Oh yeah, it surely will. Time to say goodbye to DIE statements when applying to jobs and forced indoctrination in the workplace. This junk is on borrowed time.

Very dystopian, and reminiscent of countless other "social revolutions" that happened in the not-so-distant history, all with terrifying results.

Treating everyone the same way doesn’t need to terrify anyone.

Indeed, which is why these DEI initiatives and workplace indoctrination are dystopian.

> Could racially discriminatory hiring strategies be next?

I'm no fan of regulation and government intervention in private business, but its gotten out of control in tech and the corporate world. I've flat out heard hiring managers say they'll only hire a woman, lgbtq, or [certain minority] for certain roles. I've sat in hiring committees where candidates preform horribly, esp compared to others being reviewed at the same time, and get pushed through to offer stage just because of their inalienable characteristics. If these meetings were recorded and leaked to the press, there'd be outrage. These managers talk of human beings like people collect coins or action figures. And HR/Recruiting/C-suite is super complicit in all this, if not actively encouraging it.

While I agree with your assessment of the situation, even then I wouldn't have a government policy which forces the DEI policies out. If the management, board, and ultimately shareholders of business want to run the most "progressive"/"woke" hiring and HR policies imaginable: they have the right to do so. Mind you I probably wouldn't want to even be a customer of such a company let alone work for it, but a private entity should be able to act as they see their best interest dictates.

> If the management, board, and ultimately shareholders of business want to run the most "progressive"/"woke" hiring and HR policies imaginable: they have the right to do so

What about title VII banning discrimination on the basis of race (among other factors)? That's outright illegal

There's likely enough ammunition on social media rn for plenty of litigation wrt this

Sorry, I had thought I'd established context better than I had. My broader point was about what what I would prefer the law to be rather than the way it is.

So I meant "moral right" rather than "legal right". The substance of morals and laws coincide much less frequently than the language used by both pursuits.

So stop being a coward and record and leak those conversations.

Maybe in 10 years once I've gotten enough to retire. Dont wanna get James Damore'd.

Damore did nothing of the sort.

You're right, he merely shared his opinion, and look what happened to him! If someone leaked info they would probably face even harsher treatment.

Blowing the whistle with internal comms as evidence != Writing an opinionated blog post

My employer has stated on company-wide broadcasts that they will use race as a factor for raises and promotions. This blatant racism has to come to an end.

>Could racially discriminatory hiring strategies be next?

As someone who is white, and got 100% job offers from every interview, I wonder if I got it out of discrimination, or I'm so elite and they picked me despite being white.

I would imagine that the other white candidates for the positions that you got the offer for feel quite differently

The decision affects private entities that accept some form of federal financial assistance (this is language from Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act), not private entities writ large. Granted, that is still a big bucket.

There's apparently a bit of overlap between Title VI and Title VII. But will likely have a separate case

> “many of the thought processes and the basic legal principles” are the same, says Daniel Pyne III, an employment specialist at law firm Hopkins & Carley. If the court strikes down race-conscious admissions in education, “that is a strong hint that the same decision might be made” in employment cases

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-22/suprem...

Sorry, yes, you are right. It’s a similar analysis probably because Title VII is also grounded in the 14th Amendment.

Companies are not allowed to discriminate in their hiring. In other words, it is not legal to have affirmative action in a hiring decision (e.g. only hiring female candidates or only hiring black candidates).

To get around this, companies do a couple things to increase the likelihood of hiring an underrepresented person into a role:

1) They will quietly try to fill up their candidate pipelines with people who match the criteria they are looking for to increase the likelihood they wind up hiring a candidate who matches.

2) They will apply the "Rooney Rule" which says at least one person from an underrepresented minority group must be interviewed for a position before a hiring decision can be made.

> 2) They will apply the "Rooney Rule" which says at least one person from an underrepresented minority group must be interviewed for a position before a hiring decision can be made.

They already do.