Who decided/determined this? You state it as if positive discrimination is a proven social good, yet I don't think it's so clear. There's still a ton of debate around it, and different western countries have difference stances on it. To me it still seems like an experiment with unclear/unknown long term value to society.
The "correct" answer isn't biasing evaluation pipelines, it's ensuring you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
But you don't in most cases. And a lot of that is because minorities, in general, have a less access to opportunities. By lifting up minorities individually, the goal is to raise them up at a systematic level. And the end goal of _that_ is so that they can/do have proportional representation in the pool of applicants. At which point, the biased treatment to get them there will no longer be necessary.
Admittedly, it's debatable as to whether that approach will work; but I haven't seen any other viable options put forth.
Personally, I believe in affirmative action, but it's become evident that it's incredibly unpopular, and the Supreme Court has rendered it actively illegal, so my personal opinion is moot and I know when to cede a losing battle.
What I was describing is literally the steps you would take if you wanted to ensure you have proportional representation in the pool of applicants.
You obviously need to bias your recruitment efforts, and more than slightly if you want proportional representation of applicants, but I believe it's absolutely essential you do NOT bias evaluations, hiring, or promotion of applicants. To do so actively undermines minorities in my opinion by stripping away their credibility by default.
One of the biggest things about the DEI discourse that puts me off is the dishonesty of it. Many, perhaps most, DEI advocates attempt to argue that policies like withholding executive bonuses if their org isnt X% women and Y% URM isn't discrimination. Heck, I've encountered one former co-worker argue that allocating a segment of headcout exclusive to women wasn't discrimination, because it's "extra" headcount. If I have 100 headcount and I prohibit men from 20 of them that's discrimination, but if I have 80 headcount and I add 20 "extra" heads exclusively available to women that's not discrimination, according to this former co-worker's logic.
It's one thing to advance a controversial policy and stand by it earnestly. It's another to advance a controversial policy while lying about it to people's faces. DEI is unfortunately often carried out via the latter fashion. And realistically, that's the only way it can be carried out under our present set of laws, because discrimination on the basis of race and gender are illegal nation-wide in the USA.
That's fair. But it's unfair to state it like _all_ DEI proponents aren't honest about it. Clearly, I'm saying just that and I _am_ a proponent of it.
It is like they want to apply the handbook of toxic middle management. If you want to create strive in your minions, provide benefits to one group while disadvantaging the other. They will hate each other more than they will hate you and you can reign supreme.
This is usually basic psychology or at least it is proved to work.
Universal humanism also empirically works better than what DEI proposes. DEI gratifies self-important people to elevate themselves and their ideas above others and little else. None of them would step back to be an example, so they are probably dishonest too.
If people dislike it, which many do, it is usually correct and not due some made up bias.
- Group 1 is doing well
- Group 2 is doing poorly, because the system works in favor of group 1
- We should NOT try to balance things (lift up group 2 at the cost of group 2) in the short term so that things are more balanced in the long term
- Because doing so would upset Group 1
See, the thing is... Group 2 is _already_ upset; and rightfully so. I'd rather see both groups of people somewhat upset then one group happy and the other _more_ upset. Honestly, that's pretty much a cliche description of what a compromise is.
You are completely free to provide benefits for the poorest as well.
If you see yourself in group 1, you are very free to take a step back. We both know you don't, you expect that from others.
Neither "balance" nor "long term goals" are in any way defined, you just use random discrimination, which is of course negative between a bunch of negative ideas.
You also draw lines between these group 1 + 2.
The entire young male community right now has circled the wagons around "woke" hatred, which is really funny, because they should see the media I grew up with! Imagine someone saying catching AIDS isn't a personal failing in the 80s! Yet the Golden Girls is considered top quality entertainment. But no, suddenly we have to pretend that the same people who insisted Rock N Roll was hypnotizing our children are suddenly correct that making a movie about a trans person will hypnotize our children into being trans?
The mountains of kids insisting that what "gamers" want is hypersexualized boobs with eyes is awful. They don't know history either, like when Mass Effect 2 was lampooned for giving it's "genetically perfect" female character extremely visible camel toe, and placing a cinematic camera up her butt crack.
Samus Aran is from 1986. And fucking Japan. GI Jane got so much hatred in the 90s. Why are we still doing this?
>I want my old son back
Then why don't you be the parent? Why don't you help your son understand the parts of right wing propaganda that are blatantly false? Why don't you help your son understand what women experience? Why don't you help him see the rhetorical trickery and lies of people like the Fresh and Fit podcast? Why don't you help him understand how to properly research controversial topics like that? Or help him understand how rhetoric in the News might not be an accurate narrative? Or have you ever talked to him about Gell-Mann amnesia?
I want my brother back from 30 years of indoctrination about how the reason he struggles is because of black people going to college, instead of him slacking off and not caring about school. When a Mainer who dropped out of community college flies the fucking Confederate battle flag in 2009, you don't get to blame DEI. I want him back from a century of indoctrination that kids would stop being shot at school if only it was easier to buy a rifle, or that my 65 year old mom who has no interest in being a cop should be made to carry a firearm to shoot one of her students.
Why is it always the democrat's fault for what republicans do?
On the contrary, I think there are numerous errors with multiple premises.
Anyone who thinks "you have to hire a certain amount/percentage of minorities" doesn't mean, by definition, that you will need to negatively impact _individual_ members of a majority hasn't spent any real time thinking about how it works. But the point is that it's worth it for society as a whole.