Split Thread DEI in the US

[theprestige]

The actual survey statement is "1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men".

Why did the article you linked change the correct verbiage from 'deprioritize' meaning to stop giving priority treatment, to the incorrect verbiage 'stop hiring'?

Weaselly.

The directive assumes a priori that the hiring managers are being blatantly racist in their hiring decisions. There's simply no other way to interpret "prioritizing hiring white men". And the only way to distance oneself from this accusation is to not hire any white men at all, at least for a while. Especially if the last qualified hire you made happened to be a white man. The whole thing is pretty foul.

 

[wareyin]

Weaselly.

The directive assumes a priori that the hiring managers are being blatantly racist in their hiring decisions. There's simply no other way to interpret "prioritizing hiring white men". And the only way to distance oneself from this accusation is to not hire any white men at all, at least for a while. Especially if the last qualified hire you made happened to be a white man. The whole thing is pretty foul.

Spoken like someone with absolutely no experience hiring people.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Weaselly.

The directive assumes a priori that the hiring managers are being blatantly racist in their hiring decisions. There's simply no other way to interpret "prioritizing hiring white men". And the only way to distance oneself from this accusation is to not hire any white men at all, at least for a while. Especially if the last qualified hire you made happened to be a white man. The whole thing is pretty foul.

Just as there is simply no other way to interpret "prioritizing hiring non-white men", and the only way to distance yourself from that accusation is to not hire any non-white men at all, at least for a while.

That is what @theprestige is telling us. Presuming, of course, that @theprestige applies exactly the same standards of interpretation without regard to the class of potential employees he is discussing.

Which would, of course, be a foolish thing to presume. Before we presume any such thing, we should consider whether he has consistently applied the same standards, regardless of the class of potential employees he happens to be discussing.

 

[Donal]

Weaselly.

The directive assumes a priori that the hiring managers are being blatantly racist in their hiring decisions.

Or there is implicit bias that favors hiring white men. That's the point a lot of folks like yourself miss. It's not "don't hire white men". It's "look at more than just white men."

There's simply no other way to interpret "prioritizing hiring white men".

see above

And the only way to distance oneself from this accusation is to not hire any white men at all, at least for a while. Especially if the last qualified hire you made happened to be a white man. The whole thing is pretty foul.

So, only white men can be qualified?

 

[johnny karate]

Federal judge orders Asheville to pay 5 white residents in discrimination lawsuit

Wow, checkmate, I guess. There's no way we could ever find non-white people who won discrimination lawsuits.

 

[arthwollipot]

This was posted to another thread, but I think it deserves to be here too:

Interesting article about how the US government has banned certain words; accessibility, advocacy, barriers, biases, breastfeeding, climate change, disability, diversity, ethnicity, equity, female, gender, gender-affirming care, health disparity, immigrants, inclusion, mental health, minority, pregnant people, race, racism, sex, socioeconomic, systemic, underserved, victim, vulnerable populations, women, from US in federal documents.

Yet it is the UK that the US government accuses of restricting free speach.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2842708

Notice how it is the mere use of the words "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion" that is being excised from documents. This isn't about banning programs that implement discriminatory policies under the guise of calling them "DEI". This is about banning all mention of diversity. All mention of equity. All mention of inclusion. You can't even talk about them. You can't use them in a sentence in federal documents.

The full article is, of course, paywalled, but I know for a fact that some people here can access it through their academic institution.

 

[dudalb]

In an ideal world, jobs would be filled with the best qualified person, regardless of race, religion, or sex. This is not an ideal world.
I am torn on this. I have no doubt the DEI programs the Feds had was probably wasteful and badly ran, but itls clear the Trumpers have gone in the other direction.......they want to favor whites applicants. Hesgrath, in parituclar, has all but said in so many words he wants only Whites in the US Military.

 

[jt512]

In an ideal world, jobs would be filled with the best qualified person, regardless of race, religion, or sex. This is not an ideal world.
I am torn on this. I have no doubt the DEI programs the Feds had was probably wasteful and badly ran...

In education, government, business, and wherever else DEI was deployed, it wasn't just wasteful, it was destructive. Student test scores tanked, business suffered losses, the most promising up-and-coming scientists forced to move abroad to find jobs, and a complete airhead nearly became the president of the United States.

...but itls clear the Trumpers have gone in the other direction.......

I don't see that at all. I see Trump promoting nothing other than colorblind meritocracy.

they want to favor whites applicants. Hesgrath, in parituclar, has all but said in so many words he wants only Whites in the US Military.

[citation needed]

 

[wareyin]

In education, government, business, and wherever else DEI was deployed, it wasn't just wasteful, it was destructive. Student test scores tanked, business suffered losses, the most promising up-and-coming scientists forced to move abroad to find jobs, and a complete airhead nearly became the president of the United States.

Citation required, because literally all evidence so far has pointed in the opposite direction. And a corrupt, incompetent, criminal actually became President.

I don't see that at all. I see Trump promoting nothing other than colorblind meritocracy.

Well, yes, when your automatic assumption is that white men are better, you won't be able to see anything but a "colorblind meritocracy" when white men are favored.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In education, government, business, and wherever else DEI was deployed, it wasn't just wasteful, it was destructive. Student test scores tanked, business suffered losses, the most promising up-and-coming scientists forced to move abroad to find jobs, and a complete airhead nearly became the president of the United States.

He did become president of the United States, and holds that position even as we write. He filled his cabinet with airheads, fired many competent people whose gender or skin color offended bigots who assumed they got their jobs because of DEI, and set out to defund scientific research, forcing many scientists to move abroad to find jobs.

I don't see that at all. I see Trump promoting nothing other than colorblind meritocracy.

In a meritocracy, Pete Hegseth does not become Secretary of Defense, RFK Jr does not become Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kristi Noem does not become Secretary of Homeland Security, Pam Bondi does not become Attorney General, Kash Patel does not become director of the FBI, Howard Lutnick does not become Secretary of Commerce, Linda McMahon does not become Secretary of Education, Lee Zeldin does not become Administrator of the EPA, Tulsi Gabbard does not become Director of National Intelligence, and a fellow who can't explain who pays the tariffs doesn't become Secretary of the Treasury.