Being facetious, are we?
Talking about petty nuisances related to trying to solve the greater problem while not even mentioning what the greater problem is usually an indicator that you don't see the greater problem as a problem.
The greater problems being racism and transphobia in the context of this discussion.
"White" is a legal construct that was created in Virginia in 1691, and white was "English and other white peoples", and "not negro and not indian"
The very basis of "white" isn't a definition, as much as it is a negation of 2 other groups. (Now, it is also not middle eastern and not Asian as well.)
Mckinsey admits it's just a correlation. I don't think it's correct to say diversity is causally linked to increased profit.
Yes, diversity is often considered profitable by corporate executives, but usually for reasons that are not exactly positive, like with Amazon whose analysis was that diversity decreased the chance the employees would unionize.
>Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks
Dilbert comics have lampooned pretty much all of those things.
This sounds a lot like whataboutism or "Fallacy of relative privation":
dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems.
Also, Your characterisation of diversity statements as changing nothing could itself be a problem if there divert from meaningful change; It seems like DEI is very well funded compared to the other issues you raise, if they are funded at all (where are the anti-visa-slavery corporate initiatives?).
> Never mind that diversity is profitable
That's another conversation altogether, but one corrupted by the fact that any other conclusion would be considered heresy e.g. rather than argue that it's true, you assume it's true and imply anyone who disagree is stupid..
They require candidates to show a track record promoting diversity. Merely saying it is not enough, so they do in fact require sacrifices - even if you don't count being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold as a sacrifice. But then forced conversion is also no big deal.
This is required by one fifth of academic jobs, as of 2021: https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
Sure enough, a report on Berkeley's diversity initiative—recently publicized by Jerry Coyne and John Cochrane—shows that eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
I'll let you decide if using this criterion as the first step, that disqualifies 76% of candidates, is a "token gesture that takes 0.05% of your time".
Regardless of how arbitrary you claim the filtering is, the effect is the same - it makes commitment to diversity the most important, primary criterion.
I don't understand what beliefs you're referring to? I thought they were asking people to promote diversity, what "belief" is there in that?
It's a very radical concept for many people, including Scott Adams.
And yet, most commentors here would want you to respect such a person.
Welcome to HN.
You can take a guess how good your chances of passing the diversity filter are, if your main contribution is trying to reduce the discrimination against non-Jewish whites, by which they are 12-times less likely to be admitted to the Ivy League than their Jewish counterparts.
Not, say, 10:1 PhD student to position ratio. Or exploitation. Or the visa slavery (accept all the crap, or get kicked out of the country you've been toiling for over the course of 10 years). Or $50K/yr being acceptable research professor's salary. Or the disgusting proportion of adjunct positions used as full-time. Or (gasp) actual lack of diversity.
Nooo, it's the statements, which were invented as a non-solution that requires nobody to sacrifice anything, changes nothing, but can be a great taking point.
Same with the industry. Wage stagnation, treating workers as disposable, job conditions — no, it's the diversity efforts that are the problem.
Never mind that diversity is profitable [1], and is pushed by managements for that reason if they have the brains to understand it.
Which Scott Addams, sadly, does not.
If Dilbert is a mirror, it's one that's been covered with poop its maker piled up on it.
No, I don't like what I see. Or smell.
[1]https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...