Sure, I do find it strange that you edgelords who seem to have a hard time with DEI training have never taken it
You take a class either independently or with a group. During this time you receive instruction explaining how all people are of value and how having a diverse range of decision makers produces better decisions.
There may be some scenarios that highlight how having, let’s say a woman in the workplace could be helpful. Imagine a bunch of men sitting around bitchinng about their wives. The women in the group explains something about how women think and the guys realize that they are misinterpreting what their wives are doing.
That is about the gist of it. In a lot of ways it is the kind of lesson you would learn in kindergarten. A lot of people never got this lesson and are extremely racist and sexist. DEI attempts to deliver the message they never got.
That doesn’t answer what I asked at all, you only answered once more what DEI is in theory.
I’m also not an edgelord though you are welcome to think that. I understand exactly how diversity is good and how it helps, being non white myself.
But I’ll repeat my question. How did organizations implement DEI hiring policies? How did they put what they supposedly learned in those classes in practice?
There is no smoking gun that you seem to be looking for. DEI is voluntary and does not actually affect hiring policies beyond the small chance of opening a hiring managers mind to the the possibility of hiring someone different than they are.
A common criticism from bigots is that there is some requirement to hire minorities/women. This is false.
This is why the racist and sexist push back is so ridiculous and why I said the characterization that the pendulum swings progressively forward is garbage.
DEI has ultimately lead to a small number of women getting hired and an even smaller number of minorities. It has in no way accomplished it’s stated goal of creating an inclusive and understanding workplace.
This actually makes sense since it is a very short training and it is up to everyone in the workplace to actually make the positive changes.
Another criticism that has been leveled at DEI is it is just another way to make money. This argument is actually about capitalism itself though which is a system where everything is motivated by money so I don’t really consider it valid.
The most valid criticism is around how effective DEI is at motivating change. It is true diverse organizations make better decisions and that means higher profits. As I said earlier the hard work comes from everyone at the company to improve things not a short presentation that is essentially treat people that are different than you as equals.
It is clear based upon this discussion that you probably hold an extreme belief about DEI. Hence the whole edgelord thing. Maybe you have not completely made up your mind yet.
You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.
I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.
Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.
I have worked in a corporate setting for years and I am currently a hiring manager. You keep asking for something that does not exist. I am not saying some CEO has not said, “I want x% of minorities or women working here”. Even if that did happen it is not a reflection of the rest of the corporate world that has never said anything like this.
I have attended several DEI trainings in my life and they are exactly as I have described them. Please point out any proof you have that companies have set actual quotas for hiring because their DEI policy told them to. This is also illegal in the US according to OFCCP which covers any business that works with the Federal government.
Ultimately though if a private company chooses to set quotas that is their right barring violating any laws. Considering the alternative is the defacto only hire white males I am not sure a few companies doing this would even cause a ripple.
Looking at statistics it is clear we are not hiring women or minorities in droves. This is racist rumor mill shit in my opinion.
The truth is our world in the US is still completely dominated by white males. You especially see this in management. I guess the real fear behind this is it could change some day. How scary would it be to live in a world that had 50% women CEOs. I jest of course.
You definitely have some extreme beliefs and you repeat word for word the propaganda that bigots use to discredit DEI. Certainly it has issues but forcing companies to hire X amount of a particular worker is not one of them.
When I was referencing a bigot what I meant is people that tend to think like this are bigots not that you have to be one. Although I think I would start some serious self-reflecting if I found myself siding with bigots.
Could you explain how DEI works in practice. Not in theory or what it is supposed to do, but rather how companies implemented it and carried it out.
Sure, I do find it strange that you edgelords who seem to have a hard time with DEI training have never taken it
You take a class either independently or with a group. During this time you receive instruction explaining how all people are of value and how having a diverse range of decision makers produces better decisions.
There may be some scenarios that highlight how having, let’s say a woman in the workplace could be helpful. Imagine a bunch of men sitting around bitchinng about their wives. The women in the group explains something about how women think and the guys realize that they are misinterpreting what their wives are doing.
That is about the gist of it. In a lot of ways it is the kind of lesson you would learn in kindergarten. A lot of people never got this lesson and are extremely racist and sexist. DEI attempts to deliver the message they never got.
That doesn’t answer what I asked at all, you only answered once more what DEI is in theory. I’m also not an edgelord though you are welcome to think that. I understand exactly how diversity is good and how it helps, being non white myself.
But I’ll repeat my question. How did organizations implement DEI hiring policies? How did they put what they supposedly learned in those classes in practice?
There is no smoking gun that you seem to be looking for. DEI is voluntary and does not actually affect hiring policies beyond the small chance of opening a hiring managers mind to the the possibility of hiring someone different than they are.
A common criticism from bigots is that there is some requirement to hire minorities/women. This is false.
This is why the racist and sexist push back is so ridiculous and why I said the characterization that the pendulum swings progressively forward is garbage.
DEI has ultimately lead to a small number of women getting hired and an even smaller number of minorities. It has in no way accomplished it’s stated goal of creating an inclusive and understanding workplace.
This actually makes sense since it is a very short training and it is up to everyone in the workplace to actually make the positive changes.
Another criticism that has been leveled at DEI is it is just another way to make money. This argument is actually about capitalism itself though which is a system where everything is motivated by money so I don’t really consider it valid.
The most valid criticism is around how effective DEI is at motivating change. It is true diverse organizations make better decisions and that means higher profits. As I said earlier the hard work comes from everyone at the company to improve things not a short presentation that is essentially treat people that are different than you as equals.
It is clear based upon this discussion that you probably hold an extreme belief about DEI. Hence the whole edgelord thing. Maybe you have not completely made up your mind yet.
You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.
I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.
Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.
I have worked in a corporate setting for years and I am currently a hiring manager. You keep asking for something that does not exist. I am not saying some CEO has not said, “I want x% of minorities or women working here”. Even if that did happen it is not a reflection of the rest of the corporate world that has never said anything like this.
I have attended several DEI trainings in my life and they are exactly as I have described them. Please point out any proof you have that companies have set actual quotas for hiring because their DEI policy told them to. This is also illegal in the US according to OFCCP which covers any business that works with the Federal government.
Ultimately though if a private company chooses to set quotas that is their right barring violating any laws. Considering the alternative is the defacto only hire white males I am not sure a few companies doing this would even cause a ripple.
Looking at statistics it is clear we are not hiring women or minorities in droves. This is racist rumor mill shit in my opinion.
The truth is our world in the US is still completely dominated by white males. You especially see this in management. I guess the real fear behind this is it could change some day. How scary would it be to live in a world that had 50% women CEOs. I jest of course.
You definitely have some extreme beliefs and you repeat word for word the propaganda that bigots use to discredit DEI. Certainly it has issues but forcing companies to hire X amount of a particular worker is not one of them.
When I was referencing a bigot what I meant is people that tend to think like this are bigots not that you have to be one. Although I think I would start some serious self-reflecting if I found myself siding with bigots.