This debate feels somewhat surreal because I feel like both sides are wrong.
Conservatives are clearly doing this because they’re pretty, vindictive, reactionary ethnonationalists. DEI is clearly harmless.
Conversely, I’ve not seen any evidence of these meaningfully ameliorating systemic racism at all. Honestly, they feel like another successful effort to turn a serious social problem into a profit generating industry, like carbon offsets.
(Maybe that’s what they’ll replace DEI with: some kind of Racism offset./s)
Anyway, what I’m saying is I have no horse in this race.
From my experience, DEI is not about making racist people not racist, or sexist people not sexist. It’s about making people from varying backgrounds feel welcome, and making sure people don’t feel isolated if they’re different.
I think that’s the intention, and it’s laudible, but in my experience it’s become something of a racket. An industry of consultants exist to receive money from corporations to launder their images. I think some of their recommendations are good, but ultimately it seems tokenizing and designed to brag about the fact that a board room full of ruthless Harvard grads isn’t all white men.
It seems highly performative. I haven’t seen credible evidence, for instance, that having more queer people on the board of a fossil fuel company changes their behavior or the long-term consequences for the poor families forced to live next to the company’s pollution.
I don’t mind these programs. I just think they’re a money maker and branding exercise rather than a genuine tool of change.
Now, socially responsible investing: that’s a conservative bogeyman that I think has some teeth.
I think you’re confusing diversity hiring practices with DEI programs. DEI can be a great tool to help employees/students from feeling isolated. I also suggest you stop watching so much cable news; I don’t think DEI is as big a deal as the media makes it out to be.
That’s possible (except the cable news thing, I don’t watch that).
My experience with DEI is primarily in the form of PR. I’m skeptical that DEI initiatives change hiring practices. I think it primarily takes the form of reporting, such as listing how many upper level managers are non-white. Which I think is totally harmless. Like you said, I don’t think it’s a big deal at all. But I’m skeptical it achieves much. I think it’s based on unexamined assumptions. Does increasing diversity in leadership meaningfully improve the experience for workers? And is that even the goal, or is increased diversity within board rooms itself the goal? Because if so, that’s kind of shitty goal for anyone who isn’t aspiring to join the 1%.
Mind you, I’m open to having my mind changed if there’s evidence otherwise. But I think some of the examples of benefits of DEI programs I hear don’t sound like new initiatives. Assessing the racial makeup of a an applicant pool, for instance, isn’t a DEI program, as far as I’m aware. I believe that’s an affirmative action program that has been around for decades. Which is good, but I don’t think that’s DEI.
I think this might be a semantic issue. Maybe the stuff I like actually counts as DEI and I just didn’t realize it.
I don’t think that flows logically. I don’t think anyone predicates being upset on being surprised.
Do you read stories about prescription drug prices going up or the destruction in Gaza and say, ‘Shucks, this would be pretty upsetting… if it weren’t to be expected.’ ?
I don’t think that’s DEI, that’s Affirmative Action.
The Supreme Court banned that, so it’s over.
The problem with ivy league admissions was never racial selection. It’s that it’s a cartel. It’s an artificially limited resource. Asian applicants aren’t being excluded for black people, they’re being excluded to leave empty space at a gigantic campus that could accommodate several times sad many students as they let in.
Again: they definitely aren’t being excluded based on their race anymore. The supreme court banned this practice completely. So I don’t know what there is to argue about.
I think it’s a distraction, though, because the underlying issue is that these institutions are a corrupt parasitic power retention project. They offer a very small number of people access to networks to ensure they can dole out favors in a carefully controlled manner, and then we argue about whether the people they’re choosing to let into this artificially limited power sharing network are unfairly discriminated against by race, as though what they’re doing would be okay if it had no racial bias.
I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing, but I think it’s a distraction from the fact that even now that they’ve ended the racial element of the program, they’re STILL a corrupt parasitic antidemocratic cabal. They’re still excluding people unnecessarily, it’s just the criteria they use has been changed to ensure that those people are unable to organize themselves into any kind of class action lawsuit.
I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing
Yeah, as that sentence clearly says, that’s not my point.
I feel like you’re looking for a conflict where there is none. Do you think their policies were bad and treated people unfairly? I agree. They were bad and they treated people unfairly. The point I’m trying to make is that we should demand more than JUST an end to racially restrictive admissions. I’m "yes-and"ing you. There’s no reason to argue.
It continues to be amazing that so many of them are sticking to the lie that there's a "leftist revolution" going on. How can it be that anyone still falls for it?
It’s a convenient excuse that allows them to reject any social progress without having to examine or defend any of their own views. It doesn’t matter that the ideas of the “leftist revolution” may in fact be correct and completely justifiable, because introducing it through a “revolution” is inherently bad.
I thought treating people differently based on race was to be avoided? There’s no good racism right?
Wouldn’t a better and fairer idea be to give people a hand up based on economic issues?
You can’t tell if someone has experienced racial discrimination based on the race they ascribe to (ask Megan markle).
However you can definitely (and without bias) tell someone is going to be disadvantaged if they grew up in a poor neighbourhood, neither parent earned much, no family history of higher education etc etc.
Too easy and doesn’t let us divide and conquer the US among racial lines. Easier to just make the populace fear and attack each other while the top 1% loots any remaining value.
You’re talking about affirmative action, this is about DEI.
I thought treating people differently based on race was to be avoided? There’s no good racism right?
On the very slim chance you’re asking in good faith, I’ll answer your question.
Suppose we were playing poker, and I was cheating the whole time. After a long time, and with almost all the chips, I finally agree not to cheat anymore and play the game “with the same rules for everybody, going forward”. That’s fair, right?
I get that you have good intentions and I hate to tell you this but every racist thinks their racism is right and justified. Best to reject racism mate.
Also your example plays perfectly into the compromise I suggested. Why not give those with less chips more? They’re not always (insert race you want to preference here).
I know the intention is to level the playing field but it’s been divisive and often exploited by those who don’t need it. Economic standards are far easier to determine, more accurate measures and aren’t racist.
Well sure, but that’s not how they would frame it. I’m curious what their arguments against it are. They usually put a little spit and polish on their turds before feeding them to their faithful masses.
They claim its racist to have policies that try to promote diversity. They claim its giving preferential treatment to minorities which is not color blind and thus racist in their view.
(to be clear i think this line of thinking is dumb a duck but it’s what I see when people try to argue it)
It would be nice if at least once a page someone fucking explains an acronym. It's a little more understandable when you can infer a meaning through context, but when the context is that people are using it as the new woke bogeyman it gives zero clue as to what it even is.
You aren't wrong with your criticism in general (from a purely journalistic pov). But actually typing DEI into Google and clicking the first hit, would be more constructive than ranting.
If my only point was to learn what DEI was, sure. But that doesn't help with the next acronym. Or the next one. Or the next one. Ad nauseum.
My problem is with the trend of people just using an acronym with no definition, it means you are not making a coherent argument that can be understood by people not already invested in it. It, in and of itself, is little better than a rant to an audience that's already made up its mind.
It means trying to diversity your workforce instead of just loading the places up with white people.
Opponents have lots of idiotic tropes about how hiring minorities makes white people less safe and how it takes good jobs away from more qualified applicants.
To many whites, equality feels like oppression, I guess, and they would rather feel superior than be equal.
I really enjoy those honey badger nature vids online. Watching this angry little weasel go pick a fight with 6 lions. Jumping from one to other and ruining their day. This ball of pure malice and hate that is forever in need of a target. One of the only critters on earth that will kill for the joy of it.
I am glad I sure don’t know any humans like that. Especially not those in power, not ones who have zero interest in building or even maintaining things. Just rage and the ability to hurt.
It does if you start with the assumption that you need to do ANYTHING POSSIBLE in the name of equity, including causing further inequities at the individual level.
So now DEI programs are only for people of colour?
Why not just "disadvantaged people"? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied. Unless excluding disadvantaged people of specific races or genders or whatever is actually the point.
Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.
No, that's a false dichotomy, there are other choices. Such as "help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics." I reject the "but it's too hard" argument. If racial discrimination or gender discrimination or discrimination based on orientation is wrong, then it's wrong. Don't put an asterisk on it with a list of types that it's okay for.
Ok then, how about instead of complaining about the best solution we’ve thought of so far, you tell us what your brilliant solution to racism is? I’ll wait.
I really miss RES’s filters, and the ability to filter out posts linking to irreputable, clickbait sources like nytimes.com. I always wished for an android app that had that capability for Reddit, and now for Lemmy.
Add comment