Harvard University announced it will not comply with orders from Donald Trump to cut DEI programs and expel students in involved in pro-Palestinian protests.
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action but that’s already been settled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
I’ve managed and hired in workplaces that have employed DEI for years. It’s not a hiring quota, like Affirmative Action. It’s a training course and cultural adoption to increase awareness around unconscious bias and microagressions. It’s a way to help identify discrimination, and bring it out into conversation. It also focuses on the benefits of diverse perspectives when approaching a problem.
That’s MAGA’s definition of DEI because Affirmative Action was repealed, so they needed a new way to rally the racists and bigots.
The only hiring guideline is equal representation in interviewing. There are no quotas in DEI as there were under Affirmative Action. No one gets hired to fulfill a requirement.
You have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to DEI, like so many others you have just gobbled up the view points of the right propaganda machine. But let me ask one thing, where is the evidence os all this supposed discrimination that took place because of DEI?
Evidence is just talking with people in person about their lived experiences with the DEI hiring process/work life. Easily accessible to everybody. May I know how what I posted is part of the “right propaganda machine” when it’s literally on Harvard Business School’s website?
Thats not evidence, and that is just confirmation bias. If an actual study was performed looking at the hiring processes and the end result of alot of companies then that would be evidence. Also if there was a rise in discrimination law suits in situations where DEI was a determining factor would even be evidence.
What you said was basically was “Someone said it exists so it must”.
I’m sorry, but I believe employment should be merit based only.
Maybe the problem lies with your interpretation? Inclusion means to include a thing. You can still hire based on merit while being inclusive. The whole point of DEI is to make sure a company isn’t missing out a massive talent pool because they’re focusing on a singular demographic.
I deleted it because it’s written poorly. It implies requirements. There are none. Affirmative Action had metricized hiring quotas that must be met. DEI does not.
This is a better explanation from Forbes on how quotas are not just bad for the majority, but also cause resentment within minority groups.
Although DEI quotas can help level the playing field for historically marginalized groups, and help to send a message that a company is committed to diversity and inclusion, they may also be seen as discriminatory. When a company sets aside a certain number of positions for members of a particular group, it can send the message that these groups are not qualified to compete on their own merits. Quotas can lead to resentment among employees who feel that they were not hired based on their qualifications, and they can be difficult to implement and enforce. It can be challenging to determine who is eligible for a quota position and how to measure the effectiveness of a quota program.
There may be some poorly implemented DEI policies that are just quotas in disguise, but that seems like its own punishment, when you get unqualified people.
I’ve worked for several companies that have gotten it right: hired and promoted the best qualified people from all cultures, nationalities, religions, skin color, preferences, genders, etc. it’s not a matter of hiring based on those characteristics, but putting a little effort into ensuring that you can find the best person and they can thrive, even if they otherwise have many obstacles
Right. The only guideline that I’ve followed regarding DEI hiring is including a diverse group of interviewees. I’m still only hiring the most qualified people. Basically, if your sample group is heavily weighted towards one demographic, you may not have interviewed the full spectrum of diverse candidates available simply by using random selection.
I’m interested in the truth. Just not what you claim to be the truth. And based on what? DEI doesn’t have explicit quotas? You can still discriminate without them.
DEI is explicitly about including anyone qualified. It’s explicitly anti-discrimination. It’s not about quotas. It’s about ensuring everyone is included in the process. It makes sure you don’t only look at white men, or whatever the bias may be prioritizing. If a white man is the best candidate, they get it. If a black woman is, they get it. It’s just about making sure you’re actually looking at everyone and taking account of them equally.
I don’t understand how fixing existing discrimination is in itself discrimination. People are not being oppressed because they aren’t being given special treatment anymore. DEI policies have absolutely nothing to do with quotas or giving protected classes special treatment.
"No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach,” Garber said, “whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
Specifically, this tidbit “whom they can admit and hire”
Most dei policies are designed to prevent people from using bias in the hiring process, and encouraging diversity. This can include removing name/gender/etc from the process.
I have always thought affirmative action had some issues but DEI was originally conceived by corporations to get better talent that would have otherwise not been hired due to racism, sexism, or any form of nepotism. Diversity of any kind has helped corporations make fuck loads of money for decades on top of helping veterans, old people and disabled people get jobs.
The inclusion part of DEI includes assisting children and adults with disabilities across a variety of classes, both educational and recreational. What part of that is systematic discrimination? Should high functioning adults with trisonomy 21 not be allowed to attend certification classes to help them receive employment? When they are children, do you think they shouldn’t be allowed at basketball camp?
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action but that’s already been settled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
I’ve managed and hired in workplaces that have employed DEI for years. It’s not a hiring quota, like Affirmative Action. It’s a training course and cultural adoption to increase awareness around unconscious bias and microagressions. It’s a way to help identify discrimination, and bring it out into conversation. It also focuses on the benefits of diverse perspectives when approaching a problem.
Removed by mod
That’s MAGA’s definition of DEI because Affirmative Action was repealed, so they needed a new way to rally the racists and bigots.
The only hiring guideline is equal representation in interviewing. There are no quotas in DEI as there were under Affirmative Action. No one gets hired to fulfill a requirement.
Your own link (https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-dei) that you’ve now deleted states the opposite. I’m sorry, but I believe employment should be merit based only.
You have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to DEI, like so many others you have just gobbled up the view points of the right propaganda machine. But let me ask one thing, where is the evidence os all this supposed discrimination that took place because of DEI?
Evidence is just talking with people in person about their lived experiences with the DEI hiring process/work life. Easily accessible to everybody. May I know how what I posted is part of the “right propaganda machine” when it’s literally on Harvard Business School’s website?
Thats not evidence, and that is just confirmation bias. If an actual study was performed looking at the hiring processes and the end result of alot of companies then that would be evidence. Also if there was a rise in discrimination law suits in situations where DEI was a determining factor would even be evidence.
What you said was basically was “Someone said it exists so it must”.
So your evidence is “I heard someone say it before.” Great. That’s not very valuable and I would advise not basing your worldview in it.
Anecdotal evidence is worth less than nothing.
DEI MAKES a position merit-based
Maybe the problem lies with your interpretation? Inclusion means to include a thing. You can still hire based on merit while being inclusive. The whole point of DEI is to make sure a company isn’t missing out a massive talent pool because they’re focusing on a singular demographic.
I deleted it because it’s written poorly. It implies requirements. There are none. Affirmative Action had metricized hiring quotas that must be met. DEI does not.
This is a better explanation from Forbes on how quotas are not just bad for the majority, but also cause resentment within minority groups.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/08/25/dei-backlash-4-legitimate-concerns-to-avoid/
There may be some poorly implemented DEI policies that are just quotas in disguise, but that seems like its own punishment, when you get unqualified people.
I’ve worked for several companies that have gotten it right: hired and promoted the best qualified people from all cultures, nationalities, religions, skin color, preferences, genders, etc. it’s not a matter of hiring based on those characteristics, but putting a little effort into ensuring that you can find the best person and they can thrive, even if they otherwise have many obstacles
Right. The only guideline that I’ve followed regarding DEI hiring is including a diverse group of interviewees. I’m still only hiring the most qualified people. Basically, if your sample group is heavily weighted towards one demographic, you may not have interviewed the full spectrum of diverse candidates available simply by using random selection.
Won so hard the mods had to ban you to maintain their illusions
More like he lied so hard mods decided to stop the spread of disinformation, and then followed up with a comment explaining exactly why he was wrong.
Unfortunately I get the feeling that you aren’t interested in the truth.
I’m interested in the truth. Just not what you claim to be the truth. And based on what? DEI doesn’t have explicit quotas? You can still discriminate without them.
DEI stops discrimination, not the other way. If you can’t understand that then it’s clear you don’t want to.
DEI is explicitly about including anyone qualified. It’s explicitly anti-discrimination. It’s not about quotas. It’s about ensuring everyone is included in the process. It makes sure you don’t only look at white men, or whatever the bias may be prioritizing. If a white man is the best candidate, they get it. If a black woman is, they get it. It’s just about making sure you’re actually looking at everyone and taking account of them equally.
I don’t understand how fixing existing discrimination is in itself discrimination. People are not being oppressed because they aren’t being given special treatment anymore. DEI policies have absolutely nothing to do with quotas or giving protected classes special treatment.
Well, when you discriminate, either positively or negatively, it’s discrimination.
Glad to help clear that up!
But it’s explicitly not discrimination. It’s inclusion. Meaning “in addition to”. No one is left out by it lol.
Despite what they claimed, they were discriminating.
And that claim is based on what? Anecdotes?
The article
Where in the article does it say Harvard was discriminating?
"No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach,” Garber said, “whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
Specifically, this tidbit “whom they can admit and hire”
I always find it amazing that people fail to understand such a basic concept.
Most dei policies are designed to prevent people from using bias in the hiring process, and encouraging diversity. This can include removing name/gender/etc from the process.
What policies do you object to?
Can you elaborate on this? I’ve known DEI policies and Affirmative Action to be commonly confused with each other, but distinctly different.
In practice? Can you prove that?
I have always thought affirmative action had some issues but DEI was originally conceived by corporations to get better talent that would have otherwise not been hired due to racism, sexism, or any form of nepotism. Diversity of any kind has helped corporations make fuck loads of money for decades on top of helping veterans, old people and disabled people get jobs.
The inclusion part of DEI includes assisting children and adults with disabilities across a variety of classes, both educational and recreational. What part of that is systematic discrimination? Should high functioning adults with trisonomy 21 not be allowed to attend certification classes to help them receive employment? When they are children, do you think they shouldn’t be allowed at basketball camp?
Just simply not true.