5 ms·

> We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully Whatever term you pick to describe a concerted effort to

> We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully Whatever term you pick to describe a concerted effort to overcome the tendency to bigotry, they'll just hijack that, too. There's a whole industry built around this, and the media is so receptive to the right-wing that they'll openly describe how they'll do it[1], will execute the plans in public, and the mainstream media will act as their stenographers. [1] https://xcancel.com/sykescharlie/status/1396844806547050499 https://xcancel.com/sykescharlie/status/1396844806547050499

hammock 5mo ago
Do you mean there’s a whole industry built around DEI? Or that there’s a whole industry built around countermessaging the DEI industry?
- mullingitover 5mo ago
  > the DEI industry isn't really a thing so much as it's a collection of principles that can be implemented. To the unprincipled, this needs to be converted into a literal enemy that can be vilified, because any attempt to force them to adhere to principles is an attack.
  - hackinthebochs 5mo ago
    No DEI industry you say? https://web.archive.org/web/20240710195414/https://time.com/5696943/diversity-business/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240710195414/https://time.com/... >The lucrative industry shows few signs of waning–from the spike in well-compensated diversity consultants and czars; to online courses and degree programs at prestigious schools; to professional organizations and conferences; to the commissioning of ever more studies, task forces and climate surveys. The buzzword is emblazoned on blogs and books and boot camps, and Thomson Reuters, a multinational mass-media and information firm, even created a Diversity and Inclusion Index to assess the practices of more than 5,000 publicly traded companies globally.
Manuel_D 5mo ago
DEI wasn't demonized because it tried to fight bigotry. It demonized itself because it routinely became a dishonest two-faced movement that public denied to be discriminatory, but then privately implemented policies that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex and gender. When your leaders publicly condemn the idea that your company is discriminating on the basis of sex, but then privately institutes a system of reserving headcount for women, that'll make most people real cynical about DEI.
- mullingitover 5mo ago
  Can you cite any companies which violated federal labor law in this way?
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    Three out of the four companies I've worked at, for one. YouTube was sued for directing one of its recruiters to exclusively advance diverse candidates for a period of time, and eventually settled with the recruiter [1]. Intel [2] and Microsoft [3] both tied specific percentage quotas to executive's compensation. If saying "reach this racial and gender quota or I'll penalize you financially" isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is. Perkins-Coie explicitly excluded applicants from its diversity fellowship program if they didn't meet certain racial, sexual orientation, or other requirements [4]. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-positions-excluded-white-and-asian-males-lawsuit-says-1519948013 https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-positio... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-... 3. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft-to-tie-executive-bonuses-to-company-diversity-goals https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft... 4. https://www.reuters.com/legal/second-major-us-law-firm-changes-diversity-fellowship-after-lawsuit-2023-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/second-major-us-law-firm-chang...
    - mullingitover 5mo ago
      YouTube was never found guilty of anything, they just paid to make the argument go away. In the case of Intel and Microsoft you're conflating incentives with quotas. These companies wanted more diversity in their staff, which is a valid and laudable goal, and they were willing to pay extra if that was achieved. Would you like to try again? edit: your later addition of Perkins Coie also was settled/dismissed and never adjudicated, and the executive order which claimed to penalize them for discrimination, which was adjudicated later, was a summary judgment in their favor[1]. The real takeaway is that a lot of people are very mad about what they imagine DEI to be. [1] https://www.perkinscoiefacts.com/filings/memorandum-opinion-granting-perkins-coies-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-entirety https://www.perkinscoiefacts.com/filings/memorandum-opinion-...
thegrimmest 5mo ago
I think the demonization comes from people resenting the use of authority to restrict liberty, and from conflating the resentment of authority with bigotry. In this case, let private people discriminate freely. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H. L. Mencken I think people should be allowed to make their own choices in terms of whom to hire/associate with, with absolutely no outside intervention. That doesn't make me a bigot.

hammock 5mo ago

Do you mean there’s a whole industry built around DEI? Or that there’s a whole industry built around countermessaging the DEI industry?

mullingitover 5mo ago
> the DEI industry isn't really a thing so much as it's a collection of principles that can be implemented. To the unprincipled, this needs to be converted into a literal enemy that can be vilified, because any attempt to force them to adhere to principles is an attack.
- hackinthebochs 5mo ago
  No DEI industry you say? https://web.archive.org/web/20240710195414/https://time.com/5696943/diversity-business/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240710195414/https://time.com/... >The lucrative industry shows few signs of waning–from the spike in well-compensated diversity consultants and czars; to online courses and degree programs at prestigious schools; to professional organizations and conferences; to the commissioning of ever more studies, task forces and climate surveys. The buzzword is emblazoned on blogs and books and boot camps, and Thomson Reuters, a multinational mass-media and information firm, even created a Diversity and Inclusion Index to assess the practices of more than 5,000 publicly traded companies globally.

Manuel_D 5mo ago

DEI wasn't demonized because it tried to fight bigotry. It demonized itself because it routinely became a dishonest two-faced movement that public denied to be discriminatory, but then privately implemented policies that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex and gender. When your leaders publicly condemn the idea that your company is discriminating on the basis of sex, but then privately institutes a system of reserving headcount for women, that'll make most people real cynical about DEI.

mullingitover 5mo ago
Can you cite any companies which violated federal labor law in this way?
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  Three out of the four companies I've worked at, for one. YouTube was sued for directing one of its recruiters to exclusively advance diverse candidates for a period of time, and eventually settled with the recruiter [1]. Intel [2] and Microsoft [3] both tied specific percentage quotas to executive's compensation. If saying "reach this racial and gender quota or I'll penalize you financially" isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is. Perkins-Coie explicitly excluded applicants from its diversity fellowship program if they didn't meet certain racial, sexual orientation, or other requirements [4]. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-positions-excluded-white-and-asian-males-lawsuit-says-1519948013 https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-positio... 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-... 3. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft-to-tie-executive-bonuses-to-company-diversity-goals https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/microsoft... 4. https://www.reuters.com/legal/second-major-us-law-firm-changes-diversity-fellowship-after-lawsuit-2023-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/second-major-us-law-firm-chang...
  - mullingitover 5mo ago
    YouTube was never found guilty of anything, they just paid to make the argument go away. In the case of Intel and Microsoft you're conflating incentives with quotas. These companies wanted more diversity in their staff, which is a valid and laudable goal, and they were willing to pay extra if that was achieved. Would you like to try again? edit: your later addition of Perkins Coie also was settled/dismissed and never adjudicated, and the executive order which claimed to penalize them for discrimination, which was adjudicated later, was a summary judgment in their favor[1]. The real takeaway is that a lot of people are very mad about what they imagine DEI to be. [1] https://www.perkinscoiefacts.com/filings/memorandum-opinion-granting-perkins-coies-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-entirety https://www.perkinscoiefacts.com/filings/memorandum-opinion-...

thegrimmest 5mo ago

I think the demonization comes from people resenting the use of authority to restrict liberty, and from conflating the resentment of authority with bigotry. In this case, let private people discriminate freely. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H. L. Mencken I think people should be allowed to make their own choices in terms of whom to hire/associate with, with absolutely no outside intervention. That doesn't make me a bigot.