If you'd like more reliable sources, here you go: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Experimental evidence for favoring hiring women over men in academia https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21565503.2018.14... Strong evidence for preference for hiring minority candidates in academia https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/12/31/life-science-jobs-... (with links to actual documents included revealing clear use of DEI statements to cull huge swaths of applications) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-deni... How DEI statements are used to discriminate against researchers on grants https://www.thefire.org/fire-calls-on-uc-santa-cruz-to-drop-... More schools using DEI as a first cut in hiring
Maybe this is different in some companies, but from what I understand it seems to be happening at the same pace as well.
As far as checking sources, one of yours is a political advocacy organization that explicitly acts and lobbies against DEI.
As a former newsroom employee, I am well aware that there is no such thing as an unbiased news department.
I had never heard of City Journal, but the article was so clearly written from a biased perspective that I clicked through to the main page and was hit with the Soros lead story.
Same with the Washington Examiner, never heard of it, but the "top stories" sidebar shows a VERY clear bias.
Personally, I am happy to accept that there are specific instances and anecdotes where DEI and progressive policies have been overzealous or enforced in a way that disadvantages white men and others who explicitly and loudly reject it.
I'm also willing to acknowledge that there is overwhelming, and far more plentiful, data that support the arguments of systemic racism. I believe DEI as a concept is a good thing that occasionally goes wrong, much like literally any system applied on a large scale. Patents are good, patent trolls are bad. The ADA is good, ADA trolls are bad. DEI is good, using it as a political hiring filter is bad.
How do you have that information? Do you know of multiple people saying they were passed over for not being diverse enough and you have personal knowledge that those people are bad at their jobs?
If that's not the case, then stop offending people you disagree with.
They shared these public record documents with Fox News, which I'm sure you dislike, but they nonetheless count as independent confirmation: https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-chop-segregated-training-...
News sources you like seem simply unmotivated to check this story.
The Coca-Cola story was confirmed by Snopes (read Coca-Cola's statements carefully - they never claim the slides were not shown as part of training, though they make every effort to imply it): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca-cola-training-less-wh...
I cannot find a good secondary source on the Cigna story, though the alleged facts are an entirely predictable result of diversity hiring goals.
The WSJ Opinion story is confirmed by Berkeley's own report (https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...). The opinion story itself was written by Professor Abigail Thompson, an American Mathematical Society vice-president, and in her open letter (https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf) she links directly to the requirements on Berkeley's own website: https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversit...
But isn't it convenient how no "trustworthy" media bothered to report any of these stories, or even any similar stories? Shall we also call them out for giving us such a slanted view of the world?
Dilbert became famous for holding a mirror to corporate culture, and ringing true. Now it is holding a mirror to how the right perceives culture to be. My complaint is that it is 1. Overly concentrating on issues that aren't issues for a large part of the population (I don't list my pronouns, but I don't care a single bit if someone else does, and I will respect their preferences in the same way I will respect that Margaret goes by Lisa since she doesn't like the name she was given).
2. Highlighting issues that just aren't real, i.e. diversity hiring (I have done plenty of hiring at multiple companies in multiple countries, we actively try to get expand the diversity of our APPLICANT pool. Evaluation and job offers are done on the merits. Never seen a diversity quota) What I haven't seen is people being passed over for not being diverse enough on a first hand basis. The people that claim it happened to them, are generally better at complaining than they are at their job.
To put it simply, people think Dilbert has gone off the rails, because they don't recognize the situations being represented as anything close to realistic.