t work well on the internet.
    - tootie 1y ago
      Hard disagree. On the one hand, "we have to hire a minority" is extremely blunt interpretation of DEI. But the intent is to foster diversity and that does mean hiring underrepresented groups. Having a diverse team is net positive on a lot of fronts. There are studies showing it actually improves team performance, but more generally it improves society. It may be marginally "unfair" for a particular company to be the one picking up the slack for society, but given the systemic discrimination that exists against minorities in so many part of society, giving them any sort of accommodation in hiring can at least offset the injustice elsewhere. The net result is a better society. Why is that the responsibility of a private company? Because companies are people and people live in society.
      - everdrive 1y ago
        The people "balancing the scales" are ideologically motivated and are prone to their own error. So, you need to reckon with whether they're doing more harm than good. And to the extent that they're doing harm, what is the solution?
        tootie 1y ago
        Is your argument "humans are fallible so we should give up?" The effectiveness (and sincerity) of DEI programs have certainly been mixed, but they should produce measurable outcomes that can be iterated and improved upon. A lot of the commentary in this thread and the rhetoric from the White House is that DEI is bad idea and should not be attempted because we shouldn't seek equity.
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    And one of my previous companies, Indian male applicants were categorized as "ND". Negative Diversity. Even less desirable than whites. Your stories don't cancel out, they add up: most DEI programs I've seen have discriminated against Asians at least as much as whites if not more.
- aorloff 1y ago
  Ok great, and what ? I spent 25 years in the industry and a dozen as a manager and I can tell you that straight up racism against black and latino people has been coddled and tolerated for a long time. The solution isn't to say: we won't hire white people, but it is to say, we have to create teams that are heterogeneous (and doing what that takes). Your personal anecdotes are not what makes up racism, writ large. And the fact that this has to be explained is, you know, the thing.
  - winrid 1y ago
    You said that my personal anecdotes don't matter while bringing up your personal anecdotes. I've personally never seen racism against Latinos or blacks during hiring. Probably the the most diverse place I worked at had no such quotas. My point is there shouldn't be hiring quotas by race.
    - notsayinmch 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > I've personally never seen racism against Latinos or blacks during hiring. There are mountains of research and witnesses. What does your statement mean? Also, maybe you weren't aware of how they made their hiring choice? People don't usually openly say they are doing it for racist reasons. > My point is there shouldn't be hiring quotas by race. I don't think DEI is implemented by quotas usually, nor is racism. For example, I had a recruiter I relied on heavily. I realized that they only sent me white guys to interview (with one exception). I have no idea why, but I know the recruiter found people through their own networks, and I bet those networks - usually formed from people we've gone to school with, worked with, socialized with, family, etc. - was white people, and that's who is added to the network. It's self-perpetuating - white people know white people. IIRC, AirBnB's founder knew someone at YC via their MIT fraternity - what do you think they probably looked like (I'm not criticizing AirBnB founders at all - they did amazing; for all I know they are big proponents of DEI)? (There are so many white people - ~60% of the population or ~200 million in the US - that you can spend your entire life without knowing anyone else.) And look around the office of your IT organization; if someone was black, what is the chance that they'd know someone who would help them get a job there? One method of DEI in hiring is to require that a person from a minority is interviewed for every position (in IT, that includes women). By me requiring that, my recruiter was required to develop networks that included many minorities, and I hope those people - now in the network - got opportunities for other jobs too.
- kgwxd 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - winrid 1y ago
    It wasn't one candidate. Multiple were turned away to wait for someone to fill the diversity quota. It took several months.
- shakna 1y ago
  Cool. But DEI practices happened not because of anecdotes, but data on systemic bias - which endangers multiple generations of people. A responsible government will act on the data, rather than a gut feeling.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    But anti-DEI policy allowed a group in the process of losing status to name and point to a target. The function of removing DEI is to relieve them of the feeling that their status was under attack.
  - garciasn 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - FridayoLeary 1y ago
      One can argue that DEI itself is racist.
      - andrei_says_ 1y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        amy_petrik 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - epistasis 1y ago
        One can argue nearly anything, that doesn't make the argument correct or sound.
  - 1y ago
- epistasis 1y ago
  That is illegal and they should have talked to HR about what DEI is, because it's certainly not that!
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  I don't think anyone with a brain thinks that the DEI rules don't provide benefit to people of a minority at the expense of the people in the majority. But they also provide benefits to the minority as a whole against the system as a whole, to help raise them up from the lower starting point they been pushed into. And it's a balance between individual unfairness (negative impact to individuals of the majority) and systematic fairness (positive impact to the minorities as a whole). The end goal is that all groups start at the same point and the nobody needs to be given preference because of their group. Anyone who thinks "you have to hire a certain amount/percentage of minorities" doesn't mean, by definition, that you will need to negatively impact _individual_ members of a majority hasn't spent any real time thinking about how it works. But the point is that it's worth it for society as a whole.
  - umvi 1y ago
    > But the point is that it's worth it for society as a whole. Who decided/determined this? You state it as if positive discrimination is a proven social good, yet I don't think it's so clear. There's still a ton of debate around it, and different western countries have difference stances on it. To me it still seems like an experiment with unclear/unknown long term value to society.
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      If you believe human capabilities tend to follow a bell curve, and if you believe that minorities are statistically disadvantaged compared to their non-minority complement, that would seem to imply minorities are un(der)tapped as a market and as a labor pool. Which would suggest making a point to actively include them in your hiring and marketing funnel and at least slightly biasing those funnels in their favor would just be good business.
      - Enginerrrd 1y ago
        Your reasoning is totally sound up until the final clause. The "correct" answer isn't biasing evaluation pipelines, it's ensuring you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
- tehwebguy 1y ago
  I bet they were lying, or that you are!
  - winrid 1y ago
    I understand the concern, but I have no skin in the game to lie here. Actually it's fairly risky to say what I've said, but it frustrates me. Also, I do not think they would slip up and lie in such a way.
user3939382 1y ago
If you think policies are named for what they actually are you’re going to be shocked at how legislation is titled.
- morkalork 1y ago
  Right to Work always comes to mind
  - kylecazar 1y ago
    Patriot Act never far behind
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      No Child Left Behind
      - trav4225 1y ago
        Please be kind and rewind!
- tshaddox 1y ago
  Shouldn't forced policy changes be based on what the policies actually are instead of what they're named? Otherwise it would be permissible to simply change the name of the policy.
marcuskane2 1y ago
[flagged]
- notsayinmch 1y ago
  [flagged]
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mmooss 1y ago
  > Everyone knows that DEI is a dog whistle for discrimination against straight white males. (Or in some contexts, also white women or asian men). Who is everyone? DEI was widely supported until very recently, when an oppressive government acted against it. DEI is about making things fair in hiring and otherwise. For example, who gets into college? To a great extent, children of (almost entirely white) legacies, and of (almost entirely white) wealthy parents, and they go on to be the wealthy and powerful. How can we give minorities the same opportunities?
  - Izkata 1y ago
    > Who is everyone? DEI was widely supported until very recently, when an oppressive government acted against it. It really wasn't, it was very top-down. A lot of what you're seeing is people who always thought this no longer fearing oppression.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > It really wasn't, it was very top-down. Not in my experience; not at all. Racism is a very widespread experience and concern, and very well-known.
jvanderbot 1y ago
Not to push back, just to add context: I'd wager about half of people would say that "DEI" is itself doublespeak. I don't agree with any of the strong opinions around this subject, but I can definitely say that we won't get far repeating the same old talking points.
- nickpsecurity 1y ago
  It was made by people promoting intersectionality with redistributive "justice." It was often promoted and enforced by such people. Many consultants also have highly negative views of white people. So, it's not speculation. What it does, taking away from one group to give to favored groups, is exactly what intersectionality/woke/etc called for.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > taking away from one group to give to favored groups That's right out of the playbook of how to promote racism and descrimination - tell people that the 'Blacks', etc. are taking their jobs. It literally goes back to the days of slavery, when they would turn poor whites against black slaves. God forbid the poor and oppressed got together; then they might vote out the wealthy and powerful. DEI is not redistribution. It's eliminating bias that favors the powerful groups, mostly white guys, that have benefitted - many unwittingly - from that bias for all of US history. If you want your job on merit, if you want a fair chance rather than a handout, you should favor DEI. If you think there's no bias, you are living in a fantasy - it's gone on for centuries, the documentation and research are overwhelming, and it's boomed since 2016.
    - nickpsecurity 1y ago
      No, it's out of the playback of the people who invented and promoted intersectionality, redistribution of wealth/power, and DEI. Then, pushed their ideology into universities, corporations, and governments by lying that it was merely promoting diversity or fighting discrimination. Once it is in place, they always take from specific groups that they label as advantaged, privileged, or oppressors. They give to other groups they favor. I'll let you guess who the bad guys always are. Even if minorities become dominant, they still talk like white males are the advantaged people and still work against them. So, it's just hateful and systematically racist against specific groups.
kryogen1c 1y ago
Is English not your first language? That isn't double think. If a law is passed requiring drug use to be prosecuted and making it illegal not to, you have criminalized decriminalization. Just because words or concepts are opposed in isolation doesn't mean they can't appear in a sentence or thought together. That's not how grammar works, and it's not what 1984 is about.
- shakna 1y ago
  Uh... That's precisely what 1984 was referencing - rules and laws passed in Soviet Russia that twist the meaning of existent words.
FridayoLeary 1y ago
[flagged]
- mmooss 1y ago
  That is the goal of DEI. The problem is, racism is widespread and people are selected based on non-meritorious reasons - in SV, white and East/South Asian men. Look at all those leading SV founders and CEOs - are there any exceptions at all? Racism is not necessarily overt, but you certainly you are well aware that overt racism is widely trendy now, and people engage in it publicly. Look at the well-accepted virulant hatred toward immigrants, often based on transparent stereotypes (i.e., not individual merit at all). Many argue, even on HN, that white/Asian men are inherently superior at math/coding/etc., which is why they dominate SV. Do you think those people hire based on merit? Racism can be unconscious. In hiring 101, you learn that people instinctively hire people like them. Even beyond that, people hire who they are comfortable with. It's not a secret that humans are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, and that many white people are particulary uncomfortable around black people. People hire those who they are comfortable with, often without realizing why. Racism can be systemic. If you grew up in a mostly segregated community, and went to school with those people, who will be in your personal/professional network to hire, or to call up with your investment or business idea, etc.? You didn't choose it; that's the system you grew up in. And unless you consciously change it (for example, via DEI), you will perpetuate it and the next generation will also be segregated. People often don't intend to be racist; they just don't realize how it comes to pass. Most appreciate training in how to do better (who wouldn't?). Also consider that the small improvements from generation to generation are not nearly fast enough - the minority people of today, right now, deserve fair opportunities. It's absurd to tell them - your grandchildren will have a better chance.
  - Izkata 1y ago
    > > Maybe they feel that people should be selected for a job based on their merits alone, not the colour of their skin. > That is the goal of DEI. Very much the opposite, the goal of DEI is to bring race back into the selection process. It's pretty explicit.
Manuel_D 1y ago
Because "DEI" is a dog whistle [1] for discrimination. Every DEI program I've witnessed ultimately worked through discriminatory means. Remember, offering a "bonus" for reaching X% of a certain demographic is no different than penalizing employees if they fail to reach the quota. Allocating "extra" headcount that's exclusive to "diverse" candidates is no different than banning non-diverse candidates from a segment of headcount. The nature of dog whistles is that some people use the term in earnest, without the subtext. But in my experience most people enthusiastic about DEI ultimately do condone discrimination in one way or another. 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
- wkat4242 1y ago
  We don't do any of that. Our DEI program is just about training for hiring managers to recognise bias. Also, DEI is about giving people with special needs the things they require to function. And providing managers insights into the things they might struggle with. We do information packs about LGBT, different religions etc just so managers understand and can accommodate. We have resource networks for managers (and really, all employees) that have questions about such things. We organise awareness events about LGBT and minority topics so employees can learn from each other and create a better understanding. And it works. It's not just about hiring but also creating better awareness for existing employees. We do look at numbers to guage how we're doing but nobody is being penalised. If we have very few minorities compared to the local demographics it just means our trainings are not getting heard properly and we need to improve them. I would go as far as to say that a company that has strict quotas doesn't really care about DEI. They just want a quick fix. This is not how these things work. You're working with people, not numbers. What bothers me the most is that the Trump administration is even trying to force foreign companies like my employer to abandon DEI programs. It's none of their business what we do in the EU. We like what we do and we're not going to change. They cherrypick a few bad examples and pretend everyone works like that.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
tootie 1y ago
Same reason the considered antifa to be public enemy #1.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
DEI in practice means racial quotas. It may not be meant that way somewhere down the line, but that is the reality. It is also a shield for certain kinds of animosity. Ideas should also allow criticism, which DEI was notorioulsly bad for. So maybe the idea is indeed just bad. Yes, Trump here uses simple populism, but it isn't only his achievement that it does work so effectively. And no, that isn't due to racism. Maybe we should rethink it thoroughly anyway.

"DEI discimination". Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion... Discrimination. What is it with Donald's administration that they so eagerly embrace DoubleThink?

by shakna 1y ago

"DEI discimination". Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion... Discrimination. What is it with Donald's administration that they so eagerly embrace DoubleThink?

rwaksmunski 1y ago

[flagged]

notsayinmch 1y ago
[flagged]

winrid 1y ago

I've literally been in meetings were managers said they couldn't hire someone because they weren't a minority. (edit: also to clarify I think what the Trump admin is doing - bribing to take a different political stance - and allowing monopolies - is bad)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ok_dad 1y ago
I’ve been in a meeting where my boss said he didn’t want to hire any more Indians because they aren’t fun to talk to at lunch, so I guess our two stories cancel out?
- netik 1y ago
  Two racists make a right (winger) I guess.
- jjtheblunt 1y ago
  > so I guess our two stories cancel out? and emit a photon and antineutrino? (nerd alert...). https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/what-is-antimatter/matter-antimatter-creation-and-annihilation/ https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/...
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    No, just some gamma radiation and maybe pions or something.
- neverbehind 1y ago
  [flagged]
- jdonaldson 1y ago
  Are you saying that all we have to do is hire a few boring Indians to cancel out one DEI hire? This is huge news!
- 9283409232 1y ago
  I've been in meetings where we had minorities that killed the interviews but leadership gave us shifty reasons as to why they weren't hired. They landed on "bad cultural fit"
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    When you say minority are these like East Asians or Indians? I’ve never heard of anyone rejecting a high performing African American or Hispanic for cultural fit, I’d be curious to hear what part of the country this happened in if it was from the latter group.
    - 9283409232 1y ago
      This happened about a decade ago on the west coast when I still worked for big business. The candidates I'm thinking of were Hispanic.
- nickpsecurity 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - foogazi 1y ago
    I’ve worked with/for/hired by Indians & Chinese from startups, corporate to FAANG - smartest, kindest people I’ve ever worked with I don’t know or care who they invest with or if they own hotels
    - nickpsecurity 1y ago
      The parent said their boss didn't want to hire Indians. The seem to support DEI with that company as evidence that (white?) systematically discriminate against Indians. That power and status stay within one group those people werent allowed to join. I posted a counter-example showing Indians systematically discriminate against non-Indians and shift almost all money to Indians across an entire, industry segment. So, they're no different. Also, the intersectionality (DEI) proponents strictly focus on whites as the problem, but non-whites as the opposite, when non-whites do the same things structurally when in power and should be talked about the same way. That DEI proponents never treat non-whites as advantaged and whites as disadvantaged, even when company or industry data supports it, shows they're actually racists who are anti-white. They'll be inconsistent with their own principles to work against white people. If called on it, like that whites can't get hired in company X or no power in industry Y, they start making excuses or denying a disadvantage or they deny that they even give advantages to non-whites like in this tthread. They certainly don't follow standard DEI or intersectionality principles to support shifting jobs or power to white people from the non-white majorities like they would if white people were the majority. We noticed the double standards. Their principles are therefore lies if specific groups can never benefit from them.
- everdrive 1y ago
  Two wrongs do not make a right. Both practices are wrong.
  - ok_dad 1y ago
    I agree. No singular story like either of ours represents the hiring practices of any company except those we were part of. That was my point, but I guess subtlety doesn’t work well on the internet.
  - tootie 1y ago
    Hard disagree. On the one hand, "we have to hire a minority" is extremely blunt interpretation of DEI. But the intent is to foster diversity and that does mean hiring underrepresented groups. Having a diverse team is net positive on a lot of fronts. There are studies showing it actually improves team performance, but more generally it improves society. It may be marginally "unfair" for a particular company to be the one picking up the slack for society, but given the systemic discrimination that exists against minorities in so many part of society, giving them any sort of accommodation in hiring can at least offset the injustice elsewhere. The net result is a better society. Why is that the responsibility of a private company? Because companies are people and people live in society.
    - everdrive 1y ago
      The people "balancing the scales" are ideologically motivated and are prone to their own error. So, you need to reckon with whether they're doing more harm than good. And to the extent that they're doing harm, what is the solution?
      - tootie 1y ago
        Is your argument "humans are fallible so we should give up?" The effectiveness (and sincerity) of DEI programs have certainly been mixed, but they should produce measurable outcomes that can be iterated and improved upon. A lot of the commentary in this thread and the rhetoric from the White House is that DEI is bad idea and should not be attempted because we shouldn't seek equity.
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  And one of my previous companies, Indian male applicants were categorized as "ND". Negative Diversity. Even less desirable than whites. Your stories don't cancel out, they add up: most DEI programs I've seen have discriminated against Asians at least as much as whites if not more.
aorloff 1y ago
Ok great, and what ? I spent 25 years in the industry and a dozen as a manager and I can tell you that straight up racism against black and latino people has been coddled and tolerated for a long time. The solution isn't to say: we won't hire white people, but it is to say, we have to create teams that are heterogeneous (and doing what that takes). Your personal anecdotes are not what makes up racism, writ large. And the fact that this has to be explained is, you know, the thing.
- winrid 1y ago
  You said that my personal anecdotes don't matter while bringing up your personal anecdotes. I've personally never seen racism against Latinos or blacks during hiring. Probably the the most diverse place I worked at had no such quotas. My point is there shouldn't be hiring quotas by race.
  - notsayinmch 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > I've personally never seen racism against Latinos or blacks during hiring. There are mountains of research and witnesses. What does your statement mean? Also, maybe you weren't aware of how they made their hiring choice? People don't usually openly say they are doing it for racist reasons. > My point is there shouldn't be hiring quotas by race. I don't think DEI is implemented by quotas usually, nor is racism. For example, I had a recruiter I relied on heavily. I realized that they only sent me white guys to interview (with one exception). I have no idea why, but I know the recruiter found people through their own networks, and I bet those networks - usually formed from people we've gone to school with, worked with, socialized with, family, etc. - was white people, and that's who is added to the network. It's self-perpetuating - white people know white people. IIRC, AirBnB's founder knew someone at YC via their MIT fraternity - what do you think they probably looked like (I'm not criticizing AirBnB founders at all - they did amazing; for all I know they are big proponents of DEI)? (There are so many white people - ~60% of the population or ~200 million in the US - that you can spend your entire life without knowing anyone else.) And look around the office of your IT organization; if someone was black, what is the chance that they'd know someone who would help them get a job there? One method of DEI in hiring is to require that a person from a minority is interviewed for every position (in IT, that includes women). By me requiring that, my recruiter was required to develop networks that included many minorities, and I hope those people - now in the network - got opportunities for other jobs too.
kgwxd 1y ago
[flagged]
- winrid 1y ago
  It wasn't one candidate. Multiple were turned away to wait for someone to fill the diversity quota. It took several months.
shakna 1y ago
Cool. But DEI practices happened not because of anecdotes, but data on systemic bias - which endangers multiple generations of people. A responsible government will act on the data, rather than a gut feeling.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  But anti-DEI policy allowed a group in the process of losing status to name and point to a target. The function of removing DEI is to relieve them of the feeling that their status was under attack.
- garciasn 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    One can argue that DEI itself is racist.
    - andrei_says_ 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - amy_petrik 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - epistasis 1y ago
      One can argue nearly anything, that doesn't make the argument correct or sound.
- 1y ago
epistasis 1y ago
That is illegal and they should have talked to HR about what DEI is, because it's certainly not that!
RHSeeger 1y ago
I don't think anyone with a brain thinks that the DEI rules don't provide benefit to people of a minority at the expense of the people in the majority. But they also provide benefits to the minority as a whole against the system as a whole, to help raise them up from the lower starting point they been pushed into. And it's a balance between individual unfairness (negative impact to individuals of the majority) and systematic fairness (positive impact to the minorities as a whole). The end goal is that all groups start at the same point and the nobody needs to be given preference because of their group. Anyone who thinks "you have to hire a certain amount/percentage of minorities" doesn't mean, by definition, that you will need to negatively impact _individual_ members of a majority hasn't spent any real time thinking about how it works. But the point is that it's worth it for society as a whole.
- umvi 1y ago
  > But the point is that it's worth it for society as a whole. Who decided/determined this? You state it as if positive discrimination is a proven social good, yet I don't think it's so clear. There's still a ton of debate around it, and different western countries have difference stances on it. To me it still seems like an experiment with unclear/unknown long term value to society.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    If you believe human capabilities tend to follow a bell curve, and if you believe that minorities are statistically disadvantaged compared to their non-minority complement, that would seem to imply minorities are un(der)tapped as a market and as a labor pool. Which would suggest making a point to actively include them in your hiring and marketing funnel and at least slightly biasing those funnels in their favor would just be good business.
    - Enginerrrd 1y ago
      Your reasoning is totally sound up until the final clause. The "correct" answer isn't biasing evaluation pipelines, it's ensuring you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
tehwebguy 1y ago
I bet they were lying, or that you are!
- winrid 1y ago
  I understand the concern, but I have no skin in the game to lie here. Actually it's fairly risky to say what I've said, but it frustrates me. Also, I do not think they would slip up and lie in such a way.

user3939382 1y ago

If you think policies are named for what they actually are you’re going to be shocked at how legislation is titled.

morkalork 1y ago
Right to Work always comes to mind
- kylecazar 1y ago
  Patriot Act never far behind
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    No Child Left Behind
    - trav4225 1y ago
      Please be kind and rewind!
tshaddox 1y ago
Shouldn't forced policy changes be based on what the policies actually are instead of what they're named? Otherwise it would be permissible to simply change the name of the policy.

marcuskane2 1y ago

[flagged]

notsayinmch 1y ago
[flagged]
decremental 1y ago
[dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mmooss 1y ago
> Everyone knows that DEI is a dog whistle for discrimination against straight white males. (Or in some contexts, also white women or asian men). Who is everyone? DEI was widely supported until very recently, when an oppressive government acted against it. DEI is about making things fair in hiring and otherwise. For example, who gets into college? To a great extent, children of (almost entirely white) legacies, and of (almost entirely white) wealthy parents, and they go on to be the wealthy and powerful. How can we give minorities the same opportunities?
- Izkata 1y ago
  > Who is everyone? DEI was widely supported until very recently, when an oppressive government acted against it. It really wasn't, it was very top-down. A lot of what you're seeing is people who always thought this no longer fearing oppression.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > It really wasn't, it was very top-down. Not in my experience; not at all. Racism is a very widespread experience and concern, and very well-known.

jvanderbot 1y ago

Not to push back, just to add context: I'd wager about half of people would say that "DEI" is itself doublespeak. I don't agree with any of the strong opinions around this subject, but I can definitely say that we won't get far repeating the same old talking points.

nickpsecurity 1y ago
It was made by people promoting intersectionality with redistributive "justice." It was often promoted and enforced by such people. Many consultants also have highly negative views of white people. So, it's not speculation. What it does, taking away from one group to give to favored groups, is exactly what intersectionality/woke/etc called for.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > taking away from one group to give to favored groups That's right out of the playbook of how to promote racism and descrimination - tell people that the 'Blacks', etc. are taking their jobs. It literally goes back to the days of slavery, when they would turn poor whites against black slaves. God forbid the poor and oppressed got together; then they might vote out the wealthy and powerful. DEI is not redistribution. It's eliminating bias that favors the powerful groups, mostly white guys, that have benefitted - many unwittingly - from that bias for all of US history. If you want your job on merit, if you want a fair chance rather than a handout, you should favor DEI. If you think there's no bias, you are living in a fantasy - it's gone on for centuries, the documentation and research are overwhelming, and it's boomed since 2016.
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
    No, it's out of the playback of the people who invented and promoted intersectionality, redistribution of wealth/power, and DEI. Then, pushed their ideology into universities, corporations, and governments by lying that it was merely promoting diversity or fighting discrimination. Once it is in place, they always take from specific groups that they label as advantaged, privileged, or oppressors. They give to other groups they favor. I'll let you guess who the bad guys always are. Even if minorities become dominant, they still talk like white males are the advantaged people and still work against them. So, it's just hateful and systematically racist against specific groups.

kryogen1c 1y ago

Is English not your first language? That isn't double think. If a law is passed requiring drug use to be prosecuted and making it illegal not to, you have criminalized decriminalization. Just because words or concepts are opposed in isolation doesn't mean they can't appear in a sentence or thought together. That's not how grammar works, and it's not what 1984 is about.

shakna 1y ago
Uh... That's precisely what 1984 was referencing - rules and laws passed in Soviet Russia that twist the meaning of existent words.

FridayoLeary 1y ago

[flagged]

mmooss 1y ago
That is the goal of DEI. The problem is, racism is widespread and people are selected based on non-meritorious reasons - in SV, white and East/South Asian men. Look at all those leading SV founders and CEOs - are there any exceptions at all? Racism is not necessarily overt, but you certainly you are well aware that overt racism is widely trendy now, and people engage in it publicly. Look at the well-accepted virulant hatred toward immigrants, often based on transparent stereotypes (i.e., not individual merit at all). Many argue, even on HN, that white/Asian men are inherently superior at math/coding/etc., which is why they dominate SV. Do you think those people hire based on merit? Racism can be unconscious. In hiring 101, you learn that people instinctively hire people like them. Even beyond that, people hire who they are comfortable with. It's not a secret that humans are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, and that many white people are particulary uncomfortable around black people. People hire those who they are comfortable with, often without realizing why. Racism can be systemic. If you grew up in a mostly segregated community, and went to school with those people, who will be in your personal/professional network to hire, or to call up with your investment or business idea, etc.? You didn't choose it; that's the system you grew up in. And unless you consciously change it (for example, via DEI), you will perpetuate it and the next generation will also be segregated. People often don't intend to be racist; they just don't realize how it comes to pass. Most appreciate training in how to do better (who wouldn't?). Also consider that the small improvements from generation to generation are not nearly fast enough - the minority people of today, right now, deserve fair opportunities. It's absurd to tell them - your grandchildren will have a better chance.
- Izkata 1y ago
  > > Maybe they feel that people should be selected for a job based on their merits alone, not the colour of their skin. > That is the goal of DEI. Very much the opposite, the goal of DEI is to bring race back into the selection process. It's pretty explicit.

Manuel_D 1y ago

Because "DEI" is a dog whistle [1] for discrimination. Every DEI program I've witnessed ultimately worked through discriminatory means. Remember, offering a "bonus" for reaching X% of a certain demographic is no different than penalizing employees if they fail to reach the quota. Allocating "extra" headcount that's exclusive to "diverse" candidates is no different than banning non-diverse candidates from a segment of headcount. The nature of dog whistles is that some people use the term in earnest, without the subtext. But in my experience most people enthusiastic about DEI ultimately do condone discrimination in one way or another. 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

wkat4242 1y ago
We don't do any of that. Our DEI program is just about training for hiring managers to recognise bias. Also, DEI is about giving people with special needs the things they require to function. And providing managers insights into the things they might struggle with. We do information packs about LGBT, different religions etc just so managers understand and can accommodate. We have resource networks for managers (and really, all employees) that have questions about such things. We organise awareness events about LGBT and minority topics so employees can learn from each other and create a better understanding. And it works. It's not just about hiring but also creating better awareness for existing employees. We do look at numbers to guage how we're doing but nobody is being penalised. If we have very few minorities compared to the local demographics it just means our trainings are not getting heard properly and we need to improve them. I would go as far as to say that a company that has strict quotas doesn't really care about DEI. They just want a quick fix. This is not how these things work. You're working with people, not numbers. What bothers me the most is that the Trump administration is even trying to force foreign companies like my employer to abandon DEI programs. It's none of their business what we do in the EU. We like what we do and we're not going to change. They cherrypick a few bad examples and pretend everyone works like that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago

tootie 1y ago

Same reason the considered antifa to be public enemy #1.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

DEI in practice means racial quotas. It may not be meant that way somewhere down the line, but that is the reality. It is also a shield for certain kinds of animosity. Ideas should also allow criticism, which DEI was notorioulsly bad for. So maybe the idea is indeed just bad. Yes, Trump here uses simple populism, but it isn't only his achievement that it does work so effectively. And no, that isn't due to racism. Maybe we should rethink it thoroughly anyway.