Please take a moment and reflect on why these sorts of initiatives exist. It was not because one day we decided to chastise the down-trodden majority class.
I think posts of this nature (including OP) reflect a fear of not belonging to the dominant ‘caste’ and of being seen as either losing status (dominant caste men not getting jobs they are ‘the best’ for); or, alternatively, lower caste men wanting to be seen as valuable in a space they continually feel they do not belong in.
I say this as a someone who is a minority who regularly is discriminated against - and who has easily attained markers of success. There is no way to avoid feeling like we do not belong, but returning us to poverty and shutting us out of jobs is definitely not a way to attain a feeling of belonging.
Finally, DEI initiatives are very public - nepotism, alma mater connections etc are not. Let’s be careful in assuming that the only non-LEET code metric used to hire people is the color of the skin or their biological sex.
These sorts of initiatives are trying to cure a racial or sexual bias with a different sort of racial or sexual bias. How does the question "why they exist" help those of us who think, in Kant's deontological terms, that racial or sexual biases are wrong?
Please consider an old house you may buy if you live in New England or Europe. Sure, if you were building a new house everything should be plumb and level. But the house you’re able to buy in old cities is not brand new. So what does one do if you wish to have a level floor? We add shims to obtain some objective reasonable result, accepting that to get to a this result we must try to address systemic problems that are not our fault, but are now our responsibility.
Let me offer you a different metaphor about levels :-) In Greek mythology, there was a character named Procrustes. He had an iron bed of a certain size, to which he strapped his captives, and if they happened to be taller than the bed was long, he cut off their legs to fit the bed; whereas if they were shorter, he stretched them to fit the bed tearing their sinews and muscles. That's what I think of when I hear about arbitrary levels applied to living people.
In fact, this practice only really ended in the 1960s; controversially, one might even say that this practice continues to today.
So what do we do when confronted with an anecdote from antiquity versus system inequities from our modern era?
I guess, in the spirit of the analogy, your options are to either stop cutting off body parts from anyone, or to start cutting them off those who look like people who engaged in body cutting two or more generations ago. DEI prefers the second option. Some people would rather see the first.
problems that are not our fault but are now our responsibility
That’s a very nice, concise way of summarizing the essence of the issue.
For example a white friend in South Africa has a daughter who years ago, when looking at university applications, was distraught because to study to be a doctor she had to hit over 90% in her exams, vs 70% for her black South African classmates. Does it matter to her that this wasn't meant to happen? Or is reality also worth talking about?
Which part of the parent's message says that he does?
What it does say that if an organisation gives preferential treatment to a certain group based on their skin color, then it follows, inevitably, that people with non-preferred skin color will lose to those with the preferred one, all else being equal. And thus, there will inevitably be "the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color" (or sex, or both). Whether it was OP or someone else who was preferred to that guy is unknowable, and thus ultimately irrelevant. But that must take place in an organisation that is truly committed to DEI; because otherwise this abbreviation is meaningless.
If disagreeing with making hiring decisions on the basis of skin colour is racist, then I suppose I'm racist.
1. There are fewer qualified black and Hispanic candidates per capita (i.e. without a college degree, without the right experience, etc.) than white and Asian candidates. The cause of this is irrelevant to the argument, it is factually true.
2. There are a finite amount of positions at any given company paying any given amount.
3. If companies hire a larger percentage (beyond a certain margin of error) of black and Hispanic candidates than actually exist in the hiring pool then they must commit racial discrimination against whites and Asians in order to accomplish this. You can try to redefine racism and discrimination as "prejudice plus power" or whatever you want to justify the fact that you mistreat people on the basis of their skin color, but factually that is what is being done.
How does a nation overcome that legacy with its accompanying negative effects on people of color? We aren’t all equal when the effects of centuries of policies and attitudes can still be seen. I don’t know the answer but I think it is OK for companies to be cognizant of these issues and attempt to go out of their way to hire qualified people of color.
It sucks for one to feel they didn’t get a job because they are white but I think this doesn’t happen in statistically significant numbers. It’s known that people with “black sounding” names are less likely to get interviews. I don’t know the solution. I suspect that if we didn’t tie health care to employment and had a better system for unemployed people then the issue of reverse discrimination would largely go away.
You are right about something, affirmative action is racist, but I feel it is absolutely necessary to try to balance out current inequities. I strongly believe people making arguments like yours, people fighting against affirmative action need to propose an alternative rather than just complain about it.
There are lots of people alive today that couldn't drink from the same fountain or use the same bathroom as white people, and people who had friends and family members lynched (and in the eyes of many George Floyd's death was a lynching). Their neighborhoods were bulldozed to make the highways and they were systematically excluded from housing by redlining. You won't convince me for a second that their children and grandchildren got an equal opportunity. There is so much evidence of systemic disadvantaging of PoC communities today too, underfunded schools because of how we fund schools with local property taxes, turning lots of the public school system into effectively fancy private schools for families well off enough to live in rich neighborhoods.
So I will say it again, I do think at the surface level affirmative action is racist, but it's such a simple thing to realize it seems extremely pointless to even bring up. It is fighting centuries of truly heinous racism and genocide with just a tiny bit of an attempt at positive racism and white people still find a way to be pissed off they aren't getting everything the "deserve".
Not only is an alternative proposed, it's already implemented for quite a while: discrimination is illegal. Equal outcome vs equal opportunity. You can argue for any side you want, just don't pretend you don't see or don't understand the other position.
Or no because the statute of limitations expires while white government was busy refusing to entertain the idea?
Support for reparations is table stakes for anyone talking about "equal opportunity".
This thread is depressing as fuck and really is making me rethink how often I ought come to this site, and interact with this community. And I really didn't realize how much this toxic bullshit was pervasive in tech. I am going to be participating more in DEI initiatives going forward, while taking the feedback and criticism of the OP into account.
As for "simple and misguided" - that is exactly how I see affirmative action where the recipients are selected by skin color and not by socioeconomic status and where the help comes in the form of outcomes and not opportunities.
The stupidest, least-qualified white man at a company that still employs more white men than they statistically should. He's getting affirmative-action too, it's just not official.
Or is that not what you meant?
> Imagine how the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color feels. That's who the real victim is here - the person who was racially discriminated against.
White guys are not discriminated against in tech. This is such a racist take.
I bet you also think that reparations for slavery and Jim Crow -- literally, the government actually discriminating and harming people for their skin color -- would be bad because they somehow "hurt" white folks today.
I can understand how DEI initiatives might undermine your self-esteem and I'm sorry you are made to feel this way, but take solace in the fact that you have a job. Imagine how the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color feels. That's who the real victim is here - the person who was racially discriminated against.
> In my opinion, it would be beneficial if DEI initiatives were confidential and kept "hush hush" within a company.
Personally, I prefer companies to be loud and proud about their DEI initiatives so that I know which companies engage in racial discrimination, rather than it all happening behind closed doors.