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.
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.
I’m confused how you think DEI is discrimination- its entire purpose is to make reviewers cognizant of their own biases to make hiring more based on merit. There is no quota. There is no agenda to put unqualified people on top
I’m honestly confused how you don’t. If they wanted to make things unbiased, they’d just anonymise them. But they don’t, they put a spotlight on their race and gender. That adds bias, it doesn’t get rid of it.
Making people aware of their biases is not discrimination nor favoritism- it is removing favoritism for equal odds for everyone. In short, “here’s a problem we have as a community- you should be aware of it when you are hiring so you treat people equally.” It’s clear you don’t even understand the problem- you can’t remove people’s innate characteristics when they come to your work for an interview, so obviously you make it so the people interviewing are less biased. The only way to make people less biased is to inform them of their possible biases.
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.
Explicitly anti-discrimination by being pro-discrimination. If they were being honest, they’d anonymized everything, but they don’t. They do the opposite and put a spotlight on their race and gender. Their actions speak louder than their words.
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.
Ah yes, the old fight fire with fire. That always turns out well
I’m confused how you think DEI is discrimination- its entire purpose is to make reviewers cognizant of their own biases to make hiring more based on merit. There is no quota. There is no agenda to put unqualified people on top
I’m honestly confused how you don’t. If they wanted to make things unbiased, they’d just anonymise them. But they don’t, they put a spotlight on their race and gender. That adds bias, it doesn’t get rid of it.
Making people aware of their biases is not discrimination nor favoritism- it is removing favoritism for equal odds for everyone. In short, “here’s a problem we have as a community- you should be aware of it when you are hiring so you treat people equally.” It’s clear you don’t even understand the problem- you can’t remove people’s innate characteristics when they come to your work for an interview, so obviously you make it so the people interviewing are less biased. The only way to make people less biased is to inform them of their possible biases.
Remember when y’all banned the word “fascist” as mods on /conservative.ee?
God damn that was funny.
Unfortunately, there aren’t exactly a lot of decentralized alternatives.
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.
Explicitly anti-discrimination by being pro-discrimination. If they were being honest, they’d anonymized everything, but they don’t. They do the opposite and put a spotlight on their race and gender. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Evidence for your claims?