Diversity, equity, and inclusion is not an illusion, but it soon might be Google may be the latest big tech corporation to scale back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs – but Arm, HPE, and Apple are going against the current direction of travel in their hiring and training policies. The subject matter appears to be something many tech titans prefer not to publicly discuss, with numerous calls …
The situation in Europe and the UK is at odds with the changes taking place at the headquarters of some big tech companies.
As with all US corporations in Europe, policy changes which might not even make any sense will be implemented anyway. If it's not legal, local HR will pretend it's all legal. Those countries which have codetermination or union representation in the workplace might even manage to get some of the nonsense which comes from the US blocked or overturned.
Alas reputational damage seems to mean nothing these days.
Meta
Twitter/X
Orange Jesus 2.0
British Airways a data breach/fire and rehire.
Rolls-Royce (engines and nukes) foreign and corrupt practices etc….
Hegseth
RFK Jr
Etc…
Esp.as Trump 2.0 has directed the DoJ to pause prosecution of Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act for a review - despite it being *THE FUCKING LAW*.
Anything Trump's says or does about DEI should be taken in the context that he called an elected official running for office a DEI hire.
Trump thinks DEI is giving "the blacks" (his terminology, not mine) paid work that should be given to white people. He makes very little attempt to hide it.
"Trump thinks DEI is giving "the blacks" (his terminology, not mine) paid work that should be given to white people. "
So how does this thought process work for US corps operating in "black", or even "Coloured" (to resurect the aparthiet catagorisation) countries?
Or maybe the posibility of these sub humans managing their own shitholes just does not compute in the orange merkin's mega-brain.
The west has had a saviour complex for many centuries. The USAID revelations has proven this even more. 'How can we possibly let these countries run themselves? We are FAR more civilised and we must tell them how to live their lives properly'. It is just a continuation of the colonisers and religious missions of old. We must impose our will and values on the cursed earth.
The West does nothing that is not in its own interests, it has nothing to do with being a saviour.
You will, however, see aid (food, medicine) in bags supplied by the West to warzones and disaster zones. Gaza being a good example of a target for western aid (as well as bombs). As you can tell, countries that have suffered serious natural disasters or man made war will need aid, it has nothing to do with them not running their lives properly and everything to do with children not dying of starvation or preventable diseases. What would be uncivilised is not providing this aid.
What are these "USAID revelations" you speak of? Trump and Musk saying "it's all fraud" while offering zero actual facts?
On a personal note, the company I used to work for which operated in developing countries providing expertise on agricultural practices, microfinance, forestry management, soil management, pension reform, governance, etc, has gone to the wall because Trump shut down USAID. The company I used to work for no longer exists because one man decided that USAID was "a fraud" or virtue signalling...as opposed to the multibillion dollar enterprise it is which supplies jobs to US citizens, academics, scientists, engineers, grass roots workers across the world. It's tragic what he has chosen to do and he will pay for it in the long term...that aid will come from somewhere...the West's enemies or competitors: China (has active concentration camps), Russia (murders its citizens with impunity and invades countries to grab territory).
The future is bleak without a West that has the courage of its convictions.
"So how does this thought process work for US corps operating in "black", or even "Coloured" (to resurect the aparthiet catagorisation) countries?"
Interestingly I have heard the word coloured used in South Asia to describe ourselves! Not common any more, but definitely used. Being too strict about this actually discriminates against collaborators in other countries and recent immigrants.
It also used to be the "right" word to use in the UK (ask older people) just as "people of colour" is used now.
Even weirder South Asians who listen to American rap etc but not familiar with western culture think the dreaded "N word" is American slang meaning something like "mate" in British English. Not heard it at first hand but kids say they have.
I'm not sure they even get embarrassed by it. A friend of mine just quit her job in HR at the tail end of last year. I'll not name the company she worked for, for obvious reasons, but needless to say it was a large US based operation and she was responsible for employee relations in one of their branches in Spain.
The reason she quit was that she was utterly sick of having to handle employee lawsuits against the company that it was totally obvious to anyone with even the barest grasp of EU employment law were going to be won by the employee. It would seem that barely a month could go by without a letter from the head office saying "Due to changes in policy, the following is going to happen" and then all the EU based branches would write back and say "No, really, you can't do that, that's not legal here." and then the US office would do it anyway and then all the EU based employees would either sue or go on strike or both.
The final straw was that apparently her contact in the US simply could not grasp that they had to obey Spanish employment law since they were an American company and ordered her again to tell the people in her department to do things that were out and out illegal while insisting that there would be no consequences because "We don't have that law here" despite having lost at this point over a dozen law suits. It's like they just don't understand that other legal jurisdictions exist.
then all the EU based branches would write back and say "No, really, you can't do that, that's not legal here." and then the US office would do it anyway
I orked at a place where the (US-based) CEO was determined that all offices should use the same furniture, from the same supplier. Regardless of local rules in trivia like electricity standards, interconnect rules etc etc. So, when we were fitting out a new office, the HQ spent a fortune getting several tonnes of cubicle stuff sent to us (dividers, mounts and, crucially, all the electric stuff in the baseband. Including mains sockets using US connectors..)
Our electicical contractors took one look at it and said "you can't use that, it's illegal". This got escalated back up to the HQ where the CEO basically told us that we don't have a choice.
So the contractors put everything together but didn't connect any of the mains wiring in the baseband - instead we had lots of 4-gang mains extensions to power the stuff we needed coming from the nearest wall socket. Slight issue of it being a H&S failure that the assessor refused to sign off..
Fortunately, before we had to go live, the CEO got his marching papers (he'd made lots of bad decisions trying to "act like a billion dollar company" when we were nowhere near that.)
So we got told to "fix things" - got the contractor back in to strip down all the basebands and fit UK-spec electrics and sockets.
Total cost of the fiasco? About £500k - shipping, building, surveys, project management, lost time, refitting etc etc. We could have furnished the whole office in the corporate colours using alocal supplier for less than just the US spec cubicles cost to ship and then retrofit.
The company got bought up by a big chip giant several years after I got made redundant (I was network admin and they decided that having two of us (me in Europe and someone in California) was overkill so I got caught up in one of the RIFs.. Ironically, the US guy got a better offer and left 2 months later. Oh, how I laughed..)
And the US attitude to redundancy caused our HR director (one of the very few such that I respected) to express her opinion in fairly fortright langauge. To sum up "just follow the local rules!" but with a lot of extra words..
Non-UK sockets in the UK are not illegal, they are non-standard. The Regs compel you to install *safe* and *appropriate* circuits, contract law compells you to install *competently*, but installing something other than BS1363 or BS546 is *not* illegal. Many hospitals and the London Underground uses 90-degree offset versions of BS1363.
110 volt sockets have grounds and polarity. They're not on a ring main so don't need internal fuses. They're a bit smaller than UK plugs, they're similar in size to the outlets used in Australia and New Zealand.
I suppose it would be possible for the company to fit the cubes up with a 110 volt supply, the voltage is common building sites (at least before battery powered tools became commonplace) so suitable transformers should be available. But what's the point?
Whilst 110V doesn't preclude polarity...
"Including mains sockets using US connectors."
Standard US sockets don't have polarity, or earth, or fusing, or switching.
OK - so since 1962 they're supposed to have been polarised and grounded, but polarity enforcement and grounding are still optional at best - far too many plugs with just two evenly sized prongs on them.
As to "not on a ring main therefore don't need internal fuses"... that's not why we have fuses on individual plugs, they are there to prevent overcurrent both in the individual connected device, and in the cable supplying that device - the fact that we also frequently use ring mains has nothing to do with the individual fuse protection being important to prevent fires.
Similarly switches, on the live connection, are a safety feature.
The 110v we have on UK building sites is actually a 110 split phase, so 55v from earth... technically most switch mode stuff would be ok, because it would just draw twice the current it normally would (i.e. all the fusing would need to be changed) but anything that wasn't designed to run at either voltage would be useless (lots of lighting and ancillary desk things).
Basically it was always a bloody terrible idea, and should never have been agreed to.
Without knowing which laws the US company was ignoring, it's hard to understand the situation. I once worked for a US company (with an arm in the UK). It's quite common practice for the US arm to "employ" people to work in the foreign arm...I was poached by this company from a UK company, in my contract it explicitly set out that I could no go and work for a competitor and in their contract (which was with the UK arm of the US business) there was a similar clause for poaching employees. The workaround was that I was employed directly by the US arm for a short period of time (approx 6 months) to get around both clauses...the firm I was poached from didn't have a leg to stand on.
Eventually, I insisted on being hired by the UK arm of this business to ensure that I retained my rights under UK law, I was willing to waive my rights, temporarily, to escape the shit hole I was working at...if I'd been employed under the US arm indefinitely, I would not necessarily have the same rights as a UK worker because I wouldn't be employed under a UK registered business operating directly under UK law...this was professional advice I was given at the time (circa 15 years ago now)..by the lawyers that worked for the US firm...they were quite proactive in sorting out my employment situation once the 6 months had run out...mostly because under US law, I could decide to give them the finger any time I fancied it...but under UK law, I couldn't.
Employment law generally only protects you in situations where it is enforceable...
Are you sure the dozens of "lost" lawsuits weren't just settlements? Because any consistent admission of wrongdoing under UK law would lead to you being investigated and probably shut down...under a settlement there is no admission of wrongdoing on any side.
Positive discrimination is illegal in most European countries. However, it should be noted, that where there is anti-discriminatory legislation, violating it is either way a criminal offence. This has kept Europe largely free of the civil suits asserting discrimination and seeking compensation: they do occur, but normally after a violation has been deemed to have occurred by a court and rewards are much lower than are possible in the more litigious US.
I've never been a fan of flag-waving "social justice" employment practices, which are often little more than window-dressing. But I think many good employers have learned to think beyond their bias (we all have one) and maybe give some candidates a second look. But they're also likely to engage in active outreach campaigns to the more socio-economically disadvantaged parts of the society, something that it often conspicuous by its absence the US. Are you poor and from a racial minority? Then why not join the army? McDonalds and the like should be given credit for sometimes actively giving chances to such people, though normally after working them, ahem, like slaves for a while, but at least they've learned to promote from within.
The VERY FIRST line of his post stated "Positive discrimination is illegal in most European countries."
Note that word "most". And yet, you are also correct. Here in the UK for example, there are grants and/or tax relief available for employers taking on some disabled workers. But that extra cash is often not as much as the extra cost sometimes incurred in taken on some disabled workers. Some disabled workers may need special adaptions to allow them to do the job properly, which is what the tax breaks are there for. Not all disabled workers need extra adaptions, of course, but a small carrot is better than no carrot. I've worked with a few disabled collegues over the years and with one notable exception, have all brought interesting perspectives and ideas to the organisation that may not have happened otherwise.
I believe Stephen Hawking once said he was glad he'd not been born in the US as he could have neither afforded the medical bills nor been able to get a job of any kind once his illness progressed.
It was more the other way round with Hawking...
The GOP were complaining that Obama's healthcare changes would make it more like the 'sick' NHS and that if Hawking had been born in the UK he wouldn't have survived... Hawking pointed out that he was a Brit and it was thanks to the NHS that he had survived for so long
The issue is that if he'd been born later and suffered from MND now he'd not have got anything like the same help. And if he had been in Canada they'd have offered him MAID.
But realistically a large amount of Mr Hawking's care was private. Records indicate that his computers and some, if not all, of the wheelchairs were provided thanks to Intel stating in the mid 90s.
Any form of equal opportunities legislation makes it illegal by definition: if you prefer a candidate for a reason not related to the job description, you are discriminating against others who can, therefore, take you to court.
As John notes, there are schemes that encourage and reward employers in some situations. For example, many workplaces may not be fully accessible for disabled people and it can be expensive to make them so, grants can help. Other schemes may involve financial support for placements for disadvantaged school leavers. Some of these schemes have turned out to be successful, others, of course, little more than gravy trains,
So as opposed to enabling this disabled employee with equity… you’d rather just put them down at birth as a (financial) burden on society. If you can’t afford a car, no subsidies for a bus pass go ‘lift you up’?
Same at the other end of life with assisted dying.
Might as well just go all Logan’s Run or a fine ‘reserve’ Soylent Green.
Disabled accessibility goes without saying...there shouldn't be employment related grants for this, it should just be part and parcel of setting up a business...it should be factored in to startup costs and illegal to not implement disabled accessibility in the name of cutting costs.
Grants for disability conversion of business sites should be permitted regardless of whether a company has any disabled employees or not on the proviso that every penny is used for disability conversion and is accounted for, it should come out of local authority business rates receipts, it likely wouldn't be something that just continues forever either, once every business has implemented solutions, the grants will stop. That is equal and fair. You shouldn't have to hire a disabled person in order to qualify for a grant...that is unfair and leads to discrimination...if I was part of a traditional minority that might be discriminated against, I'd want to know that if I'm hired for a position, that I was hired because I was the best candidate not the most financially advantageous one...no matter my situation or background...I wouldn't want to live with the uncertainty that I might have been hired for the purposes of a grant or to meet some kind of arbitrary quota...some people might like the idea of being hired for the sake of it, but are those the types of people you want in your business? I don't think so.
"illegal to not implement disabled accessibility"
Ok - so how do you do that?
When I'm in my wheelchair I obviously can't deal with steps, but when I'm using sticks I can't deal with ramps.
"disabled accessibility" is just accessibility, and what two people each need to make something accessible can be not just different, but mutually exclusive.
McDonalds is such a massive organisation that they probably have no choice but to be diverse in their hiring, otherwise they would never have enough staff...that and their restaurants typically tend to exist in areas that are more ethnically diverse therefore their staff are naturally going to be more diverse...I don't think the diversity in McDonalds is a conscious decision.
"but at least they've learned to promote from within"
Is that out of sheer kindness or necessity though? Would moving from managing a Burger King to a McDonalds be a smart career move or even possible given the differences in the way the organisations work? I don't know...I've never worked in fast food.
As with all US corporations in Europe
That wasn't my experience of working for Kroll Ontrack several years ago. They put us under the umbrella of another UK subsidiary and never got involved in anything related to HR. It was actually quite funny. During occasional trips over to HQ we'd get lots of invites out to lunch because we were allowed to buy and drink alcohol during office hours and they weren't.
This is what The Register thinks equal opportunities is about, though: Recruiting people with the most appropriate skills for a role irrespective of race, gender, or background.
Against
US President Donald Trump's orders terminating DEI initiatives center on the federal government, yet Attorney General Pam Bondi dispatched a memorandum stating that the Department of Justice is prepared to "investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector."
It seems Trumps order matches the regs thoughts. Best for the job, not hiring based on race, sex, etc. As we saw when people looked into the hiring practices after the plane/helicopter air crash and found a shortage of workers but a DEI filter excluding experienced and qualified people based on DEI.
"DEI done right " so bascially hiring based on merit and nothing else.
In other words DEI does not need to exist. It is purely an ideology that was developed in order to create division. It has had the opposite effect of that which is pretended to be.
Anectode : The non-whites in my company hate DEI, the idea that people are hired solely for their skin colour appals them.. They weren't hired for that reason thankfully.
Recently our compliance officer who is a DEI advocate asked if we shoudl'nt hire a female for an IT position that his currently available, I want to know why she even asked the question. We want good people in our service, end of story, we dont care who they are as long as they can do the job. And just as an aside, we got 50 CVs, none of whom were from girls/women and yet we make it very clear that we accept both genders.
I will be happy that we go back to a sane position.
Try and cite something positive that has happened in the US since all these ideological movements started, outside of creating divison ? It's not an easy task.
"In other words DEI does not need to exist. "
Except for the "similarity bias" that makes people to select those like themselves. Techbros hiring techbros etc.
Also, there is rampant racism and misogyny in the US (and Europe) that lets minorities get filtered out at the lowest possible level. Having a "female" or "non-christian religious" name will make sure you won't even be invited to an interview.
Also, there is rampant racism and misogyny in the US (and Europe) that lets minorities get filtered out at the lowest possible level. Having a "female" or "non-christian religious" name will make sure you won't even be invited to an interview.
Simple fix for that. HR removes the names from CVs so the hiring manager shorlists by the skills & experience instead. Might not stop hiring managers from deciding a face doesn't fit at the interview stage, but it's a small step.
Except the AI tool filters out those CVs anyway, so HR never gets a chance anonymize them and the manager never sees them.
That's another 'simple' problem to solve. Like don't use recruiters who use 'AI' to play buzzword bingo and spew out a bunch of CVs that have some keyword matches. Use a proper recruitment agency/head hunter instead. You might pay more, but save a lot of time & money if the agency is actually finding decent candidates. But 'AI' is generally a PITA given the spam I get from 'exciting new recruitment agency using best in class AI' that just goes straight into the bit bucket.
It's like many aspects of business. Work with a good agency, and build that relationship. They'll then have a better understanding of your business, and can then find candidates that fit. Agencies that just trawl for CVs, fire those out and hope for a win are often just a waste of time and money for both prospective candidates and the business.
> Simple fix for that. HR removes the names from CVs so the hiring manager shorlists by the skills & experience instead. Might not stop hiring managers from deciding a face doesn't fit at the interview stage, but it's a small step.
Exactly this.
Most discrimination takes place at the initial filter change. You first remove names and other indicators (e.g. languages spoken if not relevant to the job) and then filter. Very often "DEI" policies are a substitute for doing simple and effective things like this.
Its also not as simple as certain groups get discriminated against. In the UK there are some employers who favour women (white women get more positive initial responses to job applications than men), religious is mostly people with "Muslim sounding" names (which is why Pakistanis are far more likely to face discrimination and Indians).
One IT recruiter I know has said (publicly, on LinkedIn) that employers asked for female candidates but he could not find them (because of lack of women in the industry).
The old version of this: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-discrimination-in-the-uk/
Used to have an interesting graph that showed the differences between groups, including ethnically Indian men being preferred to some groups of white men. Not in the current version which lacks that detailed (men and women, and multiple ethnic groups, call back rates from a study that submitted identical CVs with different names etc.)
The bias you speak of is a complete myth. It doesnt take into consideration the demographic applying for particular jobs, and it only ever seems to focus on jobs that require highly skilled workers.
IT is a prime example. We dont care what your skin colour or gender is, long as you are skilled and qualified for the job, there is no bias, but there is a lack of candidates applying from the female pool. Thats not something DEI can fix.
+1, this bias is something fabricated by people trying to drive through an agenda. I've employed tons of females and people of different skin colours to myself, and I've never once wished they were a white male.
I have seen a ton of damage by managers forcing through DEI hires and promotions to fit their DEI KPIs though.
You advertised a position stating you accept male and female applicants - OK.
If you had had a female applicant and she was the top candidate, she would have got in - OK.
If you had had a female applicant and she wasn't the top candidate, she wouldn't have got in - OK.
If you had had a female applicant and she was joint top candidate and the other candidate was a man, in that case she would have got in - according to your post this wouldn't really be a problem. Idem for race or disability which doesn't affect work.
So why does your post argue that this is not a sane position?
I think it's pretty rare that two candidates would be exactly equal in their abilities. If it isn't rare, then it suggests that the hiring decision is not sufficiently detailed / granular e.g. rating everyone on a scale of integers between 1 and 5.
It's rarer still for those candidates to be of different genders, given the rarity of female applicants to engineering roles in the first place
So you are right, in an infinitesimal proportion of cases.
But, for the sake of sanity, I would just improve the detail of the hiring process to make sure that these cases don't happen, i.e. find out who is truly the better candidate, and hire them.
"I think it's pretty rare that two candidates would be exactly equal in their abilities. If it isn't rare, then it suggests that the hiring decision is not sufficiently detailed / granular e.g. rating everyone on a scale of integers between 1 and 5."
It could happen and at that point other aspects come into play such as one needing to relocate a fair distance and the other already lives a reasonable distance from where the job is. Details of the experience each has. It may be that one has more recent experience with the task that's the main priority while they both have equal time doing a particular job.
"I think it's pretty rare that two candidates would be exactly equal in their abilities. If it isn't rare, then it suggests that the hiring decision is not sufficiently detailed / granular e.g. rating everyone on a scale of integers between 1 and 5."
It could happen and at that point other aspects come into play such as one needing to relocate a fair distance and the other already lives a reasonable distance from where the job is. Details of the experience each has. It may be that one has more recent experience with the task that's the main priority while they both have equal time doing a particular job.
It does happen, a lot. Because (surprise surprise) a lot of those 'granular' characteristics are a little bit subjective in their application or assessment, and anything which is subjective, is subject to the biases of the interviewer - which takes us straight back to why DEI was invented in the first place - not really to address the BIG biases - law does with (with varying success) but all the little unconscious biases which add up to the vast majority of leadership being 'pale/male/stale'. A situation which has changed somewhat in recent years, and which change has scared the 'I only didn't get the job because I was white' crowd who are celebrating the end of DEI - because in their view it removes unfairness.
That's the problem with unconscious biases - you don't know you have them.
"unconscious bias" - like every other new idea in the pseudoscience of psychology from the last 40 years - has been debunked.
If it's not 'unconscious bias' that results in equally-or-better qualified women and candidates of color getting excluded in favor of white men, what is it? Conscious racism and sexism?
"You advertised a position stating you accept male and female applicants"
Does the ad state that? Isn't that DEI?
Even if the ad says so, will women or "minorities" actually be accepted? Will being gay be accepted?
Somehow, being a woman or other "minority" does make you never fit the team, eg, the Uber scandal. Unless it is a low paying job, that is.
Would Marko Elez, hand picked by The Musk for a central position in DOGE, ever hire a Native American? Under any circumstances?
At my previous workplace, if someone had that on their resume, they'd likely be hired. Because of DEI.
I was denied an interview there because I'm a white, straight male and "we have to go through all the diversity candidates first". Left; good riddance. I ***HATE*** DEI.
If it was in the UK I very much doubt HR would claim they were breaking the law (positive discrimination is not allowed here) rather than simply say they were not selected.
Actually, even somewhere else why would they bother to lie rather than just send the standard letter?
When did that change?
I worked in HR for a couple of months (forgive me, I was an engineer on a graduate scheme and we had to do 2-month stints in several departments) and the Catbert-HR troll gave me a lecture about positive discrimination and how it was a good thing. This was 2008. I argued that all discrimination is wrong and it should be meritocratic.
She told me that the gender balance in our engineering department was horrible - we only had 4 females out of 20 engineering staff.. I pointed out that her HR department was 8 staff, all of whom were female (not counting me, on a 2 month placement). So 80% vs 100%. She didn't respond, only glowered at me and left me at my desk
"So why does your post argue that this is not a sane position"
Because we don't adhere to the DEI ideological nonsense that was so trendy in the last few years.
The recent ideologies are now breaking down.
The blacks want police back in their communities. Defunding the police has a very negative effect... Black on Black death is on the rise...
The LGBs are now dissociating from the other letters.
Companies are moving away from DEI. Disney has understood that appealing to the woke crowd is losing them Billions (literally Billions).
The Amercian People voted Trump to get away from the nonsense. (They don't really care about it being Trump, I think Ron Desantis would have had the same effect.).
Wokeism is on its last legs. Anyone that remains within the ideology will simply be seen as being a radical fool, no-one will employ them as they have become toxic for their companies, ironic huh. It was basically a fad for upper middle-class white women to get attention.
There are far more important subjects to deal with ..
Globalism is causing major division. China, Russia the USA are on a fragile cliff edge.
Ecology, no-one is taking it seriosly ( None of the huge companies are doing anything except greenwashing) Plastic is as prevalant today as it was yesterday. Electric Power is not a solution, we have known that for quite some time. Germany has gone back to Coal Powered solution, lol , they were some of the most active greenies... Cheap Chinese stuff uses highly polluting ships and no-one says stop using Amazon, AliBaba etc....
AI is going to be used to keep the population even dumber. And it a massive ecological nightmare that is unnecessary and also has the effect of lowering education levels ( DEI played a part in this - lower SAT scores for entry etc.. )
We no longer encourage hard work.
Yup , the last four years has been truly positive .... Thank you very much to those Democrats that pushed it hard down our throats. (Their only actual goal was to become the Elite ; they don't give a damn about the population )
Remind us again how the Woke Ideologies have helped the majority ?
I'll leave the swirling mass of unverifiable truthy opinion out of it and concentrate on DEI:
Companies are moving away from DEI. Disney has understood that appealing to the woke crowd is losing them Billions (literally Billions).
They're just all getting on Trump's good side because that's the price of doing business in a country ruled by Trump. You'll do what he says or he'll go after you and bring you down.
Now, as for the swirling mass of unverifiable truthy opinion (Germany screwing up its energy policy has little to do with woke), I know from your post you'd like to go back to post-WW2, somewhere between 1945 and 1975-ish, but even with Trump in charge you're not going to get there. Post-WW2 there was a period of compromise politics where the richest paid taxes which governments invested in improving the life of the poorest therefore the whole of society grew and improved. Life was good, people were happy, their kids could look forward to a better life than their parents had.
You're demanding the symbols of a better past and you've voted for it, but this age is long gong and it's not going to come back. There is no political compromise now, there is no redistribution of wealth, the people at the bottom can't expect improvement in their lifetime. The billionaires you've put in charge are distracting you with symbols of the past and promises to get rid of symbols of the present. You can carry on savouring victory, but it will be a hollow victory, because things will get gradually worse. How could they get better for the lower and middle classes if none of the people at the top pay taxes to make your life better and the government is busy ripping down the few remaining redistributive programs that the US has?
> They're just all getting on Trump's good side because that's the price of doing business in a country ruled by Trump.
Disney has released an incredible number of flops over the last decade, in large part due to DEI-style thinking. I don't think it was DEI exactly - it was more a massive correction (which leaked out on screen, the only real problem) after Weinstein. But it's been a huge issue for them, and they've lost a giant amount of money pursuing it.
Disney has released an incredible number of flops over the last decade, in large part due to DEI-style thinking.
FML, what a load of tosh. Disney aren't flopping because of DEI. They've flopped because they're shit. They've gone all-in on a couple of legacy franchises (namely, Star Wars and MCU) and saturated the market to the point where even the keenest fans can't keep up with the myriad films and overlapping TV series. This is a problem because:
1. Quantity over quality impairs quality. Yet that's a strategic decision made at the highest level - by the very non-DEI Bob Iger and co. You can't produce that much stuff in parallel and expect it to all be good - or at the very least, you're going to get direct comparisons of parallel series, with one being dubbed weaker even if they're both individually good.
2. Even if they are objectively and individually good, there's no joy or anticipation for "the next installment" when it's coming at you so fast that you're feeling rushed to finish the last one before the new one drops. Even the die-hard fans get fatigued with too much of a good thing.
It's only PIxar that's holding the Disney raft afloat with original content, going to some effort to ensure they pad a couple of fresh features before they do a sequel (e.g. Toy Story 2: 1999, TS3: 2010, TS4: 2019. Finding Nemo and Finding Dory were 13 years apart).
If you actually want new or innovative media, you need to come to Europe - BFI/Film4 supported productions, Element Pictures, etc.
But yeah, sure, DEI or something.
No.
Disney are putting out shit exactly because they have hired the wrong people for the job due to forced DEI hiring practices - basically discriminating against the massive pool of white male applicants in favour of anything that isnt white male - its complete virtue signalling and its costing them millions. They are literally putting people in charge of million dollar franchises that have had no previous experience and they are so far out of their depth - and it shows.
They also ruin stories and immersion by forcing diversity in casting choices as well as ridiculous gender and race swapping without adapting the characters to match. People aren't stupid - they can see its forced and it doesnt work.
Good stories dont need DEI to be good. They don't need you to shoehorn in different coloured people, or change main characters from male to female (because it NEVER happens the other way around). They have good female characters and good non-white characters because they are written for the role. Stories make no sense when you force things like this into it.
Right, because you know who Disney hired, right?
And you also know profit went down, right? Oh it went up apart from a drop during the pandemic.
So all we're left with is you don't like non-white characters in cartoons. You do you.
"So all we're left with is you don't like non-white characters in cartoons."
Agreed.
When Nichelle Nichols from star trek fame died, there was a lot of talk about her revolutionary part as the first black actor kissing a white person in a TV show.
I actually watched that show when it reached our shores around 1970ish.
It never occurred to me Lt Uhura was black, nor that kissing the captain was a thing. Comments from other people from the old world confirmed this. It was and is only a thing in the US.
Children hardly notice the "race" of their heroes. That is the prerogative of the adults.
Plastic is as prevalant today as it was yesterday.I don't know how much progress you expect to see over one day, but over a timescale of a few years this isn't true at all. Plastic bags have all but disappeared.
Electric Power is not a solution, we have known that for quite some time."Solution" to what, exactly? If your problem is "how to stop Trump from dooming Israel", no, electric power won't help. If it's anything to do with reducing pollution, however, electricity is very much part of the answer. It's a necessary component, not a whole answer.
Germany has gone back to Coal Powered solution, lolDuring wartime, undesirable things happen. I suggest you take a look at Germany's actual generation mix, which even now is greener than it has ever been before.
Cheap Chinese stuff uses highly polluting ships and no-one says stop using Amazon, AliBaba etc.Actually, a lot of people do say that. Shipping pollution is amortised across so many units, so much stuff, that it's still better than most alternatives. But until someone has the balls to try to force companies to internalise their external costs, that's never going to be properly addressed. Trump has no interest in doing that, because his position demands that he pretends not to believe in the problem.
AI is going to be used to keep the population even dumber.Possibly. But that's been said of every major technological breakthrough since writing (and probably before, but oddly we don't have records to be sure of that), so I'm not despairing yet.
... [it] is unnecessarySays who? Who is this... being who gets to decide what is "necessary"?
and also has the effect of lowering education levelsCitation? I've seen the anecdotes, of course, but is there any actual, y'know, evidence of this?
We no longer encourage hard work.Well, that sounds like a "you" problem.
Why would an ad say "we accept male and female candidates"? That's just creating discrimination (against non-binary people) for no reason at all.
The only sane boilerplate says something like "applications will be assessed on merit, regardless of gender, age, race, class, religion, age, nationality or any other personal attribute not related to the applicant's ability to perform the role". As soon as you start listing specific attributes that you will accept, you're discriminating.
"The only sane boilerplate says something like "applications will be assessed on merit, regardless of gender, age, race, class, religion, age, nationality or any other personal attribute not related to the applicant's ability to perform the role". As soon as you start listing specific attributes that you will accept, you're discriminating."
In the US, Equal Opportunity laws require that employers cannot discriminate against anybody due to all of those things. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to consider qualified applicants with limitations that can be reasonably accommodated. If the best applicant is in a wheelchair and that doesn't impact normal job duties, employers must give them the job and make their workspace accessible if it isn't already. Since the ADA has been around for some time now, most workplaces are wheelchair accessible. There's no need to state any of the above in a job posting although many will will say they are an Equal Opportunity Employer (EOE).
Anectode : The non-whites in my company hate DEI, the idea that people are hired solely for their skin colour appals them.. They weren't hired for that reason thankfully.
Here's the funny thing. Not that many decades ago, they would not have been hired, thanks to the colour of their skin. The tireless work (and literal martyrs) in the Civil Rights movement gained them legal equality. But in the first instance, that just meant it was illegal to say "No colors" out loud. It didn't immediately change hiring practices.
DEI is a simple recognition that orgs still discriminated through limited or targeted posting of job opportunities, through job descriptions that limited applicants down to a handful of the "right" courses from the "right" colleges, bigoted hiring managers simply dropping "foreign names" at the first sift , or any other myriad forms of discrimination that weren't in themselves unlawful but had a systemic discriminatory effect.
The idea that they are "quotas" is appalling. But it's one that has it's basis in (mostly white men) talking about "DEI hires" in perjorative terms. But that's not what DEI is about - except in the minds of the jilted white guy who wasn't as good as the black woman.
DEI is simply the mindset of "I'm going to leek at everyone equally, even if they entered the business via a non-standard route, or are a mid-thirties career-shifter". And that's what mediocre "legacy" college grads find so threatening. That they can't walk into a well-paid job any more on the presumption that the school name will do the talking.
So many decades ago that it was before anyone currently in the workforce was born.
DEI in practice has meant discriminating against Asians, Jews, Caucasians and men, then lowering hiring standards to fill the roles when all those candidates have been excluded.
"orgs still discriminated through limited or targeted posting of job opportunities, through job descriptions that limited applicants down to a handful of the "right" courses from the "right" colleges, bigoted hiring managers simply dropping "foreign names" at the first sift , or any other myriad forms of discrimination that weren't in themselves unlawful but had a systemic discriminatory effect. And that's what mediocre "legacy" college grads find so threatening. That they can't walk into a well-paid job any more on the presumption that the school name will do the talking."
Nice story, but it's all in your imagination. If you ever had a real job in a real company you would know that is not how any of them operate.
If you insist on only advertising your vacancies only in the same frat house you have always done, then the chances are you won't get many candidates that don't look exactly like you do.
Break the old boy network, get a range of experience and views and your company is stronger for it.
Its the same in the left of the pond.
Of cause to make this happen people have to begin to recognise your own prejudices and that your world view is not the only correct view, and perhaps the way you do something isn't the only possible correct way, and that there is perhaps something to be learnt from outside your current peer group. to achieve that that takes thought, self awareness and effort. Its far too easy to bury your head in the sand and say to your are not part of the problem.
/Rattus
DEI done right means that if there are two equal candidates, one who has a disability or is in a minority might get a bonus point. That's all it is. There's no need to tear that down.
What you describe is bad enough, i.e. discrimination based on someone's physical characteristics, however equity is much worse and something you, like many people, appear ignorant about.
Equity means equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity - the latter being the only fair metric of assessing a person's competence.
Equity means selecting an inferior candidate ahead of a more competent one, based upon the unproven assertion that one or more of their physical characteristics has held them back in life.
Oh and when it comes to ethnicity, let's just say certain minorities are heavily favored over others.
Take the oft-quoted example of college entry in the US.
"The Asian penalty in applying to elite colleges is well known in Chinese American, Korean American and Indian American circles. For years, I contemplated whether my daughter should have had to check the Asian box when it came time to apply to college. After all, with her auburn hair and her father's surname, she could pass for white.
According to research from Princeton University, students who identify as Asian must score 140 points higher on the SAT than whites and 450 points higher than Blacks to have the same chance of admission to private colleges."
https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/2022/11/03/race-based-college-admissions-and-its-impact-on-asian-americans/69614232007/
DEI is all about social engineering and absolutely at odds with merit-based recruitment.
Equality of OUTCOME is a worthwhile goal.
And the problem with all this "merit" shit is that the VAST majority of people employed for ALL jobs aren't there because they're the most competent anyway. They're there because they knew somebody, and they knew somebody who looked like they do, with the same genitalia and skin color.
There's NOTHING WRONG WITH A WHITE AND ASIAN PENALTY IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS. The idea is to have a diverse student population, NOT the "best" student population. Equality of outcome - to improve outcomes for everybody - includes exposing everybody to human diversity. And let's not kid ourselves, ALL those kids applying to "elite" colleges are going to go to college, they just might not end up at their favorite name brand school.
But believe it or not, it's NOT a net positive for society that the absolute smartest 'win' everything and everybody else ends up shoveling shit. Equity IS the positive, not "equality of opportunity".
Stupid people deserve to be able to have good jobs and good lives too.
So stop it with the "equality of opportunity" nonsense. That's not the only thing that needs to be fixed.
"Equality of OUTCOME is a worthwhile goal."
What this produces is a race to the bottom. If you can get the same outcome with a lower amount of effort then why put in effort?
"So stop it with the "equality of opportunity" nonsense"
Why? Cos making people work for their outcome is a bad thing?
Equality of OUTCOME is a worthwhile goal.
Equality of outcomes means you have to force lots of people to take jobs they don't want.
More men in nursing, counseling, etc.
More women in sanitation, maintenance, and dangerous jobs in general.
Just be up-front about it, and tell people you want to take away their freedom to choose their own preferred careers. Then maybe there can be an intelligent discussion.
<......."Equality of OUTCOME is a worthwhile goal."........>
As your post seems to be primarily concerned with college admissions, and therefore by extension, to academic achievement, it is worth pointing out that what that invariably tends to result in is that to reach the 'equal outcome' result, the standard reduces to the lowest common denominator.
I would argue that equality of outcome is not always worthwhile.
The important thing to provide is equality of opportunity, not to only offer the opportunity to 'minorities' if they are capable of significantly out-performing their contemporaries from other backgrounds.
"DEI done right means that if there are two equal candidates"
Thing is, they're almost never exactly equal. There's almost always a swarm of plus and minus factors for each candidate. DEI says that race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc should always be considered among those factors. As opposed to the Bad Old Days, when race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc were always considered among those factors.
I hate to break your bubble but in the US, both constitutionally and by statute, it is illegal to use a protected characteristic for **any** reason. That includes as a bonus point, tie breaker, additional area of consideration, or any other euphemism you wish to employ.
This means that in the statistically impossible situation that you had two equal candidates, you need to find a non-protected characteristic to use as a tie breaker.
DEI done right means that you discriminate against white, male, and increasingly successful Asian candidates. Throw some anti-Christian and anti-Jewish discrimination in these days as well.
Diversity is no one's strength. Equity (equal outcomes) is a bad LSD trip, the best we can achieve is equality (of opportunity). Inclusion follows equality of opportunity naturally.
Anyone who's honest knows what DEI *actually* is. There's never a call for hiring more white men in areas that are dominated by blacks (see: NBA), or hiring more men in areas dominated by women (see: elementary ed teachers, nurses). What DEI leads to are quotas, companies even publish them. They proudly announce that this quarter they want to hire X more blacks, and Y more women, and Z more LGBTQ+++.
In a region that is 80% white, 15% black, and 5% everyone else, DEI proponents use that fact there are only 16% black employees as evidence of racism. If there aren't at least 50% non-whites, that's apparent proof of both immediate and systemic racism.
There is much more than a need to tear it all down, it should have never been allowed to fester and metastasize. Previous administrations refused to enforce the applicable laws, the current one is. Add to that recent SCOTUS rulings confirming that affirmative action and other similar mechanisms are in fact illegal gives hopes that we can cure America of this disease.
DEI is a disastrous racist, sexist academic ideology that attempted to grant a veneer of respectability to this abomination.
The sooner we get back to a pure merit based colorblind society the better.
When was it ever a **pure** merit based colorblind society, sadly never. It's an aspiration, something to strive for and toward. American society was making lots of progress toward that goal until the CEI/CRT/gender ideologists hijacked the country with a more openly divisive, discriminatory, racist, sexist ideology than at any point in modern American history.
White people currently make up about 76% of the US population, as high as 93% in some states as low as 35% in others. In some areas most of the levers of power are held by black individuals. Chicago for example has a black mayor, black city council, black chief of police, black school boards, etc. Women make up over 50% of the population and our gynocentric society means that women are treated more favorably legally. So I believe that your statement that "...white men controlled literally everything.." is incorrect.
Reality means that equity is an impossibility. People differ in ability, in temperament, in desires among others. You appear to be an anti-white racist, I feel sorry for you.
People should be given equality, treated the same. This naturally means that you will never have the same number of people an any position. Lowering standards, or eliminating testing doesn't help struggling people, it just increases the suffering of everyone around them.
If you want less black individuals in prison, you convince them to commit less crimes. Simply choosing not to prosecute them only encourages them to commit more crimes and needlessly spreads the suffering to others. Just because the numbers do match the ones in your head says absolutely nothing about racism, immediate or systemic.
Or are you going to make the argument that society is much better if you ignore merit and base all decisions on characteristics that no one had any control over; race, sex, etc.?
again with the **always** qualifier.
no, there was a time, in the distant past, where *some* parts of the country definitely applied a race based slant to their proceedings, that's not the case today.
show me reliable statistics that demonstrate the majority of black men in prisons today did not commit their crime...
you can't because they did commit the crimes they were convicted of.
[admittedly there are some small percentage of individuals in prison who are innocent, but that holds true for individuals of every race, it's not black specific]
which means that if you want to see less black men in prison, they're going to have to stop committing so many crimes.
you can't, and SCOTUS has affirmed, justify racist actions today in an attempt to rectify racist actions of yesterday.
you're posts/arguments demonstrate and anti-white bias, so I don't need gall to refer to you as an anti-white racist.
the statistic you are looking for is the one that documents the fact that blacks, black men in particular, commit crimes at rates far in excess of their numbers.
if blacks were committing less crimes then those extra police patrols wouldn't have netted any criminals, would they.
your *solution* the excessive black crime rate is the same as most left leaning CRT believing individuals, stop arresting black criminals.
as mentioned previously, that does nothing to reduce crime, perversely it serves to increase the amount of crime committed.
the only true solution, the only one that works to not only reduce the number of blacks in prisons, but actually reduce the amount of crimes being committed, is as simple as it appears.
black people need to simply commit less crimes.
you seem strangely against actually addressing the actual problem with the only solution that will solve it.
I wonder why?
no, there was a time, in the distant past, where *some* parts of the country definitely applied a race based slant to their proceedings, that's not the case today.
show me reliable statistics that demonstrate the majority of black men in prisons today did not commit their crime...
There is an overwhelming body of evidence that those black men got harsher sentences than white men convicted of the same crime, even after normalising for mitigations, aggravations, prior convictions, age, etc. Christ, this is so obvious that during the BLM protests a group of researchers (from Harvard IIRC) sat in court rooms and noted down every detainee who was presented to the court and their bail conditions. Normalising for offence and priors, white arrestees were significantly more likely to be bailed and with a 40% lower bail bond. For the same offence with comparable priors. The US justice system is farked beyond all recognition.
There's also the fact that crime tends to emerge from low-income areas. Those low-income areas tend to be predominantly black - because historic legacy issues like using freeways to redline black neighbourhoods have not yet been resolved (moving a freeway is a lot harder than passing a non-discrimination law). But in predominantly white areas, you do indeed get plenty of white men convicted of crime. But average sentences are lower.
another person going out of their way to blame the fact that criminals end up in prison on everything, anything, except the fact that they committed crimes.
if blacks commit less crimes then there would be less blacks in prison.
if you can prove instances of people, of any color, in prison for crimes that they didn't in fact commit, I'll be one of first in line to admit that injustice and fight to right that wrong.
but that's not what you have done.
so sad.
"If you want less black individuals in prison, you convince them to commit less crimes."
This just goes to show how fucking ignorant you are.
If you are a white kid, in a white neighborhood, and are seen speeding, you may get pulled over and may get a ticket.
If your a black kid, in a black neighborhood, seen speeding, you WILL get pulled over, you WILL get a ticket and most likely get a gun drawn on you and your car searched.
Then feel free to check out sentencing for white Vs black for identical crimes.
And as for "LGB's turning against other letters", that is the biggest pile of bullshit I have heard.
Now, more than ever, they are a closer community. Knowing a lot of gay, lesbian,bi, trans and queer people that you are just repeating bullshit your right wing bullshit machines are spewing out. There is and always has been friction, having dated a bi girl in the late 80s,she wasn't "gay" enough for some bars, but her greatest wish was to be closer to where we are now.
It's only pricks like you, recycling right wing propaganda that makes it worse.
Oh feel free to learn about the Compton Cafe Riots to see how far progress has come since "the good old days"
"This just goes to show how fucking ignorant you are."
Check the crime stats. You will find that you are the one who is wrong. The murder rate for the US black community is some 6x higher than for white/Hispanic, and before you say its the police doing it the numbers actually show the police are equal opportunity shooters. They will shoot at anyone.
"If you are a white kid, in a white neighborhood, and are seen speeding, you may get pulled over and may get a ticket."
Also likely you have valid insurance, a valid driver's license, actually own the car, no drugs, booze or guns in the car, and no pile of outstanding arrest warrants.
It is sad but this is what the maths actually shows. For decades the black community has been held down by stupid policies like 'no man in the house' welfare requirements but for the last couple of decades a huge amount of money has been spent trying to resolve the historical issues but rather than doing any good its going into the pockets of organisations or the teachers unions.
"Women make up over 50% of the population and our gynocentric society means that women are treated more favorably legally."
That's what I read on the Incel boards.
Nothing about pay gap, poverty trap, rape and femicide statistics. #Metoo was about women telling it all happened to them too. And everyone looked the other way.
America now has a president convicted of forcing his fingers into the genitals of a woman, and who bragged about it too.
But the narrative is that the white heterosexual men, the ones getting the highest pay, populate the best jobs, getting the lowest sentences, are the ones who are discriminated.
Indeed, the Incels are the real victims.
there is no "wage gap", that's bit of feminist clap trap has been debunked into the ground. There's an earnings gap, but that is attributed to the different choices that women and men make, it has nothing to do with anti woman sex discrimination.
The suicide rate is 4x higher for men than for women.
The rate of false rape accusations against men is conservatively estimated at 10%, most likely much higher. While at the same time women who rape are rarely even charged, in fact the geocentricism in our legal systems is such that in come countries the legal definition of rape is such that they can't even be charged with rape. This is especially tragic when the victims of their rape are underage kids. #MeToo, "believe all women" has just exasperated the issue. Add nonsense like retroactive withdrawal of consent, and you've bumped up the false rape allegations again. If two college kids get drunk and have sex, it's only the man that'll get charged with rape. If two college kids have sex, and only the man is drunk guess what? He can get charged with rape.
Then there's sexual harassment which has been redefined to mean any attention from a man that a woman doesn't want. In some situations, simply saying "Hi" or even looking in her direction is enough to get a SA charge, and in many places, our gynocentric society will convict.
Then there's the circus that is family court. Fathers are forced to *prove* they should be allowed to see their kids as the courts will often side with the mother reflexively. The ploy of falsely charging the father with abuse, both of herself and/or the children, is such a common tactic in family court that divorce attorneys refer to it as "the silver bullet".
Whatever Trump may or may not have done is just a distraction to the argument, but nice red herring.
The fact that DEI requires people to be discriminated against based on their skin color or their sex isn't a "narrative" it's a fact. Companies and universities openly brag that they in are only looking to hire "black men", that there are programs only for women. Either it's wrong to discriminate based on race and sex or it isn't.
You seem to think that it's OK to discriminate as long as that discrimination is against groups you personally don't like.
Congratulations, that makes you both a sexist and a racist.
"If you want less black individuals in prison, you convince them to commit less crimes"
One way is to make sure there aren't societal factors leading them towards criminal behaviour - eg discriminatory hiring policies fuelled by discriminatory policing and judicial system.
America "land of opportunity" also appears to to America land of "I'm alright, eff you".
again, another person who wants to blame society for that fact that criminals commit crimes.
sorry, but those are just excuses, conveniently excuses that only seem to get trotted out for black criminals.
societal factors effect all races, there are criminals of all races, yet blacks singularly excel at committing far more crimes than any other group.
part of the problem is their culture, equally to blame are people like yourself making excuses and serving to enable this anti-social behavior.
If crime is seen as a rational choice based on risk/benefit
"do Black individuals commit more crimes explaining the relatively higher arrest and incarceration rates? Maybe. But the real issue is government-created barriers to education, employment and other opportunities that lower the relative price of committing a crime."
https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/liberty-matters/2024-02-13-systemic-racism-in-crime-do-blacks-commit-more-crimes-than-whites
"When was the USA ever a pure merit based cocorblind society, in your view? When white men controlled literally everything?"
The difference is that it's not codified into law that it remain that way. In some parts of the world, it is or at least not prohibited to discriminate based on anything but merit and other details that don't have anything to do with protected classes.
Some roles have been traditionally male dominated and a much of that was traditional. It takes a long time to change traditions and DIE statutes only polarized the issue rather than make a difference. The CEO of General Motors is a woman. The titular head of SpaceX is a woman. There's an ever growing cadre of female astronauts, scientists and engineers. That doesn't mean that school counselors don't still steer girls away from maths and science.
"It takes a long time to change traditions and DIE statutes only polarized the issue rather than make a difference."
Actually, not. This can be changed pretty fast.
In WWII women were needed because men were in the army. So women worked everywhere, even building war ships.
That took a year or so?
After the war they were even faster fired to force them back into the kitchen.
It is not just slow, the integration of women in power striis actively sabotaged. Because, whenever young men have to compete on merit against women, they lose on average in modern industrial society. That already starts in high school.[1]
To keep their advantage, men have to exclude women. [2][3]
[1] Just "biology". Boys tend to be less "serious" than girls and too focused on intercourse to work reliably. Gets better with age.
[2] Violence and sexual abuse are the tools men use for that. See the convicted felon in charge in the USA
[3] I get to "improve" my downvote score quite a lot with this post.
"After the war they were even faster fired to force them back into the kitchen."
More accurately to give the demobbed men their jobs back.
The concept of women being forced into the kitchen is a lie fostered by the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s to destroy the traditional family and has resulted in the current trend for morbidly obese women with brightly coloured hair and huge debts from their worthless degree screeching into the void and demanding someone looks after them as they are unemployable.
"The concept of women being forced into the kitchen is a lie"
They were forcefully fired and we're unable to get jobs elsewhere. This was official government policy.
"to destroy the traditional family "
The traditional family as a labor camp for women (pun intended).
It is clear that for you, freedom is for men only. Women in your world are not allowed to have a life of their own and are nothing but serfs of a man.
America, land of free men and enslaved women is indeed the summary of Project 2025.
<........."[1] Just "biology". Boys tend to be less "serious" than girls and too focused on intercourse to work reliably. Gets better with age.
[2] Violence and sexual abuse are the tools men use for that. See the convicted felon in charge in the USA"........>
Sorry, that is just feminist claptrap.
Women, particularly younger ones, are no less likely to be easily distracted and "less serious" about their study/work than young men (sometimes for similar reasons ;))
And if you don't think that women use sex to manipulate and/or abuse men, then I think you need to open your eyes and have a good look around. I would accept the argument around the use of violence, but that is principally because on the whole women tend to be physically less strong than men, and therefore physical violence not a sensible option for women, but even then there are exceptions.
Your reasoning/observation regarding the use of women in previously male dominated roles is correct, although wartime brings with it unusual circumstances which require unusual solutions. Do you think perhaps that after WW2 was over, the returning demobilised soldiers, sailors and airmen should have simply been left out of work to fend for themselves because the women had now taken over their roles? This was pretty much what the USA did to their returning demobilised conscripts when they came back from Vietnam, and I seem to recall it was a situation which came to be regarded as a matter of national disgrace.
"Women, particularly younger ones, are no less likely to be easily distracted and "less serious" about their study/work than young men"
Not sure where you get your data, but I see girls doing better than boys in schools at all levels. Or did you not have data to back up your opinion?
Did you read the studies that show boys get graded more harshly for the same work than girls do?
When the teacher/professor knew the sex of the student, female students consistently scored higher than boys. When the same work was regraded, this time without knowing the sex of the students, the grades reversed. Boys aren't going worse than girls, they are being held back.
This phenomenon is much less marked in those subjects where there are objectively correct answers, such as mathematics or the hard sciences, basically stem majors.
In a soft major, like English or philosophy, or *-studies where there is arguably no "right answer" female grade inflation is at it's worst. In Calculus or Physics, where students could successfully challenge an answer falsely marked as incorrect, it's at it's least. Which majors do each of the sexes tend to congregate in?
Interesting aside, during COVID objectively attractive female college students suffered a full grade reduction that was attributed to the fact that the professors couldn't see and interact with them in class.
So, it's not so much about which sex is more easily distracted, it's which sex gets additional support, attention, funding, and sex specific programming and which has to not only do without all of those advantages, but is actively being disadvantaged in the current educational system.
"Do you think perhaps that after WW2 was over, the returning demobilised soldiers, sailors and airmen should have simply been left out of work to fend for themselves because the women had now taken over their roles? "
The men could have stayed at home to care for the women and children? Men and women could have both worked in and out of the home?
Your "rethorical" question already shows you think the men are more worthy than the women of respect and freedom.
Freedom for all also means freedom for the women. Equal rights should also be equal for women.
But that is not the America of Project 2025.
Here is the thing, from the start of mammalian life ago up until maybe 50 years ago it has generally been the one who gestates the offspring who then also looked after them.
There are some basic biological issues that mean only women can have babies. There will always be a level of inequality.
"There are some basic biological issues that mean only women can have babies. There will always be a level of inequality."
Only because some want it to be like this because they like the serfdom.
As for humans, the defining characteristic of our species is that mothers cannot raise their children alone. Humans are much like songbirds where the fathers care as much, or more, for hatched young as the mothers.
But in our industrial society, there is absolutely no rational reason to force women to care for the children. And many a man stays home to care for the children while the mother works. There is nothing unnatural or devious about that.
"Oh sweet child, what feminist claptrap have you been fed on?"
Says the person who has no clue what anthropology and history show what roles women and men have played in human society. And who also obviously has no clue what feminists have actually written during the last two centuries. Fox news and Breitbart paint a "colored" picture of feminism [1]
So many Americans are stuck in late 19th century mythology. All to keep women in serfdom.
[1] == Pure Propaganda
Uh huh, you make your assumptions, its a free internet.
But you made the claim that women WANT to be the child bearers as they WANT the serfdom.
Now when it comes to feminism, women have been told they don't need a man to have a family or that being a 'free and equal' woman requires them to work even after having a baby. So we've had lots of children with no father figure (that's worked out well!), dysfunctional blended families as divorce rates skyrocketed and women feeling burnt out by the apparent obligation to re-enter the workforce. And not forgetting women who have prioritised work over family and then panic as their biological clock has started to run down.
And we wonder why mental health issues have gone through the roof!
"being a 'free and equal' woman requires them to work even after having a baby."
In reality, white women are told, eg, by the VP, that they should not have dreams but stay home to support the dreams of their man.
All those claiming women "want" to stay at home don't actually care what women want.
It is economic policy that forces families to have two or more incomes from all adults to even survive. And Republican states are already promoting child labor to "increase" the income, and lower wages. As minorities are generally low on SES, they mostly do not have the luxury to do with only a single working adult in the house.
The idea that women should not have dreams or wishes is what is the point here.
Staying home is not an option for most women as they really need the money. But they should never dream of getting a real job, aka, a man's job with responsibility and real income.
That is just a roundabout way of defining serfdom: Women are serfs that should work for the benefit of men, be it in or out of the home. Never citizens with their own career ambitions.
"Staying home is not an option for most women as they really need the money"
It wasn't the case 60 years ago. Even when women started to return to the workforce it was not a requirement to have 2 incomes.
You have failed to identify the cause and the effect correctly. You think the cause was the increasing cost of maintaining a household that has driven women to work. Actually that was the effect. What economies are very good at is growing to absorb all available money and return it to the elite. As women returned to work and abandoned their kids to daycare and TV the household income increased. So families discovered they could afford MORE. A bigger house, more cars etc. So the cost of living went UP. Now that is the norm.
This is why boomers could buy their family home for the spare change in the car ash tray and half a pack of smokes.
"This means that in the statistically impossible situation that you had two equal candidates, you need to find a non-protected characteristic to use as a tie breaker."
Measures of quality are very far from objective to begin with. I can select the best runner for the Olympics easily. But who is the best accountant or engineer? It depends.
In reality, the selection goes along the lines: "As I would be the perfect candidate, anyone who looks like me must be good."
The "tie breaker" is well known: We select the one that looks like me.
In reality, during to CRT/DEI/gender ideology dark ages, the "tie breaker" was (and still is unfortunately in far too many places is) whichever isn't :
a white male
an Asian male
a Christian
a Jew
once those undesirables were eliminated from the applicant pool, the position was given to whichever racial/sexual/orientation was missing on the CRT/DEI/gender ideology bingo card.
while you might not have thought so, most of those decisions to hire are made by individuals whose characteristics definitely does *not* match those of the person being hired. White members of the cult consistently preferentially hire non-whites, even when the white candidates were objectively more qualified for the position.
unless of course you mean that black hiring managers consistently hire lesser qualified black individuals, which folks like yourself never seem to have a problem with.
"I hate to break your bubble but in the US, both constitutionally and by statute, it is illegal to use a protected characteristic for **any** reason. That includes as a bonus point, tie breaker, additional area of consideration, or any other euphemism you wish to employ."
Except for college admissions/faculty and government jobs. There are also some other carve outs for entertainment. It really changes the flavor of the film is the Leading Man is replaced by a women wearing lots of flannel. If the film is about slavery in the US south, there will be certain casting decisions based on race. Even with those, somebody couldn't be excluded for being of the "wrong" religion.
There are no such "carve outs", there never were, it's just left leaning administrations/judges liked to pretend there was.
Apparently you weren't paying attention, in the 2023 Supreme Court decision "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard" SCOTUS let everyone know that there are no such carve outs for college admissions, or any other reason. Most colleges and other organizations have been abolishing race/sex based policies on their own or trying to disguise them to get around this decision. Several have made changes as soon as lawsuits were brought against them.
Of course your supposed "gotcha" of entertainment is really just nonsensical and more DEI based thinking. Of course neither of those appears to have been an impediment to the recent announcement of the casting of a non-Christian black woman to play the part of Jesus Christ.
But close your eyes, and cross your fingers and hope *really hard* for your world where it's OK to be a racist, against those races you personally don't like.
It won't help, but it will help to keep you occupied and hopefully out of trouble for a while.
@AC "DEI done right means that if there are two equal candidates, one who has a disability or is in a minority might get a bonus point. That's all it is."
Two 'equal' candidates are not being treated equally if one of them is disabled or in a minority, that's discrimination. That is DEI done wrong because it breaks Equal opportunity employment laws.
When unable to choose between two equal candidates best use second interviews to make a choice, because a choice based on a protected characteristic, there is a good chance of being sued for discrimination.
I have a very good source that proves that the FAA implemented DEI policies that meant turning away highly qualified candidates because they needed to make up racial quotas, lowering their recruiting standards and as a result they now have a shortage of competent qualified controllers.
"DEI done right" - reminds me of all those people who say that the problem with communism is that it has never been done right. The only thing that counts is how DEI is actually done, and that is discriminating against Asians, Jews, Caucasians & men in hiring and promotion, and then having to lower standards to fill in for the candidates you have excluded based on their skin colour and sex.
There is no such thing as two equal candidates. Every human is different.
> For hundreds of years it has meant "white men" and in many industries in the west it clearly still does.
I would bracket that by pointing out that this is a very Amero-centric viewpoint. This is not been the case in most of Europe for a long time.
And I would challenge you to expand on what you mean by "...and in many industries in the west it clearly still does.". Which industries and where? This is the problem with a lot of these claims. They are so non-specific that they are impossible to refute because they aren't making a falsifiable claim.
This post has been deleted by its author
What the White House has actually done in the last three weeks is to hire the whitest, richest, least qualified, most obsequious, and if possible closest family member for basically everything.
It's grift, at the expense of all USians.
Oh, it's you. Crap, I fed the idiot troll.
Remind us again what color the following billionaires are ( yes Billionaires)
Robert F. Smith
David Steward ( WWT)
Jay-Z (Shawn Carter)
Rihanna (Robyn Fenty)
Michael Jordan
Opra Winfrey
And then tell us again the oppportunity doesn't exist for all.
And what color was Obama ? I seem to remember that he wasn't very white.
I won't add in the Asians as they are considered the same as White for some strange reason
"So hated, the American people voted for [Obama] twice."
So hated that in 2016 72% of registered Republican voters doubted Obama's citizenship [1]
The current felon in charge was the driving force behind this conspiracy theory giving racists an excuse to deny a black person the right to be PotUS. He was also the main beneficiary. Trump used the same type of strategy in 2020 to give Republicans an excuse to simply deny Biden won the election.
[1] 31% had some doubts, 41% claimed Obama was not a US citizen.
Satya Nadella : Very clever man.
David Stewart : Very clever man
Ime Archibong : Very clever man
Tope Awotona Very clever man
Stacy Brown-Philpot : Very clever woman
Your right they do have some things in common , they are clever people, and if you stop seeing their skin colour for just two minutes you might become a little bit less rascist...
Morgan Freeman said perfectly, If you want to stop rascism, just stop talking about it....
"If you want to stop rascism, just stop talking about race."
If it were only that simple. Any difference in people is going to be used to claim superiority or denigrate.
It's also used to be able to claim one is a victim and should be rewarded in some way for their braving the oppression. Also known as "playing the race card". I won't say that doesn't happen that a person is denied something due to the color of their skin but will contend it's claimed far more than the likelihood it's true.
> Should they? Which ones should? Why? And what about the millions of other people in the country?
I venture to suggest that the point being made is they they are not part of the political club. This could imply that they might be less partisan and provide an unbiased viewpoint. There is a prevailing feeling in the US that politics has become an in-bred political bubble and that outside intervention and/or fresh blood is desperately needed. That the fresh blood also consists of clever people should be advantageous.
I would add that they should also be "moral" people whatever that mean these days, and one doesn't necessarily imply the other.
@cornetman
"I venture to suggest that the point being made is they they are not part of the political club."
True. And for people who are not particularly political and maybe just see politics as a damned nuisance they may not be interested also. And with the vast number of people and small group that makes up government leadership the odds are against a person being invited into government who doesnt actively participate and has a great deal of luck.
"There is a prevailing feeling in the US that politics has become an in-bred political bubble and that outside intervention and/or fresh blood is desperately needed."
That is currently being tested for the second term. As a result we have seen the state be used as a weapon to attack a private person, break the law in pursuing him, violate norms, produce fictional evidence of foreign conspiracy, try to redefine what the Executive Office is and throw many legal attacks against the man as possible even bending the law or probably breaking the law (lets see the appeals) to try and 'get him'. It isnt surprising intelligent people want to avoid politics.
"Morgan Freeman is an actor. Nothing more. He has no particular insight here."
You do know that he is black, intelligent and interesting and that the subject was about racism. It makes sense to listen to someone that has something of worth.
Or maybe you don't agree with actual people telling actual truths...
Morgan Freeman said
"Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You wouldn't say, 'Well, I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.' You know what I'm sayin'?"
Which is the missing context.
This post has been deleted by its author
@O'Reg Inalsin
"The air traffic controller training of two years has 50% completion rate. That sounds merit based to me. 2/3 staffing levels is the bigger problem."
100% spot on. The last time I was discussing this I sourced an article claiming 3000+ potential candidates were screened out due to DEI even if they had qualifications and experience. The commenter discussing it sourced a different article saying it was 1000+. Either way that is a lot of people who should make the program yet were ruled out because of DEI policy.
"In this case it appears the controllers performance was not technically at fault, but if the were fresher and had more staff, more communication might have helped."
From what I read it was the helicopter pilot (but I am likely out of date) but the incident highlighted that the controller was doing the job of 2 and as you say was staffed only 2/3 rds the target.
"Apparently you took Trumps initial DEI cuss as gospel even after Trump himself switched to blaming an outdated ATC system, pretending he never said it was DEI. You don't wanna look slow."
Trump suggested it might be related to DEI, and as a result we now know the very problems you have commented here! As far as I know he never said it WAS DEI, just that it MIGHT be a factor. Which you said- "but if the were fresher and had more staff, more communication might have helped" so it seems if I am slow you are too.
When Trump says something might be due to something, his supporters hear the dog whistle loudly enough.
"lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrew Brigida, who claimed the FAA under the Obama administration dropped a skill-based system for hiring air traffic controllers (ATCs) and replaced it with a "biographical assessment," which was allegedly used to attract more minority applicants." ...
"The FAA's biographical assessment was a screening tool used to assess applicants' behaviors and experiences. The test involved multiple-choice questions on topics such as decision-making, handling pressure, and risk management.
The FAA dropped the biographical assessment in 2018 in response to Congress passing a law banning its use. The FAA says on its website that the assessment was removed as a screening tool, and all applicants are now required to take the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA).
https://www.newsweek.com/faa-reject-air-traffic-controllers-race-airport-crash-2024097
@AC
"When Trump says something might be due to something, his supporters hear the dog whistle loudly enough."
Its fair to say his detractors hear a dog whistle. Even the link you post cant help but say- "President Donald Trump has suggested diversity hiring programs were to blame, though he did not provide evidence to support his claims." when it was a question (at least the statement I heard from Trump).
The claim against the biographical assessment is it awarded extra points for no experience.
"Its fair to say his detractors hear a dog whistle"
Oh heck yes! And how they howl and screech. The reality with the ATC situation is that recent policy at the FAA *HAS* actually stopped the hiring of new controllers and has resulted in the shortage of controllers dragging on for far longer than it should have. The FAA hiring policies have been under scrutiny for a while.
While the screeching lefties will immediately jump to the conclusion that the Orange God Emperor is attacking minorities the simple truth is that the diversity hiring program WAS to blame, not due to it hiring lots of unqualified people but because it failed to actually hire enough people as those who didn't meet the diversity requirements were rejected early on.
There is a huge difference between 'we should aim for better diversity' and 'we MUST increase diversity'. If you're not getting enough candidates to actually fill the positions AND you NEED to recruit people you can't be that picky.
It seems Trumps order matches the regs thoughts. Best for the job, not hiring based on race, sex, etc. As we saw when people looked into the hiring practices after the plane/helicopter air crash and found a shortage of workers but a DEI filter excluding experienced and qualified people based on DEI.
This above is bollocks and is the main problem with the Trump view on "DEI". DEI isn't what Trump thinks it is, and the "DEI" he is railing against is very different to what HR departments are actually doing.
DEI means a couple of things - first the "DEI Officer" (which people of a certain political leaning love to deem a wasteful/fraudulent "nothing job") is generally just the HR bod with a particular remit for compliance and ensuring the company doesn't break relevant anti-discrimination law in their hiring practices, or that some numbnut manager doesn't ask a mid-twenties female applicant "the thing is, you're going to get married and go off having kids in a couple of years aren't you?".
Many followers seem to think that by "ending DEI schemes", Trump/Musk have just fired all those people. They haven't - they've just shifted their job title to "Compliance Officer".
The second part is challenging the org to advertise/recruit outside it's normal channels, seek a more diverse set of applicants and look for people who might be a good fit or bring good skills, but who wouldn't normally apply or think "that's not for me". All of this of course sits within any regulatory framework - a new accountant needs to be certified. A lawyer needs to have their Bar licence. An Air Traffic Controller needs their ATC licence.
This is all very much in the scheme of "merit-based" - finding the best people by spreading the net wider, and not binning applicants at the first sift because they don't have a Masters from the "right" college.
Trump's impression of DEI - and the one he wants his followers to take as their mental model - is that the recruiter is faced with two candidates, and they pick the lesser qualified one because they're from a minority and "fill a quota". That's not what DEI is, it's never been what DEI is, and in most countries positive discrimination is just as illegal as regular discrimination (but there might be tax breaks or grants available for e.g. making adaptations for a wheelchair user, which in the long run would also be of use to other mobility-impaired staff that may be hired if they're the most qualified).
Trump's interpretation diverges from that of El Reg because El Reg is calling for merit-based hiring, including those who have entered the industry through non-conventional pathways.
Trump's is based in an unspoken (but quite obvious) racist assumption that a minority "DEI" hire is - by definition - a quota. How could they ever be better than the all-American white boy? This prejudice is clearly visible in the remarks he made around the recent air crash and the ire that was directed at the FAA's DEI programme - even though the FAA have lots of jobs that aren't air traffic controllers and they're not going to be putting anyone on a console who hasn't got their Controller License. The implicit accusation that Trump made was "the FAA were saying "no white men" and if only they'd had more white men then it wouldn't have happened". This is total gibberish - the FAA were not saying that - and we have no actual information yet as we're waiting for FAA/NTSB to make their report (which apparently they have to do via Xitter now - journos have been told that announcements are no longer distributed by email, which is totally cool and normal).
@rg287
"This above is bollocks and is the main problem with the Trump view on "DEI". DEI isn't what Trump thinks it is, and the "DEI" he is railing against is very different to what HR departments are actually doing."
Thats your claim. Except DEI has been an excuse to racially discriminate (I know some people will cry about the source)- https://www.gbnews.com/news/us/disney-executive-anti-white-hiring-footage
"or that some numbnut manager doesn't ask a mid-twenties female applicant "the thing is, you're going to get married and go off having kids in a couple of years aren't you?""
I dont understand how that is a problem when hiring to be honest. You want to hire a worker to turn up and work. You might have a costly training process for the worker to become productive and then lose the worker for the very normal and natural stage of someones life? It isnt a problem if the worker can just drop out whenever without cost to the company.
"All of this of course sits within any regulatory framework - a new accountant needs to be certified. A lawyer needs to have their Bar licence. An Air Traffic Controller needs their ATC licence."
See the air traffic controller DEI hiring problem.
"Trump's impression of DEI - and the one he wants his followers to take as their mental model - is that the recruiter is faced with two candidates, and they pick the lesser qualified one because they're from a minority and "fill a quota". That's not what DEI is"
That made me laugh because thats what it IS used for. See the disney example in the link above and the FAA air traffic DEI hiring scandal. Hell the accusation is extra points awarded for no experience.
"The implicit accusation that Trump made was"
Your interpretation of the words he said, not what he actually said. You do realise idiots interpreted the words 'protest peacefully' as inciting insurrection. YOU hear him saying something other than what he said. Your racist mind made up this line- "the FAA were saying "no white men" and if only they'd had more white men then it wouldn't have happened" and yes that is racist and that is in YOUR head not what he said. Where at all did he say or imply the colour or even gender?
" the words 'protest peacefully' "
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/california-democrat-says-party-needs-to-bring-actual-weapons-in-the-fight-for-democracy-against-elon-musk/ar-AA1yZBi4
"And what I think is really important and what the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight."
Hmm... inciting violence? And nice to see an elected official can't muster anything better than some school yard level ad-homs.
"Trump's impression of DEI - and the one he wants his followers to take as their mental model - is that the recruiter is faced with two candidates, and they pick the lesser qualified one because they're from a minority and "fill a quota". That's not what DEI is"
It's not what DEI should be. It's what DEI was. DEI "should" mean merit based without regard to race or colour. Inclusion should just mean treated equally.
"or that some numbnut manager doesn't ask a mid-twenties female applicant "the thing is, you're going to get married and go off having kids in a couple of years aren't you?""
I dont understand how that is a problem when hiring to be honest. You want to hire a worker to turn up and work. You might have a costly training process for the worker to become productive and then lose the worker for the very normal and natural stage of someones life? It isnt a problem if the worker can just drop out whenever without cost to the company.
1. It is a stupid thing to presume, since a good portion of women either don't want kids or physically can't (see: fertility issues in the Western world). To risk denying your team an outstanding candidate because of such an outdated, 1950s presumption is very bad business.
2. Discrimination based on gender is illegal in most civilised countries, which means if a hiring manager ever actually asked a candidate that in an interview, the company would get sued and lose. When people say "You can't trust HR, they represent the company, not the workers", this is generally true - but sometimes the interests of HR and workers align when the issue at hand is a manager who is a complete f-ing liability and is going to cost the company money or cause reputational damage.
You might disagree with the law - there are lots I disagree with. But at the end of the day, the law is the law and we all have to abide by it (unless we're billionaires, apparently).
This loops back to the original point of: the "DEI Officer" is usually just the compliance officer who trains hiring managers on how to avoid breaking the law or costing the company money. You can call it whatever the hell you like, but organisations are not shedding that role, regardless of what executive order might come down from on high. All the US Executive has achieved thus far is an expensive retitling exercise. Not the slew of layoffs from "wasteful DEI programmes" that they are imagining in the 4chan-inspired fever dream that currently constitutes their perceived reality.
@rg287
"1. It is a stupid thing to presume"
This falls flat with the question itself. It would be an assumption if they didnt ask. It is valid real world observation to notice normal human interaction and progress.
"2. Discrimination based on gender is illegal in most civilised countries"
Yes. But how is it discrimination on gender to ask if someone will be vanishing after you train them up for the job that you intend to employ them to do and expect their presence to achieve?
"You might disagree with the law - there are lots I disagree with."
Of course. I dont understand the problem even if it is in law.
"This loops back to the original point of: the "DEI Officer" is usually just the compliance officer"
That may have been the purpose but not the outcome. That is why the DEI stuff needed to be binned, torched and thrown out with racism, sexism and other discriminatory behaviour. Because no matter the intent, the outcome was bad. If it was just some extra rubbish to someones role then yes that person will remain. For those mad groups of DEI waste they will be cut.
"Trump's measure of merit doesn't necessarily have much to do with ability. His recent appointments bear that out."
Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his running mate. Just sayin'. His Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Jackson was based on her being female (but unable to define was a woman is) and a minority. No other equally or more qualified candidates were going to be put forward that didn't tick those two boxes. This isn't me being a conspirisist, Joe was on the record with it being the two major criteria for his choice.
There are some quarters of the population that have taken to substituting 'DEI' for the old school slang for peoples with ancestry in Nigeria and Niger. They've been working hard to cover their unpopular (abhorrent) beliefs with code words and to use as dog whistles.
Much like the earlier push to use the ''' triple quotes ''' to signify that the person referred to inside them was Jewish.
Anon, as i have to live there
DEI is one of those areas of life where legislation to stop wrong practices takes over. Instead of stopping what shouldn't be done, it stops what was being done right by regulating outputs instead of outcomes. When performance measures (especially those deemed KPIs) are used as targets and, as such, they put blinkers on good practice. Many years ago W Edwards Deming wrote "If management sets quantitative targets and makes people's jobs depend on them - they will meet the targets - even if they have to destroy the enterprise to do it." DEI, when used as a principle for removing discriminatory bias, is beneficial to any enterprise. When it's used to set artificial targets it can end up being counter-productive.
For the most part I agree with you, but when you talk about the "Equity" of DEI (as opposed to Equality), this is explicitly a call to rebalance the scales through intervention. This is the main reason why people hate DEI so much.
There is no call for Equity in the NBA and it is very obviously unbalanced in terms of racial representation. But then it is *extremely* merit-based so we accept it.
This post has been deleted by its author
you've almost got it.
The reason there is no call for Equity in the NBA, is because it is non-white dominant.
The same reason that there are no programs to increase the number of male elementary school teachers, because it is female dominant.
DEI, like CRT, is explicitly designed as a cover for anti-white racism, anti-male sexism. Even though we have BIPOC exclusive programs and female only scholarships the left, those people most intimately tied to CRT, DEI, etc. would be the first in line to crucify a white only program, or a male only scholarships.
Look at what they do, not what they claim.
It's apparently OK to not only come up with a hundred anti-white slurs, but to use them openly. Yet even the accusation of an anti-black slut is met with derision, condemnation, possible academic career or job loss and that's when it's not used as an excuse by blacks to physically assault others.
Anything good or successful is labeled "white supremacy". A label that's even applied to successful black individuals.
Instead of trying to help blacks, Hispanics, or others be more successful, this collection of ideologies simply attacks others. It works not to elevate but to bring everyone down to the level of the lowest performers.
equality of opportunity, meritocracy, color blindness is the only true way to both be fair to everyone and to advance and promote society.
unfortunately for many this means holding people responsible for what they do, and don't do, while recognizing that not everyone is going to achieve the same levels of success in the same endeavors as everyone else.
and that's OK.
"Anything good or successful is labeled "white supremacy". A label that's even applied to successful black individuals."
"White Privilege" is the more common term.
There's a Black Caucus in the US government, a Hispanic caucus, but when there was a philanthropy named the "White Polices Officers Association" that raised money for and spent their weekends building playgrounds, it was banned for being racist.
A colorblind meritocracy is the ideal, the alternative is to explicitly codify racism. To force everyone to judge everyone else not by the content of their character, but solely based on the color of their skin.
Of course folks like yourself always seem to want to judge whites harshly based on their skin color, and non-whites favorably.
Every race; black, Hispanic, etc. are allowed to have pride in their race, except for white people. I believe we have long passed the time where white people should feel bad that they are white. There is no white guilt, no white privilege, and any white supremacy that exists has been earned.
As for Equality vs. Equity, then you should work to create that missing "Equality of opportunity"
Trying to force "Equity, equality of outcomes" is Quixotic endeavor because it is actually impossible to achieve. All a supposed drive for "Equity" does is provide cover for people to exercise their basest discrimination, racism, sexism, and petty vendettas.
Legally the US legal system is color blind, as it should be. It doesn't help that folks like yourself are fighting against that ideal.
It reminded me about the Liar Liar's elevator scene*: "- Do you like it so far? - Yeah! Everyone has been real nice. - Well, that's because you have big jugs".
Personal attractiveness, including youthfulness matter. That's the reason why Americans, in particular, are obsessed with own looks. Because it impacts their careers and income. And why stable gov jobs may do the opposite in motivation and work environment.
So it is often (?) about boss's personal preferences that trickle down to racial and gender specifics. Or to, as simple as, pleasant smell. Everyone has probably experienced an overly perfumed or unhygienic coworker. Competence being only number 3 in the list, unless no alternatives for sophisticated important roles.
*https://youtu.be/ic7aZk1Tb0s?t=5
We are a highly successful tech company and want to hire a developer.
The successful candidate will:
Be a straight white male, a top college graduate, in their 20's, have 10 years experience, be healthy, free from any disabilities, of average height and build (no fatties), be clean shaven, smartly dressed and free from body odour, have a good head of hair, excellent social skills, vote republican, attend church every Sunday (except when required to work), be a workaholic with no family commitments and require minimum wage. Ability to kiss ass an advantage.
"Yet, whether through miscommunication or misguided implementations, this drive for diversity, equity, and inclusion, aka DEI, in the workplace became controversial."
No; it ran up against racism and hatred.
And now those racists and haters who rejected DEI in America have a so-called president and administration who agrees with them and are trying to end it everywhere they can.
Actually DEI *is* racism and hatred,
it's just racism against races you disfavor and hatred against groups you, well, hate.
you and those like you are just upset that you won't be able to be quite so open and celebratory in your vices.
You call those who only want a colorblind society racists......
like many on the left, the words you use, the insults you sling, have meanings that are only known to those like yourself.
to the rest of us still using the actual definitions of words; racist, fascist, woman your accusations have long ago lost their sting.
Well for the last 300000 years or so the female of the species is the Egg producer, the bearer of the offspring. This is similar to all other mammals.
In contrary to the Male who is the Sperm producer whose role is to eventually provide the means of fertilization of the female's eggs.
This result is that the species is capable of reproduction and as such to "survive".
Its always amused me at the protestations about how 'women have it harder than men and men keep them down' and then a man decides to play dressup, the very same women and their supporters spout the 'much stunnings, many braves' while the man now climbs all over them and progresses above them with ease as he ticks more intersectional items.
"You can change your gender in exactly the same way as you can choose your height, color, or your race."
You can change your gender easily. It can be done to any level of detail.
Anyhow, how are you going to check whether someone is a wo/man according to your opinions? Do they have to drop their pants/ie's?
"Women don't have beards or Adams apples."
You have no idea what hormone supplation can do. Growing a beard is the least of it. And some trans men even grow an Adam's apple.
The default anatomy of a human is female. The only thing needed to make a male body anatomy is testosterone and a receptor to respond to it.
Works best before puberty, but it keeps working well into adulthood.
"The default anatomy of a human is female"
Wrong. Very VERY wrong.
At conception the genetic code that defines male or female is already there. In the initial stages of development the parts required for both sexes start to form and then the desired parts continue to develop while the other parts get absorbed. The female human form actually contains some bits that are 'male'.
This is so wrong even Politifact say its wrong!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/jan/29/tweets/no-were-not-all-female-under-trumps-executive-orde/
"Wrong. Very VERY wrong."
Tl;Dr: Testosterone gives a male baby, No testosterone gives a female baby. This works irrespective of DNA. So, without intervention by testosterone, the default anatomy is female.
Long story:
Not. The development of human reproductive anatomy is complex. But only if, and only if, there is testosterone and a functioning receptor for it, a male anatomy develops.
If there is no testosterone or if there is any interference with the binding with its receptor, a female anatomy develops. The latter will happen irrespective of the DNA. Say, when certain medical drugs or environmental poisons interfere, or there are mutations in the testosterone pathway or its receptor.
If a pregnant woman receives any testosterone during a critical time during the gestation of a genetically female embryo, the embryo will develop as a healthy, but infertile, male. DNA be damned.
The one and only thing the Y chromosome brings to this story is a genetic switch to start the production of testosterone.
Sometimes, actuel knowledge spoils the fun.
"Testosterone gives a male baby, No testosterone gives a female baby"
Wrong, wrong, very wrong, utterly wrong.
Sex of the embryo is determined by the chromosomes carried in the sperm.
The levels of testosterone may affect the later development of a male baby but do not determine if it is male or female.
"If a pregnant woman receives any testosterone"
It is the anti-Mullerian Hormone that stops the female reproductive parts from growing.
"The one and only thing the Y chromosome brings to this story is a genetic switch to start the production of testosterone."
Wrong again.
Biologically testosterone is not created until after the testes are formed, and these are formed based on the Y chromosome using the same basic material that would become the ovaries if the chromosomes were different.
"Biologically testosterone is not created until after the testes are formed, and these are formed based on the Y chromosome "
But if the fetus is exposed to testosterone, it doesn't need the testes to become a male baby.
If the fetus is insensitive to testosterone, it develops as a female baby, even with an Y chromosome.
Oh dear oh dear, I explained this. There are two hormones at play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-M%C3%BCllerian_hormone
Simply adding testosterone doesn't stop the development of the female reproductive parts.
The fact is that the adult female produces a small amount of testosterone all the time. It is not an exclusively male hormone. If your claim was true then all babies would be male.
"It is not an exclusively male hormone."
Dose is everything. And a fetus that is insensitive to testosterone becomes a female baby. What more do you want?
And no, the baby will not grow up to be a fertile woman. Just as a fetus inundated with testosterone will not grow up to become a fertile man. But any large scale study of humans finds XX men and XY women who had no idea there was something strange.
Lesson to learn, DNA is just the start, or just part, of any story in biology. Between DNA and an adult organism is an awful lot of biological "computation" or growth. There are myriads of things that can go different than you expect by accident or design.
I'm impressed at just how fast you can move your goal posts!!
"Tl;Dr: Testosterone gives a male baby, No testosterone gives a female baby"
"If a pregnant woman receives any testosterone"
"The only thing needed to make a male body anatomy is testosterone"
"But if the fetus is exposed to testosterone"
And now "Dose is everything"
So please just quit it with the silly anti-science gender-woo.
"So please just quit it with the silly anti-science gender-woo."
So please, just quit the worshipping of the gonads.
Gonads are not a body nor a person. They are not miraculously special.
You are not going to see the naked gonads of anyone anyway as they are fully internal to the body. And even if you saw them, you would most likely not see the difference.
"They are not miraculously special."
Actually they are as they drive the development of your body.
Now what is very special is the people who strive to enforce long dead gender stereotypes such as pink and makeup makes a girl and short hair and trousers make a boy.
"You have no idea what hormone supplation can do. Growing a beard is the least of it. And some trans men even grow an Adam's apple."
Men don't need to take hormones to have beards or Adams apple, nature has done its job without problem for a very long time.
In your world you try to simplify things to a level that suits you, in the real world you can only fail at your task as you are trying to make something be something that it is not using various kinds of disguise. What you are doing is basically throwing theatrical props onto a person and pretending that the newly created character actually exists as that character. But behind the mask nothing has changed, it's still the same person.
Props do not a person make. If you need props it's only pretend.
"Men don't need to take hormones to have beards or Adams apple, nature has done its job without problem for a very long time."
Yeah, Nature does it's job mostly by maiming and killing people early in life. A "Natural" life is short and painful.
And if your body doesn't suit you, you cut your hair, or shave your beard, or alter your nose or take pills.
Likewise, it is already routine to make your body look like the other sex. That is not more pretending than to right your nose.
That is all very acceptable. But when it interferes with discriminating people, then it should be forbidden.
"This result is that the species is capable of reproduction and as such to "survive"."
Which part of this definition says who is the CEO and who changes the diapers? Or who wears a dress and who pants?
Also, quite a number of adults are unable to produce fertile eggs or sperm, or any gametes at all, are they non-binary?
And when, in your whole life, have you been interested whether the person behind the counter produces egss or sperm?
And if so, have you communicated this interest to the person behind the counter?
"Also, quite a number of adults are unable to produce fertile eggs or sperm, or any gametes at all, are they non-binary?"
No, as non-binary is a made up term used by sufferers of mental illness.
Those people you list there are generally classed as 'infertile' as they very likely have all the correct parts, they just don't work properly for some reason. If they have a mix and match set of parts then you're into intersex. And contrary to popular myth its not as common as red hair.
"they very likely have all the correct parts"
But this "definition" of Man and Woman does not mention any "correct" parts, just the gametes.
The definition also does not mention anything that is relevant in normal life. Nothing relevant to who can be CEO, or who should vacuum the home. It is just who produces which type of gametes.
Why would anyone ever be interested in what type of gametes the person behind the counter can or cannot produce? Especially if they would not even care whether that person is infertile or not?
Obviously, this whole gametes or "correct parts" discussion is just some excuse for discrimination and oppression. The actual gametes involved are really irrelevant.
For instance, a person with the parts that are "correct" for one type of gametes can be paid lower wages, should not be taken seriously or promoted, and can be taken advantage of in any way seen fit.
"Gender has lost all its meaning"
No, you simply don't know what "gender" actually means:
A group of people in a society who share particular qualities or ways of behaving which that society associates with being male, female, or another identity
Gender is the social part a person plays in society. The gamete definition above is about certain aspects of human reproductive biology. Not even a large part of reproductive biology for that.
Just like parts in a stage play can be played by any actor, "gender roles" can be played by any person irrespective of biology. For most of history, women's roles on stage were played by men. For instance, women in Shakespeares' plays were originally all played by men. The same possibilities hold for society at large.
Women and men living as the other sex most or part of the time have been known for all of recorded history. In some societies they were a legal part of society, eg, in India, Albania, some American Native nations. But even societies where this was a crime report such cases of gender role changes.
To summarize, biological facts are seperate from social roles. This holds for gender as much as for every other social role. The meaning of gender does not change when the people who play the part change.
You need the right parts to make the right gametes.
"can be paid lower wages"
While paying someone less for the same work is technically illegal when you get into high tech jobs your pay depends a lot on how well you negotiate at your interview as well as your experience.
As for the Uber thing, I do not believe there would be a 50k difference in salary between equivalent people in their first year of work. I know that salary expectations in silly-con valley are stupid but that seems very unrealistic. The other fatal flaw is that HR is NEVER going to be on the side of the employee.
"As for the Uber thing, I do not believe there would be a 50k difference in salary between equivalent people in their first year of work."
But this is just one example of the discrimination women experience in daily life. What you believe does not change reality.
That is alleged discrimination. At a job a long time ago at a company run by idiots they decided to offer fresh grads about 5k more than people who had been at the company for 2-3 years. That is business. Poor business as it pissed off a lot of their more experienced staff who kicked up a storm and got good pay raises and then some of them, myself included, quit.
With some people trouble just seems to follow them, some people actively like looking for it and some people think life owes them.
Looking at that person's background, they wanted to study a subject at uni that they didn't have the high school prerequisites for, so kicked up a fuss. She moved uni, same issue, kicked up a fuss too. Had a physics degree which isn't going to get you as much $$ as a more tech/eng related degree in your first job. So this is not discrimination. If they were up against other candidates who had a much more relevant degree and would need less time to integrate then you're not going to get paid as much.
"It's called building a family."
That would be about a dozen people, I assume? [1] Before you have intercourse, you would not inspect your partner's photo ID or birth certificate for their private parts. You would simply ask.
So, why should an employer or civil servant need to know about people's gametes and private parts?
We know the orange feline abuser in charge is interested in the private parts of random women. But there is no reason to legalize his behavior.
[1] If you are, eg, SA immigrant Billionaire.
enforcing that would be the opposite of DEI, but then you already know that.
DEI says that it's OK to hire a black man with a test score of 70 over a white man with a test score of 170, because we want more blacks and less whites in that position.
A colorblind society would be giving the most qualified applicant for a position that position, regardless of race. If that means that certain companies end up 100% white, that's OK. If others ended up 100% black, that's still OK. Everyone that's qualified gets the same chance to apply and the best person wins. There is no *right* percentage mix, and a lopsided racial result has nothing to do with racism.
If you are upset that there are not enough black people getting hired for a position, the solution is not as DEI would have us do and discriminate based on skin color. Hiring lesser qualified blacks, not hiring objectively better qualified whites simply to enforce your arbitrary numbers of employees by race. It's to ask yourself do blacks even want to work in these positions? If so, what's keeping them from doing so (and no, unless you can prove it, it's typically not racism). Perhaps they need more education, their culture needs to become one that values education, studying, academic achievement more and rewards in within their culture. Perhaps the local schools aren't up to snuff and they need to be supplemented at home, with tutors, with community lead efforts particularly in poorer communities.
To get back to your original question, it's enforced legally with colorblind laws (those same laws that have declared that DEI is illegal) and culturally.
Finally:
A woman is an adult human female.
just to be complete,
A man is an adult human male.
Same as it's been since homo sapian sapian was first it's own species, same as it's been for that last years untold, same as it is today, same as it will be tomorrow.
The fact that followers of the relatively new religion, gender-ideology, wishes that wasn't the case doesn't change anything.
"If that means that certain companies end up 100% white, that's OK. If others ended up 100% black, that's still OK. Everyone that's qualified gets the same chance to apply and the best person wins. There is no *right* percentage mix, and a lopsided racial result has nothing to do with racism."
Well stated.
"Perhaps the local schools aren't up to snuff and they need to be supplemented at home, with tutors, with community lead efforts particularly in poorer communities."
As far as schools go, it will be important to make sure funds are getting to the classroom and not being spent in excessive administrator salaries. Teachers accept low pay and onerous hours as the profession can be as much of a calling as a job. Why not look for administrators with the same mix? Get motivated teachers, supply them with the materials and support they need and whittle down class sizes so the student to teacher ratio is better. It might be expected that discipline will improve with smaller class sizes at least a little bit. There also has to be a way to segregate the disruptive students when their parents are ambivalent about their children's conduct. When I was in school, there was a campus that was the last chance for those that didn't have any motivation to learn, were problems and whose parents didn't think it was their problem. That was the 'bogey man" held over the rest of us. If you don't try, you wind up there where the only focus was on the 3 R's. No art classes, no music, no athletics, just the basics to achieve the minimum standards for graduation. I think it was only a half day program since one of the things that would put you there is chronic truancy. I suppose they figured that half a day was about all they could get out of them.
"DEI says that it's OK to hire a black man with a test score of 70 over a white man with a test score of 170, because we want more blacks and less whites in that position."
oh. So we can just make up anything and put, "DEI says" in front on it? That's very convenient!
Let me try!
DEI says people posting utter garbage about DEI are probably compensating for their abject failure in the job market. That is easy, isn't it!
(I'm not a DEI proponent. It's way to biased towards the US and their centuries long problems. But neither do I feel the Culture War imperative that's leaching out of the US either.)
"And how do you make sure that happens, considering that we know for a fact that people will overlook flaws in candidates who they relate to?"
In the case of DIE, you choose who 'should' be chosen in advance based on arbitrary and un-related characteristics. Do this to the extent that the class you absolutely don't want chosen is excluded from the running.
All that can be done is to make sure that legally the field is level for everybody and blatant bias that can be proven is an offense. The proof is the hard part since something like selecting somebody for employment can be very nuanced and applicants are judged on more than education and job experience. If somebody shows up late for an interview looking like they were on a serious bender the night before and in clothes they've slept in and in dire need of a good scrubbing, it might not matter to the company that the person is actually very qualified as they turfed out the last person for turning up late all of the time in a similar condition. If the company has a burning need to get somebody into a post to clear a large backlog and a woman comes in obviously quite pregnant, the company isn't going to want to hire them if they'll wind up being out on leave around the time they would be getting up to speed in the job. It's not that the woman wasn't hired for being female, but that she would not be available for work shortly after being hired. The examples can be endless.
There's an old saying that says "You can't legislate morality". The same goes for other cultural things. You can make discrimination illegal, but you can't force a person to not be racist.
Awesomely rich to see the "White House [...] revert to "merit-based" hiring" when it is led by two billionaires whose only "merit" is to have inherited a shit load of moolah from their dads, medieval-style, and who fill gov offices with halfwits whose only qualification is their loyalty to the monarch, ATM salad-tossing human-centipede-style, with shiny polished brown noses to prove it!
Their Nazi-inspired doublespeak redefines "merit" as "loyal ass licking"; how swell (granted there's merit to doing it well, but basing a whole government on that is rather limitative shit)!
So what then if this authoritarian hedonistic regime of regimented narcissism and bananarama republicanism is but a pale imitation of the inspirational Western concepts of governance (eg. democracy, human rights, rationalism, secularism, ...)? Doesn't being caught-up in Vladimir Putin's fascist fishing net of failed-State propaganda, hook, line, and stinker, beat off being swallowed up whole by a humpback whale?
No! It does not. That a flacid musk-scented Orange rubber dildo might hallucinate itself so farcically as the new BBC is beyond grotesque.
DEI is so valuable to ensure, going forward, that we don't miss out on such exceptional talent as that behind Turing machines (and patterns), the ARM architecture, the Yosys open-source FPGA toolchain, SectorLISP, and whatever might come next, imho, without subjecting those most gifted folks to the kinds of obscurantist torture treatments and distressful atmospheres promoted by terrorist-like fanatical fundamentalist supporters of the Convict in Chief and his inbred anus ilk, in my view!
Yep, Trump is the ultimate "DEI hire". Well "nepo hire" is more accurate. If it wasn't for his father being in the 1% of the 1% when Donnie was born we would have never heard of him. If Donald Trump had been born middle class you'd find him today hawking fake Rolexes on the streets of NYC.
Recruiting people with the most appropriate skills for a role irrespective of race, gender, or background.
With respect, I disagree. When I recruited people - which was a large part of my job for several decades - I looked for those with the most potential, not the highest skills. That's not to say that demonstrated skills were unimportant, but quite often I took chances on people who had never worked in the field but whom I thought could pick up what was needed fast. I don't think I was ever disappointed.
A corollary of this is the need to recognise that some groups, for various reasons, don't have the same opportunities as others to acquire experience and qualifications. This is why many companies have graduate entry schemes - they recognise that relatively inexperienced young people can have great potential.
DEI always discriminates against the most qualified to do the job, otherwise whats the point of it? I've seen it time and time again, oh, we're looking for a programmer of this very old, no longer mainstream obscure database, and HR have only sent me CV's from 20 something women, riiiiight (with no experience of said database)
You are looking for specialist skills in an area with no future, yet your company is probably not willing to pay much for it. Because DEI never really made that much difference, there are young women who want to do software but can't get a break, so they are willing to give it a go. How did you solve it in the end? Outsourcing to a foreign country? H1B?
I think pretty much everyone gets DEI confused with affirmative action. If you colour/race/gender/whatever-blind hire the best candidates, then you'll have a degree of DEI. Obviously, this can't take into account communities and demographics that are not big on education (it sucks to be them, but tough). If HR implements quotas, that is not DEI. It can, however, distort recruitment for smaller businesses that are genuinely DEI since the big companies with quotas can end up with the cream of the crop from every race, culture and protected group.
If you ask me, affirmative action is cancer. DEI well done (and especially genuinely DEI organisation with diverse cultures, characteristics and perspectives) should be seen as the holy grail.
Anon - I think I wrote something fucking controversial there.
Working for an organisation that didn't pay top dollar, I always figured we should look very hard at minorities and so on for recruitment, because if the big payers had differentially creamed off the young white males then the best people in the remaining pool were disproportionately likely to be from minority groups.
You get a like from me. My view on recruiting for a smaller company is that you look for overlooked talent. That is usually the curious people who don't look like the models on the milk round posters. Assuming the milk round is still a thing..
It's still very much a thing, eg the vampire squid saying it's going to drop DEI requirements for start-ups looking to IPO. If you're a start-up or expanding business, you might need to do a few rounds of fund raising, and if lenders have DEI policies, you might need to comply to raise the cash.
" My view on recruiting for a smaller company is that you look for overlooked talent."
That isn't too hard if you don't have an HR department and let the manager of the position looking to be filled do the hiring. HR might discard an application as there isn't the box ticked marked "graduate degree" while a manager might look at work experience and find a perfect fit. Companies I see often state not to send a cover letter with a resume and application. Applicants don't even get a chance to sell themselves. There's no chance to make the case that they aren't just looking for "a job", but looking for a job with that company. Even somebody with a slightly deficient CV that has a lot of motivation can be the better hire.
“Rolling back on DEI isn’t just an internal business decision, it has real-world consequences. It deepens inequality, weakens trust, and risks undoing decades of progress.
“It is no coincidence that the drive to reverse inclusion efforts is often led by those who already hold advantage – those who benefit from an unlevel playing field. The reality is that at some point, every one of us will find ourselves in a minority – whether due to mental health, age, disability, or other circumstances.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/14/ditching-diversity-risks-progress-co-op
Ask this; why would you want to hire someone based on anything other than merit? Would that not be prejudice, is that not an open door for corruption and company failure?
As for inclusivity anything else is detrimental. Inclusivity is not inclusive if it is interpreted as favouring. If you favour some you are prejudicing others.
Perhaps if some social groups are proportionally under represented the root causes should be addressed. But first check if they want to be equally represented in all industries.
"The White House wants Uncle Sam to revert to "merit-based" hiring.
This is what The Register thinks equal opportunities should be all about, though: Recruiting people with the most appropriate skills for a role irrespective of race, gender, or background."
I read these two sentences a few times and still don't see a disparity between them.
Appropriate skills equals merit, no?
"Appropriate skills equals merit, no?"
You need to go into your personal definition of 'merit'.
Appropriate skills are the most basic qualifications. Being born of a certain race, adhering to a particular religion or claiming a certain gender ideology aren't a factor in 99.99999% of jobs. I'd go along with other factors being important as well. Somebody with a history of filing lawsuits against their employers might be an issue. Somebody that expects discipline of fellow employees for not respecting their chosen pronouns is a recipe for conflict in an office environment. Depending on what you want to file under "merit", the meaning can vary. Somebody working remotely can have all sorts of quirks that might not work well in a large office.
Watching el Reg commenters, and the Reg itself, say things like:
> [Simply] Recruiting people with the most appropriate skills for a role irrespective of race, gender, or background [, you idiots]
Says you've done no reading or study or thought about this issue in any depth. You're not equipped to have a position on this. You just have your default position "well it's common sense innit".
It's a bit like sending a bunch of techbro teens into US Treasury Dept to decide which spending is allowed, they are not equipped to do it, they think they are smart but all they have is vibes.
From what I know of DEI, it's more on the recruiting side of things, not the hiring. What I mean is a recruiter should be casting a wider net to get a range of different candidates, a big ones are women returning to the workforce and older people changing professions, and not just going to the same talent pool time and time again. US VP is a recipient of a DEI policy at Yale Law, part of the DEI was to look at people from disadvantaged backgrounds and returned servicemen, both describe J. D(EI) Vance. It is then up to the interview panel to hire the best candidate from that more diverse pool.
Obviously, but DEI is just a Boogeyman to scare masses. The real target is hiring of non-white-males.
And in the view of Project 2025, the VP cannot be a DEI beneficiary because he is a Christian White Male. [1] Only capable women and other minorities are, by definition,bDEI hires.
[1] As he himself does, we ignore rumors about his orientation.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm a hiring manager in one of the companies mentioned in the article and have personally been involved in decisions where people have been hired, promoted, or given pay raises for reasons other than merit. DEI should be about equality of opportunity, which, all things being equal, should lead to equality of outcome. It shouldn't be about forcing the outcome, which, unfortunately, is what it has become.
I tend to concur that if you have a workforce that represents your population you are likely to design and make products that appeal across the whole population. But you need to have people with vulnerable characteristics at all levels in your organisation to achieve this. I work with a number of very intellectually capable disabled people but they have to contend every day with wheelchairs and blindness and deafness to name but a few challenges, our building was designed to enable them to come into work and get around the office on their own and flourish. You don't have to go back very far to find that buildings weren't designed like ours and then you exclude a whole group of people. Women too, because they have babies, which we are told society needs, have times of greater challenge in the workforce and if you look around at their achievements also have much to offer the workforce but pretending that having a baby doesn't provide extra challenges to families and to women as employees means you are fooling yourself or your company.
Saying that, I find that DEI is very faddy. I don't think we have a clear view of what is merit, brilliant programmers do not often convert into being brilliant managers and team leaders but some do, how do we tell? How do you work out if a woman of 40 with 3 kids and a patchy employment record does compare with a man of 40 with 3 kids and a solid employment record and is she going to be as useful to your organisation.
I think we should have DEI, I think it may well be business and country specific and I think it should be challenged all the time and its hiring practices reviewed and tweaked and I also think we should value brilliant programmers who don't want to be team leaders and managers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
