politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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"
Where does that say what you're claiming? If the government said they could only hire black students, or white students, or only men, wouldn't them standing against it be identical? It does not say they're using quotas. It only says for the government to keep their hands out of their decisions.
Because the order was to stop discrimination. And they're explicitly refusing.
The order was to shut down DEI policies, not to stop discrimination. And DEI policies explicitly exist to try to stop discrimination - meaning that what Trump really wants to do is appeal to white men who feel like they're being left behind when a Pakistani woman gets hired in a position they feel like they 'deserve'.
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.
Just simply not true.