4 ms·

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

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.
    - RHSeeger 1y ago
      > ensuring you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants But you don't in most cases. And a lot of that is because minorities, in general, have a less access to opportunities. By lifting up minorities individually, the goal is to raise them up at a systematic level. And the end goal of _that_ is so that they can/do have proportional representation in the pool of applicants. At which point, the biased treatment to get them there will no longer be necessary. Admittedly, it's debatable as to whether that approach will work; but I haven't seen any other viable options put forth.
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      By funnel I meant everything up to, but not including, the actual evaluation. Personally, I believe in affirmative action, but it's become evident that it's incredibly unpopular, and the Supreme Court has rendered it actively illegal, so my personal opinion is moot and I know when to cede a losing battle. What I was describing is literally the steps you would take if you wanted to ensure you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
      - Enginerrrd 1y ago
        That makes sense and sounds consistent with what I was saying. I guess it wasn't clear to me what you meant by "biasing" the funnel. You obviously need to bias your recruitment efforts, and more than slightly if you want proportional representation of applicants, but I believe it's absolutely essential you do NOT bias evaluations, hiring, or promotion of applicants. To do so actively undermines minorities in my opinion by stripping away their credibility by default.
FridayoLeary 1y ago
[flagged]
- ryoshoe 1y ago
  Would the capabilities of these minorities start to matter to the people labeling them as "DEI hires" when the grouping is primarily based on their ethnicity?
Manuel_D 1y ago
Then DEI proponents should be honest about the fact that DEI isn't about curbing discrimination, but deliberately engaging in positive discrimination. One of the biggest things about the DEI discourse that puts me off is the dishonesty of it. Many, perhaps most, DEI advocates attempt to argue that policies like withholding executive bonuses if their org isnt X% women and Y% URM isn't discrimination. Heck, I've encountered one former co-worker argue that allocating a segment of headcout exclusive to women wasn't discrimination, because it's "extra" headcount. If I have 100 headcount and I prohibit men from 20 of them that's discrimination, but if I have 80 headcount and I add 20 "extra" heads exclusively available to women that's not discrimination, according to this former co-worker's logic. It's one thing to advance a controversial policy and stand by it earnestly. It's another to advance a controversial policy while lying about it to people's faces. DEI is unfortunately often carried out via the latter fashion. And realistically, that's the only way it can be carried out under our present set of laws, because discrimination on the basis of race and gender are illegal nation-wide in the USA.
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  > Then DEI proponents should be honest about the fact that DEI isn't about curbing discrimination, but deliberately engaging in positive discrimination. That's fair. But it's unfair to state it like _all_ DEI proponents aren't honest about it. Clearly, I'm saying just that and I _am_ a proponent of it.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Does your "worth it for society as a whole" account for people like my son who have moved extremely right as a result of it (and he is someone who previously did city year volunteering to help inner city youth with their schooling)? I think the motivations are good, but like lots of things driven by good intentions I personally am not happy with the outcome (I want my old son back).
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  I think proponents don't even understand the basics of relationships, which is surprising since these ideas stem mostly from fields that generally tend to have a focus here. It is like they want to apply the handbook of toxic middle management. If you want to create strive in your minions, provide benefits to one group while disadvantaging the other. They will hate each other more than they will hate you and you can reign supreme. This is usually basic psychology or at least it is proved to work. Universal humanism also empirically works better than what DEI proposes. DEI gratifies self-important people to elevate themselves and their ideas above others and little else. None of them would step back to be an example, so they are probably dishonest too. If people dislike it, which many do, it is usually correct and not due some made up bias.
  - RHSeeger 1y ago
    Your argument is basically - Group 1 is doing well - Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1 - We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term - Because doing so would upset Group 1 See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.
    - raxxorraxor 1y ago
      No, that is not my argument and you don't understand the relationship dynamic. Group 1 would be justifiably upset because they aren't treated as equals to group 2. You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well. If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others. Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas. You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
I disagree that this is in any way desirable and I am no ethnic majority whatsoever. On the contrary, I think there are numerous errors with multiple premises.

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.
  - RHSeeger 1y ago
    > ensuring you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants But you don't in most cases. And a lot of that is because minorities, in general, have a less access to opportunities. By lifting up minorities individually, the goal is to raise them up at a systematic level. And the end goal of _that_ is so that they can/do have proportional representation in the pool of applicants. At which point, the biased treatment to get them there will no longer be necessary. Admittedly, it's debatable as to whether that approach will work; but I haven't seen any other viable options put forth.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    By funnel I meant everything up to, but not including, the actual evaluation. Personally, I believe in affirmative action, but it's become evident that it's incredibly unpopular, and the Supreme Court has rendered it actively illegal, so my personal opinion is moot and I know when to cede a losing battle. What I was describing is literally the steps you would take if you wanted to ensure you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
    - Enginerrrd 1y ago
      That makes sense and sounds consistent with what I was saying. I guess it wasn't clear to me what you meant by "biasing" the funnel. You obviously need to bias your recruitment efforts, and more than slightly if you want proportional representation of applicants, but I believe it's absolutely essential you do NOT bias evaluations, hiring, or promotion of applicants. To do so actively undermines minorities in my opinion by stripping away their credibility by default.

FridayoLeary 1y ago

[flagged]

ryoshoe 1y ago
Would the capabilities of these minorities start to matter to the people labeling them as "DEI hires" when the grouping is primarily based on their ethnicity?

Manuel_D 1y ago

Then DEI proponents should be honest about the fact that DEI isn't about curbing discrimination, but deliberately engaging in positive discrimination. One of the biggest things about the DEI discourse that puts me off is the dishonesty of it. Many, perhaps most, DEI advocates attempt to argue that policies like withholding executive bonuses if their org isnt X% women and Y% URM isn't discrimination. Heck, I've encountered one former co-worker argue that allocating a segment of headcout exclusive to women wasn't discrimination, because it's "extra" headcount. If I have 100 headcount and I prohibit men from 20 of them that's discrimination, but if I have 80 headcount and I add 20 "extra" heads exclusively available to women that's not discrimination, according to this former co-worker's logic. It's one thing to advance a controversial policy and stand by it earnestly. It's another to advance a controversial policy while lying about it to people's faces. DEI is unfortunately often carried out via the latter fashion. And realistically, that's the only way it can be carried out under our present set of laws, because discrimination on the basis of race and gender are illegal nation-wide in the USA.

RHSeeger 1y ago
> Then DEI proponents should be honest about the fact that DEI isn't about curbing discrimination, but deliberately engaging in positive discrimination. That's fair. But it's unfair to state it like _all_ DEI proponents aren't honest about it. Clearly, I'm saying just that and I _am_ a proponent of it.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

Does your "worth it for society as a whole" account for people like my son who have moved extremely right as a result of it (and he is someone who previously did city year volunteering to help inner city youth with their schooling)? I think the motivations are good, but like lots of things driven by good intentions I personally am not happy with the outcome (I want my old son back).

raxxorraxor 1y ago
I think proponents don't even understand the basics of relationships, which is surprising since these ideas stem mostly from fields that generally tend to have a focus here. It is like they want to apply the handbook of toxic middle management. If you want to create strive in your minions, provide benefits to one group while disadvantaging the other. They will hate each other more than they will hate you and you can reign supreme. This is usually basic psychology or at least it is proved to work. Universal humanism also empirically works better than what DEI proposes. DEI gratifies self-important people to elevate themselves and their ideas above others and little else. None of them would step back to be an example, so they are probably dishonest too. If people dislike it, which many do, it is usually correct and not due some made up bias.
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  Your argument is basically - Group 1 is doing well - Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1 - We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term - Because doing so would upset Group 1 See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    No, that is not my argument and you don't understand the relationship dynamic. Group 1 would be justifiably upset because they aren't treated as equals to group 2. You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well. If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others. Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas. You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

I disagree that this is in any way desirable and I am no ethnic majority whatsoever. On the contrary, I think there are numerous errors with multiple premises.