This runs directly contrary to my experience with DEI. I demoed setups for anonymized zoom interviews, and blinded resume review. HR didn't want any of it. Instead, we made exec's bonuses contingent on keeping the percentage of male employees in their org below a cap - exceed the cap, lose your bonus. The cap was lower than men's representation in the field.
If DEI was about promoting merit, it would be focused on making interviews more objective, and anonymizing as much of the hiring process as we can. In practice, it's the opposite: directly tying incentives to the demographics of the candidates and penalizing those who don't adhere to the desired ethnic and gender ratio.
Yet whenever it's DEI, it's the fault of DEI for some manager being incompetent.
>HR didn't want any of it
Why would they? I've never seen an HR department that actually cared about outcomes. I've been in multiple companies that struggle to hire people because HR insists on being the one writing the requirements, and they blatantly fuck it up, like asking for multiple years experience in a brand new tool, or "requiring" a programming language fluency that we don't use.
Why is it DEIs fault that HR sucks at their job?
If we had this same standard for other ways HR sucks, we would have reverted to Waterfall design methods, and we would eliminate sexual harassment training since sometimes companies retaliate.
Meanwhile how quickly lots of companies are running from DEI shows they never really cared about it, and did not hire competent people to run it. Why is that DEI's fault?
Funny how this standard only applies to DEI
>it would be focused on making interviews more objective, and anonymizing as much of the hiring process as we can
It literally is in a shitload of companies. Why do you think you get to generalize from your singular experience?
I know Interviewing.io does, but they don't have the final say in hires. They just forwarded candidate to companies, which were under no obligation to maintain anonymity. Ironically Interviewing.io's anonymity is why Meta refused to work with them: https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-...
Once it is in place, they always take from specific groups that they label as advantaged, privileged, or oppressors. They give to other groups they favor. I'll let you guess who the bad guys always are. Even if minorities become dominant, they still talk like white males are the advantaged people and still work against them. So, it's just hateful and systematically racist against specific groups.
How about some examples of what I ran into. Please note these are not arguing race is the cause but a specific culture that comes with DEI. This is not how I think about black organizations or anything like that. These are all DEI, liberal run, etc.
At one employer, they did a hiring event that caused the entire workforce to be mostly black within a week or so. Then, management and corporate people were that way. They put out big, "diversity" signs in front showing non-whites being promoted. They were evil and into cronyism like the whites before them but looked different so society is better?
When I lost my job, it was hard to find new ones. Our area was more equally white and black than most places. The companies now were mostly black: workers, managers, and who hired. At some, the white people acted more black than white. So, add any of those jobs. Some would laugh at or mock white people.
My friend gets in a hospital that's also DEI. The mostly-black staff were always rude. One knocked her on the ground to move her as she worked. People there said whites and women never last. That it was pointless to try to correct it.
My step-dad was at a warehouse at the time. Of nearly 100 people, only a few were white. They were treated more strictly and petty. For instance, he said they got in trouble for not having the new shirts but only the black people knew about them. They didnt bother telling the white people.
Many tech companies I looked at overtly said they wanted diversity (not whites). They showed pictures of their staff that had few to no white people. Some like Babbel played up transgender a lot. Local and remote companies had special, support groups for non-whites, women, and LGBT people (eg Plaid). Groups like Best Buy offered in-house mini-MBA's for advancement... unless you're white.
Many of the organizations doing training, networking, mentoring, and grants were focusing on needy minorities. The minority members often got more at the EBT office. The media would always talk about their plight, too, like many of us didnt have empty fridges and no insurance.
So, however you would quantify all that multiplied by however many whites or men were financially or medically impacted by it. I'm glad it's starting to reverse under the Trump administration. At least one politician thinks whites, males, and straight people are human beings, too.
I dislike stupid ideas and it goes the biases about skin color I might have or not have. What isn't quantifiable is this bias.
Any imbalance of demographic was interpreted as a result of discrimination. That assumption is falsifiable.
But first you should just stop discriminating by race.
This is hugely-important observation. Why on Earth would they expect every place to have an equal division of races? And why would having more of one than another automatically be racist?
A quick example from my area is in sports. There's more white people interested in hockey, more black people interested in basketball, and so you see more of each on those teams. More in their ads, too. Under DEI-like thinking, they're so racist that we need to implement quotas to make sure the players are the right colors to hit a specific ratio. That's insane and encourages racist thinking.
The reason for them doing this seems to be two fold. First, they're about equity (equal outcomes), not equal opportunity. Equal outcomes means the end result has to be split evenly among people. Equal opportunity allows imbalances when people in one group outwork the others or were simply generous or recipients of generosity. Marxism/communism tried economies built on equity (equal outcomes) with catastrophic results.
Second, it implies minority members are idiots, weak, or unable to advance without their help. Often liberal whites early on in intersectionality movement. Whereas, we Christians think minority members are human beings with all the good and bad that comes with it. They have brains, muscles, social skills, and resources. We don't look down on them and we'll help anybody in need.
Third, it's a matter of faith for them. The liberal universities teach them that invisible, subtle racism is one of the worst things in society. Also, it's always whites doing it. If they're shouting about it, others are required to say and do similar things. So, if they do DEI policies, then others should do them to fight the great enemy of structural, white racism. They should do this no matter what DEI costs us in terms of merit less employees or racial division. Also, nobody can ever question these people or reject their policies, or they get canceled.
These are the traits that seem to combine to promote it. The end result has been a lot of damage. I'm glad it's reversing.
Anything that teaches you to hate and fear is a red flag - a sign to run the other way. They are doing it for a reason, they are appealing to the worst and most emotional parts of people for a reason. (And no, DEI doesn't teach that; it's just the propagandists that portray it that way).
Far as playbook, it's actually out of the Marxist playbook since they're built on similar ideas: conflict theory, oppressors vs oppressed, equal outcomes, and redistribution of wealth and power. I certainly oppose anything out of that playbook seeing Marxism led to 50 million murders.
What makes them ideologies? By using disparaging language, it's a way to skip the discussion about whether they are valuable - you just skip to your conclusion.
The ideologies are freedom and liberty, and for those to be real, they must apply to everyone - of all genders and skin colors. Clearly that hasn't been the case. Just waiting for it to change hasn't worked - for centuries. For freedom to be real, we need diversity - and the lack of it is a signal of discrimination. DEI is a set of solutions to these problems. I'm open to any but the absurdity of denial or embrace of racism and hate.
The obsession with Marxism is a clear sign that you are reading right-wing propaganda - they are the only people that talk about it. Nobody involved with DEI, for example, even thinks about it. It's another way to disparage and demonize the targets of oppression. Oppression is ok if you call them bad names, it seems.
That's right out of the playbook of how to promote racism and descrimination - tell people that the 'Blacks', etc. are taking their jobs. It literally goes back to the days of slavery, when they would turn poor whites against black slaves. God forbid the poor and oppressed got together; then they might vote out the wealthy and powerful.
DEI is not redistribution. It's eliminating bias that favors the powerful groups, mostly white guys, that have benefitted - many unwittingly - from that bias for all of US history. If you want your job on merit, if you want a fair chance rather than a handout, you should favor DEI. If you think there's no bias, you are living in a fantasy - it's gone on for centuries, the documentation and research are overwhelming, and it's boomed since 2016.