DEI has been in the news the past few days as being some controversial concept. So I looked it up, and find out it means “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”.
You realize that’s just a name, right? They can name things whatever they want.
The argument against it is that people are disadvantaged based on the color of their skin or their race. In other words, racism. That’s why some people are upset. People will deny this over and over but they’re simply being irrational and disingenuous because they don’t want to be associated with the word.
Now I’m gonna tell you something about this that no one else will: This type of racism is good. It’s meant to combat other types of much more prevalent racism.
Society just needs to acknowledge that racism isn’t an inherently bad word and then we’re all just better off.
I’m white, straight, and male. I’m trying to get a book published. Every agent that I’ve tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I’m writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I’ve been turned away at every one. Such racism, right?
Except…most published work in bookstores is still by white male authors like myself. And if I take a step back to look at my whole life situation: I’m not reliant on this book. I’m a well-employed engineer, have my own house and mortgage, and had relatively well-off parents. Little of this is true for these other demographics that have received heavy discrimination even less than a generation ago. All things considered, it is very fair for these agents to champion diverse voices, and they’re slammed with requests all over the place.
The scarring effects of discrimination are still felt decades later when we feel them gone. It’s still a hard truth that employment is hard even today, but those with experience in staffing can usually only point to the occasional anecdote when someone was prioritized for their race - and usually have just as many stories of inverse discrimination or nepotism.
What the current situation is has absolutely zero effect on whether or not it is racism. Being turned away for being a white male is not only racist but sexist and exclusive, plain and simple. There is no other rational argument.
Again, I think this is a good thing. It’s also racist. And the fight to redefine the word when it’s convenient does not serve the cause.
This is still diving down a rabbit hole of bad definitions, and devalues both what racism is and how it’s affected people in their lives.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion like one hiring session. I guarantee you, if an organization’s entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well. The fact of the matter is, just about every organization currently hires plenty of white men, so that ends up being many levels removed from reality.
If you’re trying to pinpoint statistics around who gets turned away from one particular position, the problem is that companies get so many dozens or hundreds of applicants, you’d be flagging that statistic on enormous groups. Asians over blacks? Women over men? You really can’t make a concrete determination there, and when your source cases are singular anecdotes, it fails the critical definition of being “systemic”.
You’re also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race. If you’re attacked on the street anonymously, specifically for being white, and the attacker calls you a “fucking cracker!” then I would have no problems labeling that racism. As it stands, even in 2024, other races deal with that situation far more often from police or other hate groups. I would absolutely call much of the “DEI” labeling racism, given that the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target’s performance on their job.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion
Incorrect. What you’re referring to is called “systemic racism”, but “racism” alone has an entirely different, very simple definition: discrimination based on race, which is what this is. And it can absolutely be applied to individuals and to policies.
if an organization’s entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well.
Really? Do you really think that’s true? Do you think anyone would “highlight”, say, a professional basketball or football team that’s 90+% black as “problematic”?
You’re also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race.
Wrong again, I explicitly acknowledged this already. It has no bearing on this conversation.
the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target’s performance on their job.
You don’t need to assess performance. The only thing you need to assess is the policies themselves. How they’re applied or what the resulting performance is is irrelevant to a conversation about whether or not they’re discriminatory.
Can you link me to the specific comment where you’ve acknowledged negative reinforcement? I checked over each of your comments in this thread and don’t see it.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I’m still not sure what point you’re making; DEI does not mandate a perfectly smooth ratio. And as far as I’ve seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves, but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires - based on, you guessed it, race. White people, so far as I’ve seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
Can you link me to the specific comment where you’ve acknowledged negative reinforcement?
I’ll go ahead and do it again, just for you: Racial and sexual bias is present in our systems. In politics, in employment, and in every other industry. They’ve been dealt a shit hand via generational poverty, which extends from all the way back in the days of slavery. Marginalized people deserve an upper hand.
DEI attempts to bring balance to that inequality, using racism and discrimination. DEI is a net positive. Discrimination is not inherently negative.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I’m still not sure what point you’re making
The point I’m making is the frequency. Unless you want to claim that companies just never hire black men, at which point I expect to see statistics indicating that all black men are unemployed.
Black basketball players comprise ~70% of the NBA, despite making up ~13% of the US population. That’s a >500% over-representation. Are you planning to file a complaint?
And as far as I’ve seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves
What are you talking about? It’s called DEI. The policy is in the name.
but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires
I don’t even know what this means?
White people, so far as I’ve seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
You just did, in your first reply to me:
I’m white, straight, and male…Every agent that I’ve tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I’m writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I’ve been turned away at every one.
Buddy, I’ve tried to be more patient with you than other commenters, but that truly crosses a line. Taking someone else’s experiences, and selectively quoting them to suit your own agenda, so it fits your definition of discrimination, is disgraceful.
If you’d read on in my comment, I described how literary agents are inundated with thousands of requests. It is literally an industry anyone with Word or OpenOffice can try to enter into. There are probably hundreds of minority authors also getting turned away just like me. This is not an instance of “defending one’s presence” the way that minorities need to in their workplaces, the way the current administration is scrutinizing them in Federal offices. This is just me trying to be the one in a thousand shot to publicize a book - which is a rare accomplishment. So, NO. You don’t get to “own” and weaponize someone else’s hardship in that way. Not ever.
Being able to admit that certain groups are systemically disadvantaged and wanting to do something about it is literally the opposite of racism, what are you talking about?
If “doing something about it” means disadvantaging a group of people based on their race or ethnicity, that is the very definition of racism, what are you talking about?
I can ask myself all day but the answer will be the same. Instead, why don’t you tell me how that works?
There is a finite amount of positions at any job (unless you’re hiring someone to do a made-up job to score points, which would be the textbook definition of “diversity hire”). You can choose to fill those positions with the most qualified applicant, or you can choose to hire one of a specific race. You can’t logically do both.
That’s an entirely different conversation, and a strawman to boot. You clearly aren’t interested in actually discussing this. I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists against equally skilled applicants with an “ethnic sounding” name, but why bother, you’re not serious and I’m done engaging with you.
It is a different conversation from the one you want to have. It is the conversation I was having before you showed up and tried to derail it with a strawman.
I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists
I agree and acknowledge that that bias exists. That bias has no bearing on whether or not discrimination based on race (regardless of what race) is racism.
You realize that’s just a name, right? They can name things whatever they want.
The argument against it is that people are disadvantaged based on the color of their skin or their race. In other words, racism. That’s why some people are upset. People will deny this over and over but they’re simply being irrational and disingenuous because they don’t want to be associated with the word.
Now I’m gonna tell you something about this that no one else will: This type of racism is good. It’s meant to combat other types of much more prevalent racism.
Society just needs to acknowledge that racism isn’t an inherently bad word and then we’re all just better off.
I’m white, straight, and male. I’m trying to get a book published. Every agent that I’ve tried to contact, especially ones that match the type of book I’m writing, has been vocal that their focus is on BIPOC, LGBT, and other diverse candidates. I’ve been turned away at every one. Such racism, right?
Except…most published work in bookstores is still by white male authors like myself. And if I take a step back to look at my whole life situation: I’m not reliant on this book. I’m a well-employed engineer, have my own house and mortgage, and had relatively well-off parents. Little of this is true for these other demographics that have received heavy discrimination even less than a generation ago. All things considered, it is very fair for these agents to champion diverse voices, and they’re slammed with requests all over the place.
The scarring effects of discrimination are still felt decades later when we feel them gone. It’s still a hard truth that employment is hard even today, but those with experience in staffing can usually only point to the occasional anecdote when someone was prioritized for their race - and usually have just as many stories of inverse discrimination or nepotism.
What the current situation is has absolutely zero effect on whether or not it is racism. Being turned away for being a white male is not only racist but sexist and exclusive, plain and simple. There is no other rational argument.
Again, I think this is a good thing. It’s also racist. And the fight to redefine the word when it’s convenient does not serve the cause.
This is still diving down a rabbit hole of bad definitions, and devalues both what racism is and how it’s affected people in their lives.
Racism systemically prefers one race over another; not just on an individual occasion like one hiring session. I guarantee you, if an organization’s entire senior leadership of 10+ people were all black men, any diversity consulting would highlight that as being an issue as well. The fact of the matter is, just about every organization currently hires plenty of white men, so that ends up being many levels removed from reality.
If you’re trying to pinpoint statistics around who gets turned away from one particular position, the problem is that companies get so many dozens or hundreds of applicants, you’d be flagging that statistic on enormous groups. Asians over blacks? Women over men? You really can’t make a concrete determination there, and when your source cases are singular anecdotes, it fails the critical definition of being “systemic”.
You’re also disacknowledging the negative reinforcement that accompanies racism, where people are treated negatively a certain way based on no known information of them other than their race. If you’re attacked on the street anonymously, specifically for being white, and the attacker calls you a “fucking cracker!” then I would have no problems labeling that racism. As it stands, even in 2024, other races deal with that situation far more often from police or other hate groups. I would absolutely call much of the “DEI” labeling racism, given that the people making these declarations have not been given valid assessments of their target’s performance on their job.
Incorrect. What you’re referring to is called “systemic racism”, but “racism” alone has an entirely different, very simple definition: discrimination based on race, which is what this is. And it can absolutely be applied to individuals and to policies.
Really? Do you really think that’s true? Do you think anyone would “highlight”, say, a professional basketball or football team that’s 90+% black as “problematic”?
Wrong again, I explicitly acknowledged this already. It has no bearing on this conversation.
You don’t need to assess performance. The only thing you need to assess is the policies themselves. How they’re applied or what the resulting performance is is irrelevant to a conversation about whether or not they’re discriminatory.
Can you link me to the specific comment where you’ve acknowledged negative reinforcement? I checked over each of your comments in this thread and don’t see it.
Basketball teams hire white men frequently. So I’m still not sure what point you’re making; DEI does not mandate a perfectly smooth ratio. And as far as I’ve seen, people are not assessing the policies themselves, but making assertions around them directly to individual long-term hires - based on, you guessed it, race. White people, so far as I’ve seen, have not had to defend their presence under these policies.
I’ll go ahead and do it again, just for you: Racial and sexual bias is present in our systems. In politics, in employment, and in every other industry. They’ve been dealt a shit hand via generational poverty, which extends from all the way back in the days of slavery. Marginalized people deserve an upper hand.
DEI attempts to bring balance to that inequality, using racism and discrimination. DEI is a net positive. Discrimination is not inherently negative.
The point I’m making is the frequency. Unless you want to claim that companies just never hire black men, at which point I expect to see statistics indicating that all black men are unemployed.
Black basketball players comprise ~70% of the NBA, despite making up ~13% of the US population. That’s a >500% over-representation. Are you planning to file a complaint?
What are you talking about? It’s called DEI. The policy is in the name.
I don’t even know what this means?
You just did, in your first reply to me:
Buddy, I’ve tried to be more patient with you than other commenters, but that truly crosses a line. Taking someone else’s experiences, and selectively quoting them to suit your own agenda, so it fits your definition of discrimination, is disgraceful.
If you’d read on in my comment, I described how literary agents are inundated with thousands of requests. It is literally an industry anyone with Word or OpenOffice can try to enter into. There are probably hundreds of minority authors also getting turned away just like me. This is not an instance of “defending one’s presence” the way that minorities need to in their workplaces, the way the current administration is scrutinizing them in Federal offices. This is just me trying to be the one in a thousand shot to publicize a book - which is a rare accomplishment. So, NO. You don’t get to “own” and weaponize someone else’s hardship in that way. Not ever.
Shame on you.
I didn’t “selectively” quote anything…
…are you under the impression that I invented the word? I’m not quite that old…
…and that should mean something to me?
Okay but you explicitly said you were rejected because of your skin color…
That…didn’t happen. Don’t blame me because you argued against yourself…
Being able to admit that certain groups are systemically disadvantaged and wanting to do something about it is literally the opposite of racism, what are you talking about?
If “doing something about it” means disadvantaging a group of people based on their race or ethnicity, that is the very definition of racism, what are you talking about?
You should really ask yourself why you see raising up one group as necessarily lowering another. One doesn’t follow from the other.
I can ask myself all day but the answer will be the same. Instead, why don’t you tell me how that works?
There is a finite amount of positions at any job (unless you’re hiring someone to do a made-up job to score points, which would be the textbook definition of “diversity hire”). You can choose to fill those positions with the most qualified applicant, or you can choose to hire one of a specific race. You can’t logically do both.
That’s an entirely different conversation, and a strawman to boot. You clearly aren’t interested in actually discussing this. I can show you study after study proving that a bias exists against equally skilled applicants with an “ethnic sounding” name, but why bother, you’re not serious and I’m done engaging with you.
It is a different conversation from the one you want to have. It is the conversation I was having before you showed up and tried to derail it with a strawman.
I agree and acknowledge that that bias exists. That bias has no bearing on whether or not discrimination based on race (regardless of what race) is racism.
deleted by creator