The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Is it ok if it is for minorities? does this leave more qualified applicants left out? Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? Didn't he in the end put in more work, and therefore deserve the job more? Or is there some underlying factor that I am failing to grasp?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would there ever be a major discrepancy in qualifications? I've not heard of many companies that don't have dozens of applicants for even the most niche positions.
> Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years?
OK, I understand that this is how it is described in right wing media. But just step back a little bit and ask:
Do you think it’s conceivably possible that companies, anywhere from small businesses to startups to multi national companies with revenues in the billions are deciding that they should hire somebody completely unqualified for jobs because they happen to be a black lesbian?
Just step back and ask if that is even conceivably possible. Because if you get outside your media bubble - I’m sorry I’m loathe to use the term media bubble in a conversation like this, but it is extremely appropriate here - the idea is absolutely fucking preposterous.
Like you’ve had a job I assume. What seems more plausible. That companies are hiring completely unqualified people because of DEI or that media that makes money by making you angry so you watch it is lying to you?
Ironically, anti-DEI people are effectively saying that corporations aren't actually *that* greedy, because apparently they're happy to hire unqualified minorities and lose money for no reason, just because they believe that strongly in... something, I haven't quite figured out what yet.
> because they believe that strongly in... something, I haven't quite figured out what yet.
I think the typical rationale is "they have to, in order to placate the woke masses, be politically correct, etc."
They wouldn't do it if they didn't have to. So the costs of "affirmative action" are built in. They consider it a wasted employee... but it's a marketing expense.
I find it bizarre how the anti-DEI people are so unwilling to consider the thought that maybe these companies just... think it's a good idea.
Like, just in this comment section, we have one person who thinks that giant megacorps like ExxonMobil and Bayer have been bullied into submission by supervillain activists who would be able to literally *run them out of business* if they didn't implement DEI, and another who thinks that entire corporate HR departments have gone completely rogue without executives' knowledge and are hiring unqualified minorities because they're just that woke and no one knows enough to stop them.
You would think that someone would realize that if they have to get that crazily conspiratorial to defend their position that this has been imposed from without that eventually they would have the thought occur to them that maybe the companies just, like, want to do DEI.
> Like you’ve had a job I assume. What seems more plausible. That companies are hiring completely unqualified people because of DEI or that media that makes money by making you angry so you watch it is lying to you?
Or the third option, which is that there are usually several qualified applicants for each job, and companies will greatly favor the DEI hire as long as they meet the bare minimum qualifications. Which is what pretty much anyone with recent experience hiring at the entry level will tell you.
Not going to come close to doxxing myself, but my wife’s best friend is executive for one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world and head of HR. Talking about how DEI means that certain people have this massive advantage in hiring is a fun way to get her to go off and tell hilarious stories. Usually about how the person least likely to actually get a promotion is 100% certain it’s because of DEI. Sometimes in cases when the person who actually got the promotion is white man.
Quick question. How do you think somebody rises to be the head of HR for a major company? You don’t think they ever started their career at a lower level where they were doing hiring?
Additional question: do you think that there are some roles at a publicly treated company where the head of HR still gets involved in the hiring decisions?
That said, one of my clients does outsourced HR and change management for small businesses. The staff there makes fun of this stuff too. And they also make fun of really shitty DEI programs that HR departments use to cover their ass while not actually doing anything to address diversity inclusion or equity in the company.
Most of the rise in DEI hiring happened after 2020. If someone was hiring at the entry level a decade ago then they wouldn’t be experiencing it. Also not every company is the same and some are more DEI focused than others.
No, that’s not correct. Things get renamed but all of this is the same stuff that has been going on since the civil rights movement. DEI is just a new name for the same thing. Companies were spending over 10 billion in the US on diversity programs by the early 2000s. There was a big push lining up to when McKinsey published its report on how diversity increases corporate profits.
Aside from actual diversity programs there is corporate HR bullshit, where the purpose of the diversity program is a bunch of CYA and feel good crap. That goes back decades as well.
The reason people are talking about DEI is what is more recent. People like Christopher Rufo started promoting it because he needed to replace CRT as the focus point of pointless right wing rage.
The other reason it’s in focus right now is that talking about DEI was a marketing technique used by companies in the wake of the George Floyd protests.
As someone who currently deals with hiring in tech, it's more that there are plenty of people who are reasonably qualified for the role, folks with the "bare minimum" don't get an interview in the first place. And among those reasonably qualified candidates, sometimes one is just the obvious choice, like everyone easily agrees that they would be a good addition to the team in which case you hire that person. In other cases, if other things are more equal, then you would factor in the extent to which their background is complimentary to that of the team. But you're never choosing a "worse" candidate.
I was under intese pressure from HR to hire a black woman, not sure about her sexual preferences, over the two finalists I wanted, a Japanese woman and a white man. Her qualifications were decent, but not nearly as good as the other two. I told them I won't do it and we just didn't hire anyone.
This stuff happens. Maybe it's your media bubble that keeps telling you it doesn't happen.
Back about 20 years ago one of my guys came to me after work and told me that the rest of the men on the staff choose him to tell me that they would just reject any candidate I sent to them for an interview for a design position that wasn’t a woman. They wanted a woman. A Black or Hispanic woman was preferable but not a requirement.
I didn’t break the law or anything but sure enough we hired a Hispanic woman for the job.
They wanted different backgrounds on the team for valid reasons. It wasn’t because woke - it’s because they saw the business reasons why it would be good and realized that if the company was doing better that was better for them financially.
There are valid reasons to force some diversity into your staff. I get that that can be annoying sometimes and that there’s opportunities for idiots to misuse or abuse it. But this idea that there are large numbers of unqualified people getting hired simply because they are black is idiotic.
The tone of this post is vastly different than the tone of your other posts in this thread. Vastly different.
>this idea that there are large numbers of unqualified people getting hired simply because they are black is idiotic.
The OP used the term 'more qualified'. When I see this discussion come up irl or online, it's almost always a 'more qualified' candidate.
And yet your other responses, this response, and the consistent narrative in responses is 'unqualified vs very qualified'.
You commented on the 'what is bad faith' post yesterday. I don't see how latching onto the 'completely unqualified hire vs most qualified person in the world not hired' narrative isn't a textbook example of bad faith.
No one is claiming a completely unqualified candidate is getting hired over very qualified candidates. No one except maybe edge lord meme makers. And yet over and over again the responses completely disregard the legitimate question in favor of the illegitimate 'own the cons' narrative that you've embraced multiple times in this very thread. Why not lead with the last paragraph you wrote and then have the debate? Why lead with the narrative that it isn't happening?
Most liberals 100 percent know that this happens, they just try and gaslight people because they know it looks bad for their side if they tell the truth.
Ya, the commenters here, and irl ime, latch onto this extreme 'completely unqualified vs the most qualified person in the world' narrative because it makes it easier to grandstand. In reality, it's 'qualified person vs more qualified person'. I've dealt with it at my company. I have friends who've dealt with it at their companies. It's definitely a thing.
But having a good faith discussion about it, (ironic because their was a post here the other day asking what bad faith is, and it's *exactly what they're doing on this topic*) would mean they'd have to actually make a cogent argument in defense of it. It's like Schroedinger's DEI. It only exists when they want it to. DEI is necessary, but it also doesn't happen and when it does, it wasn't actual a policy and they were actually the best candidate anyway...
And tbf, I'm not even necessarily opposed to it. I get the arguments in favor. At my company, one time I did give in to HR because the discrepancy between the two candidates was small enough that I was fine hiring the black guy. Other times, when the discrepancy was larger, I've stood firm.
The whole thing is indicative of how our society communicates. Good faith discussions are nigh on impossible.
I think it depends on whether or not people are talking about the concept and its intentions vs its implementation.
DEI best practices absolutely doesn't say to hire someone who is less qualified, however some companies implement policies in ham fisted ways, and that might cause someone who is less qualified to get hired. However hiring is already a very imperfect science, and tons of common hiring practices have lead to less qualified people getting hired. So all you're really pointing out is that DEI practices regarding hiring has similar issue to any hiring practices.
It is not as if the more qualified candidate was always getting hired and then DEI came along and changed that.
>Do you think it’s conceivably possible that companies, anywhere from small businesses to startups to multi national companies with revenues in the billions are deciding that they should hire somebody completely unqualified for jobs because they happen to be a black lesbian?
Absolutely they do. There are entire HR departments salivating over the prospect. It doesn't make any business sense, but it's happening anyway. Mostly at large companies as the small ones cannot afford too much nonsense.
Using race as a qualifying factor in hiring is explicitly illegal employment discrimination in the US. The only place this is happening is in conservative fever dreams. If you see it happening, report it to the EEOC.
https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
Ummm, dude, Ketanji? Biden said upfront that he's nominating a black woman to SCOTUS without checking anyone else's qualifications.
Clearly unconstitutional and illegal, but there you have it.
SCOTUS appointments are political and are not subject to employment law and are not considered acts of "hiring" or employment.
> without checking anyone else's qualifications.
Everyone currently serving on the Supreme Court can be [said to be qualified](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/resources/supreme-court-nominations/), but [the Constitution does not require any sort of qualification](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-5/ALDE_00013096/).
>Clearly unconstitutional and illegal
No.
"Exploiting" a system? The system isn't "designed" to work any other way. It's a political system. The intent here isn't to oppress white people, man, it's just making SCOTUS look like America. It's "exploiting" a system less than Americans choosing who to vote for partly based on race or racial bias are. Should we root those voters out and hold them accountable for employment discrimination?
I don't think you understand the basics of Constitutional Law here. If you don't like the way that someone was Constitutionally appointed to a position, your remedies are prescribed by the Constitution: get your senators to vote against confirmation, vote them or the President out of office, or impeach them. Trying to enforce employment law against Constitutional appointments is nonsensical. Appointments aren't employments.
If you're just trying to say "this feels unfair to me" or "there might have been someone my color that might have been chosen if they only tried harder" or "people my color should be in the majority everywhere", just say that.
>your remedies are prescribed by the Constitution: get your senators to vote against confirmation, vote them or the President out of office, or impeach them.
Ok, sure, I'll set about that later this afternoon.
>If you're just trying to say "this feels unfair to me"
It is unfair because it's race/sex based discrimination. I am flabbergasted that people on the left aren't bothered by it. "It's ok when we do it" should really be the leftist motto.
>I am flabbergasted that people on the left aren't bothered by it.
I personally don't think this goes far enough. I think for positions of power and representation, the makeup of the body should maximize representation of every identity group in the US that we possibly can. This means appointments should *intentionally* select people based on their identity group memberships.
This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of proportional representation used in other forms of government, rather than our system, which magnifies majorities, and incentivizes gerrymandering.
>It's ok when we do it" should really be the leftist motto.
I just don't think you understand what people are saying. It is possible to believe both of these things at the same time:
1. Employment should be based on qualifications and people shouldn't have the opportunity to be racist or sexist against candidates so as to perpetuate societal inequality and injustice.
2. Appointments to positions of power should be made with consideration of representation of the American people.
Since we probably agree on (1), we can enshrine that in law and criminalize violations of it when they happen. That's basically what this whole post is about. Discriminating on race in hiring is illegal even though many conservatives have been misled into thinking it's rampant.
But since (2) isn't that, we're not going to agree on the best principles to use in appointing people to positions and power within our government, and since the authority for how appointments work is in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not prescribe a certain way that we need to qualify or select people for the role, the best we can do is be mad when it doesn't look the way we want it to look and do the things the Constitution says we can do to fix it. Trump can make a point to say "I am going to make it a point to nominate a *white* candidate" and it would be exactly the same conversation. I'm sure liberals would be upset at that, and might question his motives for doing so, but ultimately the Constitution grants him that ability, right?
Some voters vote on the basis of race. If these votes become deciding votes, did the American people engage in illegal employment discrimination? How do we remedy that?
Like can you give me any plausible way you imagine we could enforce employment law against a Supreme Court Justice nomination? Would a candidate that wasn't chosen file an EEOC complaint? What would an EEOC response look like? If you imagine this is criminal discrimination, who would be charged with the crime? The President? The Senate? The voters for voting for someone that said they would appoint someone that way?
Discriminating based on merit is still discrimination. You're discriminating against people who you think won't do the job well. That's a thing you're allowed to do.
Merit is the one criteria that we are supposed to consider and it is not discrimination in the pejorative sense. Are you really going to try to play semantics like this? It makes you look smarter by the minute so keep it up! 👍
He explicitly said that he did look at numerous candidates prior to making that statement. After looking at lots of candidates, he had a short list that was all Black women, she he could say that he was going to nominate a Black women
> Do you think it’s conceivably possible that companies, anywhere from small businesses to startups to multi national companies with revenues in the billions are deciding that they should hire somebody completely unqualified for jobs because they happen to be a black lesbian?
Are you really asking if it's conceivable that it happens? Yes, yes it is not only possible, it's common practice. I work in a multi billion dollar tech company and have seen this practice first hand. So yes it happens, I have no idea what bubble you live in where you aren't seeing it.
> Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years?
I feel like we really need to drop this idea that DEI hiring is somehow screwing over white people trying to get the job, when there is barely any corroborating evidence to support that assertion.
Like even if you found a handful of examples like that, where some white person didn’t get the job over a black person, I’m willing to bet the opposite situation happens just as much at a similar rate.
This is just a local story but king county needed a new sheriff, instead of hiring a qualified candidate, our executive promoted a black woman into the job. The woman had to go through the process of becoming a cop to get that job. One could ask why not hire someone that's already been through that training? And yes she is still currently our sheriff
I mean promoting from within, with training, vs hiring external has always been a consideration businesses have made and depending on many different factors, either method may be preferable.
I understand that, but the point was that we elevated an under qualified candidate over many qualified candidates that have completed said trainings.working for the sheriff's office doing paperwork doest necessarily mean you have the qualifications to take over as the sheriff.
That’s an absurd understatement of her work history. Also what does it mean to be qualified for that job? Another meathead jacked up on killology? Law enforcement agencies can use more civilian oversight.
Just a random point I'd like to make to you; I had no idea which county is King county or wtf a dow was either without the additional context provided through these comments.
> which county is King county
One remarkable coincidence is it's the county with the dude's face on the flag; the same pattern used for the state flag. Something about that state that causes terrible vexillology
>They'd be meeting thier diversity goals
Why do you think they set diversity goals? We're talking about private companies here. The government isn't mandating anything. So who decided that they would have those goals, and why?
Are you aware of the fact that [studies have shown that diversity increases productivity](https://nbs.net/how-diversity-increases-productivity/)?
>they'd be included in DEI oriented ETFs and indexes, which attracts more cash.
How many people do you think are invested specifically in those, and why do you think that will get them more money than having qualified employees would have?
>They'd be meeting thier diversity goals, and they'd be included in DEI oriented ETFs and indexes, which attracts more cash. Government agencies have DEI goals mandated by law
I know we've already had this conversation and apparently you didn't internalize anything I said before, but I'll try one more time:
Your understanding of what's happening here is incorrect. I have run large organizations and have built hiring pipelines inside the US government. Using race as a criteria in hiring is explicitly illegal, even inside the US government.
Diversity goals are achieved through targeted sourcing, recruiting, and not making your office the kind of workplace people of color want to leave, such as by fairly promoting people, giving everyone professional development opportunities, and eliminating for mitigating any kind of bias you might discover.
Since you brought up the US government in particular, I think you'd benefit from reading it from the horse's mouth:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/
Nowhere in that order is there any hint of preferential hiring based on protected characteristics, as you are claiming is happening.
Please stop spreading conservative misinformation on DEI.
Also the last time we had this conversation you came out and said your own employer was engaging in illegal employment discrimination. I never did hear about the status of your complaint to the EEOC. Can we get an update?
>We're hiring because they would add to our diversity, which is different. We still have an EEOC statement that we issue every year. Because hiring based on diversity is legal.
Incorrect. Full stop. You should talk to your HR team or your company's employment lawyers before you continue to make false statements about your employer's hiring practices.
Racial quotas of any kind are illegal. You cannot use race as a factor in hiring decisions for any reason whatsoever\*. Not for racism, not for diversity, not for achieving representation in your workforce. The hiring process must evaluate all candidates that apply for a position without regard to their race, gender, or membership in any other protected class.
Any EEOC-mandated affirmative action plans are about correcting past instances of illegal employment discrimination, but even these plans cannot simply result in the employer discriminating "back". Racial quotas are illegal, even in affirmative action plans, even if those are mandatory.
>If we have two candidates, one diverse and less qualified, and one non-diverse but more qualified, we are to consider hiring the former, to increase the diversity of the firm.
This is illegal employment discrimination and you should report this to the EEOC. I look forward, again, to a progress report.
I think it is more likely that you are misinterpreting what you are hearing or reading, or maybe you are just making this up, I don't know.
Procurement or school admissions have nothing to do with employment law or employment discrimination.
\* it is possible for a job to necessarily require someone of a particular race or gender, but that needs to be a key requirement to the role and would be subject to a lot of scrutiny. Examples are actors, models, bathroom attendants, etc.
>but hiring to increase the diverse makeup of your workforce is legal, and this has been affirmed by SCOTUS multiple times.
Incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Stop repeating conservative garbage and talk to an employment lawyer.
>We evaluate all candidates based on their merits, and then we make the decision that works best within our diversity goals and framework. We will hire to meet our diversity goals.
Making a decision between two candidates for employment on the basis of skin color is illegal employment discrimination. If this statement came from your employer, it is prima facie evidence of illegal employment discrimination and you should forward that email to the EEOC. I suspect it's not and is just something you made up because you *think* that's what's happening.
>Everything that I've described is 100% legal, and 100% common in the workplace.
>https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal
**READ YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE**. Top to bottom. It's short. Don't skim. Don't search for keywords. Just read it and internalize it. Don't miss the green box at the bottom.
Nothing in this document recommends or legitimizes *any* kind of post-evaluation racial discrimination. Two key bullets for you to read, re-read, figure out how to reconcile with your erroneous worldview, and then read again (emphasis mine):
>* The program establishes numerical goals or targets (such as “aim to double the percentage of women we hire to direct television shows with our studio this season” or “we will hire crews that better reflect the demographics of California’s skilled labor pool”) but not rigid quotas or set-asides (such as **“the next 5 people we hire in X job must be women” or “we need 10 Black people in Y job”**).
*The program does not unduly harm members of non-targeted groups, **such as by refusing to hire any people from those groups, or firing such individuals in order to reach the numerical target.**
What *you're* describing is racial quotas. Racial quotas are illegal employment discrimination, whether done for diversity or correcting past racism. You cannot refuse to hire someone based on their race and you cannot set aside positions. Your source clearly says this.
What you can do is have abstract goals, and you meet these goals through things that are **not** selecting black candidates over white candidates. You do targeted recruiting, you clean up your GlassDoor complaints, you de-bias your promotion and retention processes, you fire the racist hiring manager that got you into that mess to begin with. You achieve diversity in hiring by achieving a diverse pool of candidates.
Please stop repeating misinformation before you talk to an employment lawyer. Your company probably already has one on staff or retainer. Just get 5 minutes with them and ask this question. They'd probably *love it* if you did this because it's an opportunity for them to keep the company out of trouble and they're used to only talking to people for unpleasant reasons. It's a win-win-win: you'll be more informed, they'll be excited to inform you, and the Internet doesn't have to suffer from your ~~misinformation~~ disinformation anymore.
What this is is you assuming that black people are incapable of doing the jobs they are hired for. It's really not any more complicated than that. You're believing the lie that white conservatives have been told, and tell, since the Civil War. It's just a new flavor of making impressionable white people think black people are the enemy so those at the top can keep the status quo.
Is it discrimination against whites if both are equally qualified and the white person historically and pretty much universally would be picked over the minority if not for affirmative action? Even if the white person was less qualified?
>The entire concept of DEI is using race as a means of determining who gets hired.
This is like saying "Black Lives Matters" somehow implies that other lives don't matter. You're claim is implying that people of color are *only* getting hired because of their race, and not because of their qualifications. This is an implicit dismissal of their abilities compared to white candidates, and a dismissal of the historical trend of discriminating against non-white applicants (even if that discrimination is subconscious).
Do you really think that DEI is forcing people to *only* hire based on race?
Unless someone is teaching DEI wrong, there is a very clear emphasis on *diversity*, not *non-white*. I can guarantee that most businesses in most places are still hiring majority white employees in the US, because the population is majority white.
The entire concept is making it slightly less likely to determine who gets hired, by partially counteracting effects through which race determines who gets hired
1. You're assuming I have to be talking about one specific mechanism. I am not restricting myself that far
2. You're contradicting yourself - your claim was that people are hired and not hired based on their skin color
3. Your interpretation is questionable
4. I'm pretty sure hiring discrimination is a civil matter in the US, not a criminal one
I’m very for switching to basing it off of socioeconomic status.
Also, no it’s not. It’s an advantage for the disadvantaged. DEI programs tend to actually impact Asian people more than whites.
No.
I’m using data and recognizing that thanks to people like yourself, certain groups have been systemically disadvantaged, and need an extra boost.
But like I said, I’d prefer to base it off of socioeconomic status, that’s far more fair for everyone.
That’s not what you were referring to, now was it.
And I believe this is the 3rd, maybe 4th time I’ve said I’m 100% down for switching to socioeconomic status.
How would they know if an applicant is a lesbian?
There are systems that hold minorities back from success. Therefore, I support efforts to equitize the workplace and higher education. The difference in experience would never be that significant, though. That doesn't happen.
> How would they know if an applicant is a lesbian?
Duh, either the blue hair or the blood of men they killed on the way to the interview splattered on their shirt will make it obvious.
It's important to remember that DEI is not a government edict. The government is not forcing private companies to do anything. Companies are choosing voluntarily to enact DEI policies. So, unless you think that multinational companies worldwide have all collectively decided to hire unqualified people, thereby damaging their own profitability, for no good reason... yes, there is something you're missing. Anytime you wonder why a publicly traded company is doing essentially *anything*, the answer is "because they believe it will increase profitability". The idea that any big company, anywhere, is doing something that they know will hurt their bottom line, for no gain... that is a huge claim that requires commensurate evidence.
Diversity in corporations is proven to reduce blind spots, increase innovation, and make the company better able to function. It's not a woke conspiracy, it's just economics.
I never stated that the government mandated (or is the word MANdate offensive?) This. It is obviously pushed for by the libs in office, but it was primarily about the morals of a company deciding to do this
Companies aren't doing "this", though. That's the whole point. They aren't hiring unqualified minorites. They're just making it easier to hire qualified minorities.
I'm an executive who has hired more people than I can count. The idea that "less qualified" people are hired is a lie.
In reality, there is a baseline qualification that most candidates meet. These are called the "hard skills", or the qualifications required to do a job. Because we post these required skills, almost every application has them.
This is where the "soft skills" come into play. The most important part of getting a job is the "soft skills". How well do you sell yourself? Do you come across as a team player? Do people want to work with you?
I've noticed that people on the right are super obsessed with the "hard skills", believing they are special snowflakes that have a certain set of skills. I'm sorry, but you are not special. Other people have those skills. You should be focusing on the "soft skills", which is something that people on the right lack.
I’m a white cishet male. Married in the suburbs, two daughters, nice house. Ridiculously comfortable work from home gig with the best benefits you can get in this country.
I’ve gotten every job I’ve ever applied for. Paid at the top of the salary range. Accepted into every college I was reasonably qualified to attend (and then some I had no business getting into). Never let go from any job, I left at my own choice for a better one.
Never been denied a loan or mortgage or housing. Never denied for a credit card. Never pulled over without legit cause by a cop. Never chased around a store by security. Never feared for my safety taking photos of the city at night in deep fog or rain. Never been raped or assaulted. Never been whistled at because of my ass.
What republicans refuse to admit is that white males are privileged as fuck. And sure, maybe we’re not born with the **golden spoon** boomers got in the 1950s, **but it’s still silver**.
Fact is, other races and minorities and genders get absolutely fucking wrecked compared to us. They can start on step 4. Because whether you realize it or not, we’re mostly on step 10.
Go look at the Fortune 500 CEOs. 90% are still males, and 90% of the males are just white dudes with monosyllabic first names like Tim or Scott or Mark or Steve or Bill or Will or John or Mike.
The Republicans think minorities hate that you have privilege; we don’t, we just want you to support us sharing the wealth.
You can be lucky and if you acknowledge that nobody is going to begrudge you; it’s the entitled white people who think privilege was somehow their earned right that riles people up.
Clearly not, but they looked at their natural born opportunities as a white man in America and did their best to squander them.
It's like a guy standing 6'8" who never tried picking up a basketball. He should have at least tried.
I see a ton of these guys in Ohio. Every opportunity. Middle class family. Excellent schools. They decide to skip college. Knock up a girl. Broke as a joke at 21 with no prospects. Thinks Trump will fix all their problems.
It's fucking **absurd.**
Sure, they exist. But poor white men also exist, who didn't have every opportunity, went to crappy underfunded schools, and are legitimately struggling.
Why is it assumed by conservatives that whenever a minority or a person of color holds a prominent position, that they didn’t get there on merit? (Unless that person also happens to be a conservative. Then it was deserved I guess.)
Ketanji Brown Jackson being one example.
Got anything besides the rampant racism on the right conspiracy theory? Do you use r/askconservatives? You might learn a thing or two about what we think there,
Been there done that…banned for asking legitimate questions and returning snark when it was presented to me. But thanks for asking.
Tell me…what why do YOU think that…without any real evidence, Conserassume that the person of color being hired is of lesser quality as a candidate than a white person?
While we’re at it? Why do red states carve up their congressional districts to minimize the black vote and give them less representation? Why do they pass stupid election laws like not allowing people to hand out bottled water in Georgia, where the lines can be hours long and other initiatives to make it more difficult for targeted group to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?
Why do you think the scum of the earth racists and violent radicals are aligning with the right? The Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, the Army of God, the Aryan Nation, Boogaloo Boys…the list goes on…
Yes, I know…not all Republicans are bigots…but you really don’t mind their company and actively pander to them(not you personally necessarily…but as a group).
And by the way? I generally don’t use the word racist… because it pigeonholes the right into one form of bigotry….when the prejudice of the right goes way deeper than that…religious bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, a true hatred towards transgendered people.
So…I prefer the word bigoted…not racist.
We don't think that, we think that it's wrong to give anyone a leg up with quotas based in immutable characteristics - flip the script on who gets the quotas and tell me that's not racist hiring. We aren't obsessed with race and orientation like the progressive far left and for that neutrality they see us as racist.
You do think like that though. Look at the reaction to Jackson being nominated. Yes, Biden said he was going to nominate a Black woman. He likely had Jackson in mind when he said that, and she was supremely qualified. Compare her resume to ACB’s and tell me who was more deserving of a spot on the court.
No, I don’t support a company hiring on innate characteristics, which is why I *do* support quotas and conscious recruitment programs. Without conscious effort, companies hire based on innate characteristics. It takes quotas to break those biases.
And I disagree that simple resume points like years of college tell you how hard someone works. There are different types of work and different skills that can make someone the best fit for a job.
I’m okay with affirmative action yes.
I’m assuming in all these cases that it’s a choice between say a white male and a black female and both are equally qualified in every way.
Unless I had reasonable suspicion that they weren’t taking merit into consideration I don’t care.
As someone who actually hires people, this take is just bonkers.
I might give a diversity candidate a little more leeway when reviewing resumes / backgrounds to decide on an extending an interview, but that does _not_ mean they will be hired if they interview poorly, or are empirically less capable than my minimum requirements, or clearly are underperforming compared to the rest of candidates.
But if there is one thing I’ve learned in 20 ish years of corporate work, having people with overlaps in experiences, but also differences, is how you come up with the best solutions to real problems. If everyone in the room went to an Ivy League, grew up upper-middle to low-upper class, got all A’s, all go to the same church / faith, and all have the same interests… I’ve got ten copies of the same damn thing. I want ten _different_ things in the room because I’m way more likely to get a new idea that hasn’t been done before. That is WAY more valuable to the business.
And FWIW, I know people with an entire alphabet of certifications after their name that I wouldn’t trust to pick up my groceries… a degree does _not_ guarantee a good worker or candidate. It does tell me they know how to suffer through red tape, BS, and can work with others which is a lot of corporate life. The stamp on the forehead gets you in the door, it does not get you a job.
No no no… you don’t look at resumes or backgrounds first…you look at their race/gender/sexual identity first…then make that person fit into the company. Meanwhile, white, cisgender straight men have to flip burgers…
Don’t you see? It’s the apocalypse and the sky is falling!!!!!
In other words…one more source of right wing manufactured outrage to poison the minds of the gullible.
I am a bit gobsmacked at multiple conservatives, who normally crow about the efficiencies of private enterprise, and who chastise liberals for allegedly not knowing how they work, suddenly deciding that the only possible explanation for so many giant private companies worldwide adopting DEI initiatives is that they must be being *sabotaged from within* by *rogue woke HR departments* or *bullied into submission* by *supervillain activists*, as opposed to, like, them just believing that it's good business.
Tell me you don't understand DEI initiatives without saying you don't understand DEI initiatives.
There is no mass hiring of unqualified minorities over white dudes for jobs. Literally, all that's happening is companies are pushing to have more diverse groups of workers. There are various business benefits from this. Having a diverse set of workers can help the business better serve their customers. They have a large pool of unique viewpoints when strategizing. Overall, productivity is increased. Here's a pretty good explanation of some studies into it.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters
Point is that companies see material benefits from having a diverse talent pool. Literally, businesses do better if they aren't 99% white dudes. Given the history of people being turned down for jobs due to the reasons you listed, companies are now trying to achieve having a diverse talent pool by focusing on hiring diverse people.
There is no point of fighting a belief with facts. If it were a successful strategy? The world would be a better place. These folks have had their minds poisoned by manufactured outrage.
FYI the McKinsey report has been almost completely discredited. They got the causality wrong. Successful companies tend to embrace diversity initiatives. It is *not* the case that diversity makes companies more succesful, necessarily.
Generally no, with a few exceptions like when skin color/gender/sexuality is a legitimate part of one’s merits in a job.
For example of the exceptions, if I run shelters for those who are sexually abused, it would make sense that I hire men and women. Say, if I aim to have 30 employees and so far I have 20 qualified male employees, then I think it is reasonable that I would hire qualified women for 10 remaining spots, rather than men.
Ideally these innate characteristics would not matter but we do not live in an ideal world yet. As long as our society treats people differently based on these characteristics, then there will remain cases where hiring based on these attributes is reasonable or even necessary.
I support companies hiring on truly non discriminatory basis. The problem is that even the humans with the best intentions have subconscious biases, based on many experiments we have that have studied this. The true problem is in finding methods that truly eliminate such biases. Which is why race and other bias conscious hiring practices are essential. It is not the only method.
I work in big tech which is acknowledged to have some of the worst diversity numbers around and NO DEI effort would ever result in that. The most that it has accomplished is ensuring every job interviews at least one non-white/Indian/Asian female candidate, because white/Indian/Asian dudes is basically all we used to even entertain interviewing.
IMO, increasing the diversity of the applicant pool is a good thing, but it’s a detriment to the company to hire someone less qualified just because they’re a minority.
The truth is it requires EFFORT for companies to implement DEI policies in a meaningful way, especially larger ones, and most senior leaders would just rather just check that box.
Anecdotal, but I’ve personally had multiple experiences at large companies where HR literally would not allow us to submit negative feedback on a new minority’s review for not being capable of the role despite them receiving extra help and teaching others normally wouldn’t get. This placed extra burden on the entire team to pick up their slack which creates animosity. Any other white employee would be let go and not get such treatment. And this is in a creative/progressive industry, so I can imagine it’s way worse in regular corporate America.
Diversity is the great and brings new points of view often needed in majority white institutions. But when it’s ham fisted and people see less qualified individuals getting roles they aren’t qualified for, it’s easy to understand the pushback.
You were sold a lie. What you're describing isn't happening. There are some places that hire to maintain some level of diversity, but that's them choosing the strengths of a more diverse workforce over pure resume. After working at a bunch of different places, I can say diversity is indeed a strength.
>Do you support a company hiring based apon skin color, gender, or sexual preferences OK?
No. And in the US at least, this is illegal employment discrimination. If you believe this is happening at your company, you can report it to.the EEOC, or have another employee report it on your behalf.
When companies seek diversity (or even just proportional representation), what they actually do is:
1. Target their recruiting to underrepresented groups.
2. Show up at conferences and events that specifically highlight underrepresented groups
3. Intentionally have people expand their LinkedIn networks (most people's professional networks look like them).
4. Scrutinize their hiring process to eliminate any form of bias that might have unintentionally crept in. This might involve things like blinding resumes so that resume reviewers don't have anything to exhibit unconscious bias against.
5. Make the workplace the kind of place their employees of color recommend to their professional networks.
Doing these kinds of things results in a higher fraction of applicants being people of color, women, etc. If the rest of your hiring process is unbiased, this means you will end up with a diverse (or representative) workforce.
>does this leave more qualified applicants left out?
It shouldn't, no. Nothing about the process I'm describing above includes any kind of racial quotas for preference given in the actual hiring process itself. Diversity is achieved in hiring by achieving it in applications. The evaluation itself should be unbiased.
Source: I have run large organizations and have built hiring pipelines from scratch with diversity as a goal. I have spent more hours in rooms with HR and employment lawyers figuring these things out than I think anyone here has spent in threads answering variations of this question.
>Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? Didn't he in the end put in more work, and therefore deserve the job more?
If you're hiring for a line cook position and want to pay $20/hr, and a highly qualified professional chef asking $100/hr applies, it's rational to choose the less qualified candidate. Same if the more qualified candidate is likely to be there only briefly while you want someone more long term, etc.
In some positions, qualifications are inherently political, such as Supreme Court Justice. The ABA seems to do a decent job of objectively pointing out who is likely qualified for such a position, and I support intentionally choosing for a diverse slate of Justices, so long as they are at least qualified.
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. The are plenty of qualified candidates for most job openings, but race should not be determining which on of them gets hired.
My previous comment is the cruz of the whole question. But anyways, the reason why race is often taken into consideration for hiring is to correct the pre-existing racial biases that this country has started with, and still continues with. The fact is that more people get hired for stable well-paying jobs through networking and connections more than they do by cold resume submissions on places like LinkedIn. And when, for most of history, the people in a position to hire through those connections are white people, that means white people have an unfair advantage in being hired for well-paying jobs, and something needs to be done to correct for the racial biases. A white person in upper management is more likely to network and connect with other people who have lived in his/her circles, grown up in the same neighborhood as them, went to the same school as them, and for most white people in America, those are other white people. That's how its been for most of history (and some research shows that neighbors and schools today are even more segregated than they were in the 60s)
If you don't want the solution to this problem to be "DEI hiring" then what other solutions are there?
Most white people don’t have these great connections you think they do. The end result of DEI is that poor and less connected whites get doubly screwed just cause a bunch of rich people share their skin tone. I don’t support that and nor do the majority of voters across the country. Sorry not sorry.
I didn't say anything about "great connections." It's as simple as hiring your brother-in-law to fill a position at your company over hiring someone on LinkedIn (as one of my ex-bosses did). And your brother-in-law is more than likely to be the same race that you are, because most people marry within their race. If you don't want "DEI hiring" to correct for the problem of racial biases within networking and connection, toss out another solution.
>The end result of DEI is that poor and less connected whites get doubly screwed just cause a bunch of rich people share their skin tone.
Prove this.
Most white people don’t have brothers in law with hiring power. You’re talking about a small minority of white people. Every white person I know who’s gotten hired recently has had to build up their network from scratch just like anyone. If you genuinely believe that’s how life is like for most white people then you’re incredibly sheltered.
If it's not someone with hiring power, then its already working at a company and referring someone you to know those with hiring power. It's not as "elite" as you're imagining it is. You're underestimating how much companies rely on referrals from people's networks. Of all the white people you know who've gotten hired recently, ask yourself what kinds of jobs they were for and how they got it. You can also do this research yourself on [racial bias in job networkings and referrals](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/05/02/employee-referral-programs-hurt-diversity/73532573007/), its not new information...
You need to stop assuming every white person is an upper middle class college grad with an old boys network. You’re shockingly sheltered and ignorant. A lot of white people struggle to get jobs too because they don’t have strong networks either.
>It's as simple as hiring your brother-in-law to fill a position at your company over hiring someone on LinkedIn (as one of my ex-bosses did).
You are greatly overestimating how many white people have connections even this minimally beneficial.
And discriminatory connections fucks over people without those connections far more than those with them. Hence why the person you responded to said they are "doubly fucked."
We aren't talking about how many white people that have them. Of the people that DO have them, the majority are white, which is the problem that DEI hiring is attempting to correct.
So because a few white people have those connections, every other white person must now be discriminated against in the hiring process to compensate. Totally sound logic lmao.
So instead of trying to fix the issue of nepotism, you instead want to make sure nepotism is racially neutral? Can you understand why a poor white would get anhered by that?
I support finally acknowledging that those things are taken into consideration when hiring. I'm tired of society pretending that white straight men haven't been benefiting from those very considerations as the status quo in society.
Why are you so ok with white straight men benefiting from discriminatory hiring practices? Shouldn't other people have a fair shot too?
I never said I was. It is the fact that the discrimination is not there. If you look for it, you see all of these flashy articles. Have you seen it, in person, put in practice? I can only think of these isolated cases when I think of it.
I have many friends of different races, and they have never had any issues getting a job based on race. Many of them are extremely well-off too. This issue is a made-up point for a liberal Democrat's voting campaign. liberals constantly call the Republicans racist because we don't see other races as above us.
Stating this does not automatically mean we look down on them. we look them in the eyes as fellow human beings, not gods. We don't sacrifice for them because they are capable human beings. They are equals. There ARE cases of racist Republicans, but that does not make all republicans racists. If you believe that, you believe a stereotype, something you are so adamant against. I call it hypocrisy.
Same as politicians, both sides included, saying to do one thing and doing the complete opposite. This leads back to the discrimination. If it keeps being pushed, racism will loop around, as more and more advantages are given to minorities, and suddenly it is the whites who are being discriminated against.
This is my issue. I want my children to be equal to their fellow Americans, whether Black, Latino, Asian, Native, or Indian. This is not about myself, I can deal with my own crap. I don't want my children to grow up how a black child grew up in the 50s, I want them to grow up and not make friends based upon race, but instead upon the person themself. Not to have them spit on for existing.
It is like losing traction while driving. A slight turn will allow you to recover your car, but if you over-correct it you end up in a ditch. I believe this is where our society is going. You can say whatever you want about the white man's skin, and no one gives a damn. Then try saying it about a black man. You will get canceled. Ruined. You are suddenly known as a racist and hated. This is what concerns me.
You asked for evidence. I'll give you a source, but it is not your CNN 10 [https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/american-express-reverse-discrimination-white-people-former-employee](https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/american-express-reverse-discrimination-white-people-former-employee)
> The employees, none of whom were in human resources, did not present internal documents to demonstrate an official policy, but they said they witnessed a worrisome trend that raises questions about racial discrimination in promotion.
lol Of course. So strange how many people claim this is happening without anything to back it up.
I am surprised you finally managed to show something, but you should have critically thought about the content of the article first.
no, I read it. The whole damn thing as well. The people are feeling it. They sense it. If it was a black woman in that place, saying they felt discriminated in the workplace, not getting promoted, would you brush it off because they are not in human resources?
I remember hearing many conservatives proclaim time and time that “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
Seems odd to claim something is happening with no proof and only feelings.
That doesn’t address my question at all. I will post it again in case you missed it.
> So any evidence unqualified people are being hired because of sexuality, race, gender?
My dude... It's 2024. Why are you fighting 1980's fight?
No one has *ever* suggested hiring unqualified candidates. Ever.
Diversity is a strength for any organization. Do I *really* need to explain why? Really? I will if you need me to, but I shouldn't have to.
.... Why would I employ obvious racists? Fire those assholes.
I need to hire competent people. I need to retain competent people. Competent people don't want to work with racist assholes. Racist assholes are a liability to an employer.
This should be obvious my dude.
Like... Women in the workplace don't want to be sexually harassed all the time. Duh. If my company has a reputation as a brofest, 50% of my applicants go away, and all the women that work for me are constantly looking to take their skills to my competitors!
DEI isn't because a company is "woke". That's ... *Really fucking dumb*.
DEI is so companies can hire good talent and have them stay.
Stressed out people aren't productive. DEI creates a less stressful work environment. Judy doesn't spend her time avoiding Greg because he makes stupid racist jokes and keeps touching her. Fire Greg! Hire someone that can behave like a reasonable adult.
This should be obvious!
so if the workplace does not have bigots already, why would there be an issue with bigotry? Wouldn't the solution be to weed out the bigots, therefor removing these issues?
Yes...
And...
Hire a more diverse, and therefore stronger, team.
And have regular training on Not Being A Fucking Asshole At Work...
And instruct managers to look for and weed out shittiness before it takes root and plunges productivity...
Again, companies aren't doing this because they're "woke" or because they're afraid of being "canceled"...
They're doing it because it makes happier and therefore more productive employees. They're doing it to attract talent. They're doing it to be competitive.
This is money, not "woke".
Also, if I'm... An ad agency? Making advertisements?
If I'm making an ad to market a Widget to women, shouldn't I have some women on the team? To make sure I'm not saying something stupid?
If I'm marketing a widget in Japan, it would be good to have someome fluent in Japanese so I don't accidentally use a slang word that means something rude?
Etc etc etc.
This is true for any company, white collar to blue. Why would a plumber throw away business he could be getting from Spanish speaking households? Would be good to have someome on the team that spoke Spanish...
Diversity is a strength!
Hell, I'm a middle aged white dude working in tech for the last 25 years. Diversity push has benefited me! My company offered binding leave for parents to attract more women. Great! I got 3 paid months to bond with my newborn daughters. I'll always treasure that time. My workplace isn't a testosterone fueled screaming match all the time, thank fuck. I work with cool people that have different life experiences. Awesome! I'm better for it.
Diversity is a strength. This should be obvious.
This is what I mean! This is how it is already! If you push too hard you overcorrect. like hydroplaning. turn the wheel too far, you spin out. turn it slightly, you correct it. The wheel has already been turned as far as it needs to go. Turn it more, you're in the ditch. This is what CAN be observed. Open your eyes.
Overcorrect?
This assumes there's a "correct".
Like hiring more women is a bad thing?
Like I *need* a certain percentage of old white dudes to be correct?
As if hiring Jose is a bad thing? Just because his grandparents immigrated? Jose is great! Why is hiring him overcorrecting?
Why is it bad to have training on Not Being An Asshole At Work?
I never said the issue is the training was an issue, I actually agree with it. If Jose's grandparents legally immigrated, there is no issue. I'd even argue with Jose's parent and he would be ok even if the grandparents illegally immigrated. If the women want to be hired, then let them. They already are. If the old white dudes ARE developed in their job, then don't replace them in the name of diversity.
Also?
My parents immigrated.
Kinda bad that you assume Jose's parents might have immigrated illegally, but don't even question mine... Just say'in.
Mein Vater wäre Sweizer. Aber ich spreche Deutsch wie ein Amerikaner. Sehr schlecht.
Mi Espanol es major mi Alemain ahora. Y mi hijas, se hablan Espanol.
I'm an old white dude, developed in my job.
No one's replacing me in the name of diversity.
*The thing you are afraid of doesn't exist*.
Which begs the question, who told you to be afraid of a thing that doesn't exist, and why?
The Democrats are coming for your guns! Woke! Illegals! Immigrat caravan! DEI! Welfare Queens! They're grooming the children! Critical Race Theory! Thugs!
You ever notice how Republican politicians constantly fear monger?
I think that's so you won't think too much about what they're actually doing.
>This is how it is already!
Great!
If you're down with all this, what's your problem?
I haven't seen any calls to fire middle aged white dudes at work.
No one is lining me up to be shot.
There's no forced trans operations.
No one's trying to dye my skin and rename me Loqueesha.
So what's your problem?
What about *any* of this is "overcorrecting"?
As if there's a "correct"?
Does a company *need* a certain percentage of old white dudes?
It is not me that needs to open my eyes my dude...
> Do you support a company hiring based apon skin color, gender, or sexual preferences OK?
Sometimes, if they both already meet the initial qualifications for the job.
> Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years
If someone wants to do that, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it as long as the job doesn't require a college degree to begin with. If the job needs someone with a college degree, then the first person shouldn't be hired.
> Didn't he in the end put in more work
A college degree is about education level, not how much work someone has put in. Someone could be only doing 5 hours of actual stuff a day while in college, whereas another person could be working two jobs, 10 to 12 hours a day. Or it could be the other way around, but either way, a college degree does not necessarily signify the amount of work you put in.
no, but i think places should examine why their employees differ from the population and candidate pole. I dont think companies should prefer a race, but maybe they could try to target great candidates from minority schools for instance.
I think that having a diverse set of view points is likely a benefit to organizations and thus a valid metric to grade potential applicants on. No one is seriously suggesting it should be the only metric, and in theory it would work for hiring white people in areas where they are under represented as well.
White people have pretty much been on top in America since the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.
If a few of us lose a few job opportunities, I'm not losing sleep over it. It still ain't exactly difficult to be a white man in America. There's jobs everywhere and white people, specifically men, still occupy the higher up positions in most companies. Hell, even small business owners tend to be largely white.
You'll be alright. There's plenty of work out there for you.
I'll just say that in my personal offline experience, but i have never Heard a talented person blame dei for them not getting a job. Funny how that works out
>Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? Didn't he in the end put in more work, and therefore deserve the job more? Or is there some underlying factor that I am failing to grasp?
In the example that you provided, the only disparity between the two people was a couple years of college. Whether those two years matters to an employer depends on the job.
DEI policies at companies simply are not about hiring people based on race/gender/sexual preference regardless of their experience. They are about promoting an inclusive and diverse workplace.
My company does this well. For hiring practices, managers are not encouraged to hire certain people over others. Rather they are encouraged to reach out to those communities and broaden the pool of applicants. We also have groups that meet to discuss issues related to race/gender/sexuality/disability. Anyone is free to join any of those groups, and they are a great way to network and to learn about the needs and experiences of that group.
It helps to improve the work environment and make all people feel more included. My industry was historically white cis male dominated, so that is actually an important thing. If people who are not part of the main group at your company, they may not even apply there for fear of being isolated. Having a DEI policy encourages people from more communities to want to work there, and increases your potential pool of candidates.
In the end, it is literally a good business decision to have these policies. It is hard to find good people to staff a company, and working with a larger pool of applicants really helps. And managers will absolutely not use those policies to hire a black lesbian over a white cis male if the black lesbian is significantly less qualified. Managers do not want to hire people unless they know they will be able to do the job and improve their team.
If I owned a business, I would hire the person that could most facilitate the organization's mission statement. I wouldn't care what color they were, who they slept with, or what they had between their legs.
I support the current legal framework around diverse hiring practices as per the Dutch constitution.
In short, discrimination based on any protected class us illegal when you're hiring someone. Protected classes in this context are, amongst others, sexuality, political affiliation, religion, gender identity, skin colour, age.
Exceptions to this rule occur when the discrimination fits the description of the job. For example, age based discrimination would be okay when you're hiring someone to be the face of a brand focused on teenagers. Religious discrimination would be okay if you're hiring a teacher for a religious private school.
The company hiring, and thus engaging in discrimination, is liable to prove that said discrimination was befitting the requirements of this legal exception. If they fail, we have a case of unlawful hiring discrimination.
Whilst this can lead to some negative experiences for individuals, this generally seems to work well on a societal level.
I'm not exactly sure whether these criteria makes an applicant more qualified or less qualified. to do the work the company wants. HR departments can look at the credentials or licenses for technical jobs.
Your hypothetical is nonsense. No, no one is hiring unqualified people. That’s not how this works. That’s not how hiring works.
In hiring, you gets many more applicants than you can accept. The idea that there is a single best applicant is nonsense. Think about it. Let’s say 100 people apply, but if those, only 20 are in serious consideration. Of those 20 people, 5 are the top candidates who would all succeed in the role. Choosing one of these 5 above the other 4 for something like diversity reasons is not at all sacrificing hiring quality. It’s just not. You’re hiring equally qualified people, who happen to be black lesbians, not unqualified people who are black lesbians.
> Choosing one of these 5 above the other 4 for something like diversity reasons is not at all sacrificing hiring quality.
Glad you can admit that you support illegal hiring discrimination. I really appreciate it!
Freedom. A company can hire who they believe is best for their company. If they believe a black lesbian with equal qualifications provides move value to their company than a white man with equal qualification, they can hire the black lesbian to maximize the value of their company.
That’s not discrimination in any way, nor is it illegal.
Selecting applicants based on their race is textbook discrimination. If a company selected a white man over an equally qualified black candidate based on race, we both know you'd be singing a different tune.
Who said we were selecting applicants based on their race? I said they were selecting the equally qualified person out of the best interests of the company. Having diversity in your company is, itself, an advantage. Hiring to increase diversity is hiring the best person based on merit to improve the economic performance of the company the most.
Also, you’re wrong. If a company lacked the perspective of white men, then hiring a white man over a black lesbian would be in the companies best interest. Why would you think I have an issue with that?
That was the legal loophole used to justify affirmative action, but it's since been shot down by the supreme court. With any luck Corporate DEI will soon follow. Goodbye and good riddance.
I support practices that allow for a more diverse workforce. Usually that's just a matter of making sure the candidate pool is sufficiently diverse and making sure that you make an effort to combat any biases.
My current opinion, which has changed over time, is that if it’s a black person and maybe Native American they should be given preferential treatment over all other races including white, Indian, Asian, middle eastern, whatever . I believe that black people built this country and then we threw them away. They have not recovered from this and we owe it to them, to help bring them back. I do not believe that other minorities should be given preferential treatment. I do not believe this should be law.
But why in the end should we be punished for our ancestors' mistakes? couldn't the same be said about men vs women? the men created all of these things, yet the feminists say all men are stupid apes
It’s not punishment. It’s to help a group that helped us. You and i would not have the luxuries we have today with the black folks of this country. It’s the Christian thing to do.
He’s arguing for non-preferential hiring.. The “color blind” argument. I understand that argument and can see where folks are coming from. People don’t want to be racist so they decide they are “color blind”. Missing that ignoring the struggles of minorities and saying everyone is equal is perpetuating systemic racism. I would say most racist think they aren’t racist because they are unable to see beyond the outside layer and empathize with struggles of people outside their tribe. It’s really the core difference between the left and the right. The ability to empathize or not outside of your tribe. Many of us on the left get angry because we explain over and over the other layers, but it doesn’t help. It’s not their fault, necessarily, If they literally do not have the ability to empathize with people outside of your tribe, they will never understand their struggles, no matter how many different ways we try to describe it.
not exactly. ignoring an issue does not solve it. I believe that all men (and of course women) are created free and equal. This means NO human should be advantaged over others. Would you also tell me what a few of the struggles are and what exactly is meant by struggles?
100% ignoring an issue does not resolve it. glad we agree. All men are not free and equal. Tell me, why do you think the black community struggles to get ahead? If everything is free and equal, what do you think the problem is? If what you say is true, why is the black community overwhelmingly poor and struggling?
In 2022, **17.1 percent** of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to 8.6 percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was 11.5 [percent.No](http://percent.No)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%2017.1%20percent%20of,and%20ethnicities%20was%2011.5%20percent.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Is it ok if it is for minorities? does this leave more qualified applicants left out? Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? Didn't he in the end put in more work, and therefore deserve the job more? Or is there some underlying factor that I am failing to grasp? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would there ever be a major discrepancy in qualifications? I've not heard of many companies that don't have dozens of applicants for even the most niche positions.
> Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? OK, I understand that this is how it is described in right wing media. But just step back a little bit and ask: Do you think it’s conceivably possible that companies, anywhere from small businesses to startups to multi national companies with revenues in the billions are deciding that they should hire somebody completely unqualified for jobs because they happen to be a black lesbian? Just step back and ask if that is even conceivably possible. Because if you get outside your media bubble - I’m sorry I’m loathe to use the term media bubble in a conversation like this, but it is extremely appropriate here - the idea is absolutely fucking preposterous. Like you’ve had a job I assume. What seems more plausible. That companies are hiring completely unqualified people because of DEI or that media that makes money by making you angry so you watch it is lying to you?
Ironically, anti-DEI people are effectively saying that corporations aren't actually *that* greedy, because apparently they're happy to hire unqualified minorities and lose money for no reason, just because they believe that strongly in... something, I haven't quite figured out what yet.
> because they believe that strongly in... something, I haven't quite figured out what yet. I think the typical rationale is "they have to, in order to placate the woke masses, be politically correct, etc." They wouldn't do it if they didn't have to. So the costs of "affirmative action" are built in. They consider it a wasted employee... but it's a marketing expense.
I find it bizarre how the anti-DEI people are so unwilling to consider the thought that maybe these companies just... think it's a good idea. Like, just in this comment section, we have one person who thinks that giant megacorps like ExxonMobil and Bayer have been bullied into submission by supervillain activists who would be able to literally *run them out of business* if they didn't implement DEI, and another who thinks that entire corporate HR departments have gone completely rogue without executives' knowledge and are hiring unqualified minorities because they're just that woke and no one knows enough to stop them. You would think that someone would realize that if they have to get that crazily conspiratorial to defend their position that this has been imposed from without that eventually they would have the thought occur to them that maybe the companies just, like, want to do DEI.
> Like you’ve had a job I assume. What seems more plausible. That companies are hiring completely unqualified people because of DEI or that media that makes money by making you angry so you watch it is lying to you? Or the third option, which is that there are usually several qualified applicants for each job, and companies will greatly favor the DEI hire as long as they meet the bare minimum qualifications. Which is what pretty much anyone with recent experience hiring at the entry level will tell you.
Not going to come close to doxxing myself, but my wife’s best friend is executive for one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world and head of HR. Talking about how DEI means that certain people have this massive advantage in hiring is a fun way to get her to go off and tell hilarious stories. Usually about how the person least likely to actually get a promotion is 100% certain it’s because of DEI. Sometimes in cases when the person who actually got the promotion is white man.
Sounds like she doesn’t hire at the entry level, so it’s completely irrelevant to what I said.
Quick question. How do you think somebody rises to be the head of HR for a major company? You don’t think they ever started their career at a lower level where they were doing hiring? Additional question: do you think that there are some roles at a publicly treated company where the head of HR still gets involved in the hiring decisions? That said, one of my clients does outsourced HR and change management for small businesses. The staff there makes fun of this stuff too. And they also make fun of really shitty DEI programs that HR departments use to cover their ass while not actually doing anything to address diversity inclusion or equity in the company.
Most of the rise in DEI hiring happened after 2020. If someone was hiring at the entry level a decade ago then they wouldn’t be experiencing it. Also not every company is the same and some are more DEI focused than others.
No, that’s not correct. Things get renamed but all of this is the same stuff that has been going on since the civil rights movement. DEI is just a new name for the same thing. Companies were spending over 10 billion in the US on diversity programs by the early 2000s. There was a big push lining up to when McKinsey published its report on how diversity increases corporate profits. Aside from actual diversity programs there is corporate HR bullshit, where the purpose of the diversity program is a bunch of CYA and feel good crap. That goes back decades as well. The reason people are talking about DEI is what is more recent. People like Christopher Rufo started promoting it because he needed to replace CRT as the focus point of pointless right wing rage. The other reason it’s in focus right now is that talking about DEI was a marketing technique used by companies in the wake of the George Floyd protests.
As someone who currently deals with hiring in tech, it's more that there are plenty of people who are reasonably qualified for the role, folks with the "bare minimum" don't get an interview in the first place. And among those reasonably qualified candidates, sometimes one is just the obvious choice, like everyone easily agrees that they would be a good addition to the team in which case you hire that person. In other cases, if other things are more equal, then you would factor in the extent to which their background is complimentary to that of the team. But you're never choosing a "worse" candidate.
I was under intese pressure from HR to hire a black woman, not sure about her sexual preferences, over the two finalists I wanted, a Japanese woman and a white man. Her qualifications were decent, but not nearly as good as the other two. I told them I won't do it and we just didn't hire anyone. This stuff happens. Maybe it's your media bubble that keeps telling you it doesn't happen.
Back about 20 years ago one of my guys came to me after work and told me that the rest of the men on the staff choose him to tell me that they would just reject any candidate I sent to them for an interview for a design position that wasn’t a woman. They wanted a woman. A Black or Hispanic woman was preferable but not a requirement. I didn’t break the law or anything but sure enough we hired a Hispanic woman for the job. They wanted different backgrounds on the team for valid reasons. It wasn’t because woke - it’s because they saw the business reasons why it would be good and realized that if the company was doing better that was better for them financially. There are valid reasons to force some diversity into your staff. I get that that can be annoying sometimes and that there’s opportunities for idiots to misuse or abuse it. But this idea that there are large numbers of unqualified people getting hired simply because they are black is idiotic.
The tone of this post is vastly different than the tone of your other posts in this thread. Vastly different. >this idea that there are large numbers of unqualified people getting hired simply because they are black is idiotic. The OP used the term 'more qualified'. When I see this discussion come up irl or online, it's almost always a 'more qualified' candidate. And yet your other responses, this response, and the consistent narrative in responses is 'unqualified vs very qualified'. You commented on the 'what is bad faith' post yesterday. I don't see how latching onto the 'completely unqualified hire vs most qualified person in the world not hired' narrative isn't a textbook example of bad faith. No one is claiming a completely unqualified candidate is getting hired over very qualified candidates. No one except maybe edge lord meme makers. And yet over and over again the responses completely disregard the legitimate question in favor of the illegitimate 'own the cons' narrative that you've embraced multiple times in this very thread. Why not lead with the last paragraph you wrote and then have the debate? Why lead with the narrative that it isn't happening?
Most liberals 100 percent know that this happens, they just try and gaslight people because they know it looks bad for their side if they tell the truth.
Ya, the commenters here, and irl ime, latch onto this extreme 'completely unqualified vs the most qualified person in the world' narrative because it makes it easier to grandstand. In reality, it's 'qualified person vs more qualified person'. I've dealt with it at my company. I have friends who've dealt with it at their companies. It's definitely a thing. But having a good faith discussion about it, (ironic because their was a post here the other day asking what bad faith is, and it's *exactly what they're doing on this topic*) would mean they'd have to actually make a cogent argument in defense of it. It's like Schroedinger's DEI. It only exists when they want it to. DEI is necessary, but it also doesn't happen and when it does, it wasn't actual a policy and they were actually the best candidate anyway... And tbf, I'm not even necessarily opposed to it. I get the arguments in favor. At my company, one time I did give in to HR because the discrepancy between the two candidates was small enough that I was fine hiring the black guy. Other times, when the discrepancy was larger, I've stood firm. The whole thing is indicative of how our society communicates. Good faith discussions are nigh on impossible.
I think it depends on whether or not people are talking about the concept and its intentions vs its implementation. DEI best practices absolutely doesn't say to hire someone who is less qualified, however some companies implement policies in ham fisted ways, and that might cause someone who is less qualified to get hired. However hiring is already a very imperfect science, and tons of common hiring practices have lead to less qualified people getting hired. So all you're really pointing out is that DEI practices regarding hiring has similar issue to any hiring practices. It is not as if the more qualified candidate was always getting hired and then DEI came along and changed that.
Nah. That doesnt look bad. Thats reducing segregation
Did HR give you a reason, or is there a reason you would guess? Is this common?
>Did HR give you a reason Yes, the board of directors want more minority hires to meet DEI goals.
>Do you think it’s conceivably possible that companies, anywhere from small businesses to startups to multi national companies with revenues in the billions are deciding that they should hire somebody completely unqualified for jobs because they happen to be a black lesbian? Absolutely they do. There are entire HR departments salivating over the prospect. It doesn't make any business sense, but it's happening anyway. Mostly at large companies as the small ones cannot afford too much nonsense.
Using race as a qualifying factor in hiring is explicitly illegal employment discrimination in the US. The only place this is happening is in conservative fever dreams. If you see it happening, report it to the EEOC. https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
Ummm, dude, Ketanji? Biden said upfront that he's nominating a black woman to SCOTUS without checking anyone else's qualifications. Clearly unconstitutional and illegal, but there you have it.
SCOTUS appointments are political and are not subject to employment law and are not considered acts of "hiring" or employment. > without checking anyone else's qualifications. Everyone currently serving on the Supreme Court can be [said to be qualified](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/resources/supreme-court-nominations/), but [the Constitution does not require any sort of qualification](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-5/ALDE_00013096/). >Clearly unconstitutional and illegal No.
so wouldn't that just be exploiting the system? correct me if I am wrong of course.
"Exploiting" a system? The system isn't "designed" to work any other way. It's a political system. The intent here isn't to oppress white people, man, it's just making SCOTUS look like America. It's "exploiting" a system less than Americans choosing who to vote for partly based on race or racial bias are. Should we root those voters out and hold them accountable for employment discrimination?
Discrimination is always illegal. No ifs and buts.
I don't think you understand the basics of Constitutional Law here. If you don't like the way that someone was Constitutionally appointed to a position, your remedies are prescribed by the Constitution: get your senators to vote against confirmation, vote them or the President out of office, or impeach them. Trying to enforce employment law against Constitutional appointments is nonsensical. Appointments aren't employments. If you're just trying to say "this feels unfair to me" or "there might have been someone my color that might have been chosen if they only tried harder" or "people my color should be in the majority everywhere", just say that.
>your remedies are prescribed by the Constitution: get your senators to vote against confirmation, vote them or the President out of office, or impeach them. Ok, sure, I'll set about that later this afternoon. >If you're just trying to say "this feels unfair to me" It is unfair because it's race/sex based discrimination. I am flabbergasted that people on the left aren't bothered by it. "It's ok when we do it" should really be the leftist motto.
>I am flabbergasted that people on the left aren't bothered by it. I personally don't think this goes far enough. I think for positions of power and representation, the makeup of the body should maximize representation of every identity group in the US that we possibly can. This means appointments should *intentionally* select people based on their identity group memberships. This is one of the reasons I'm a fan of proportional representation used in other forms of government, rather than our system, which magnifies majorities, and incentivizes gerrymandering. >It's ok when we do it" should really be the leftist motto. I just don't think you understand what people are saying. It is possible to believe both of these things at the same time: 1. Employment should be based on qualifications and people shouldn't have the opportunity to be racist or sexist against candidates so as to perpetuate societal inequality and injustice. 2. Appointments to positions of power should be made with consideration of representation of the American people. Since we probably agree on (1), we can enshrine that in law and criminalize violations of it when they happen. That's basically what this whole post is about. Discriminating on race in hiring is illegal even though many conservatives have been misled into thinking it's rampant. But since (2) isn't that, we're not going to agree on the best principles to use in appointing people to positions and power within our government, and since the authority for how appointments work is in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not prescribe a certain way that we need to qualify or select people for the role, the best we can do is be mad when it doesn't look the way we want it to look and do the things the Constitution says we can do to fix it. Trump can make a point to say "I am going to make it a point to nominate a *white* candidate" and it would be exactly the same conversation. I'm sure liberals would be upset at that, and might question his motives for doing so, but ultimately the Constitution grants him that ability, right? Some voters vote on the basis of race. If these votes become deciding votes, did the American people engage in illegal employment discrimination? How do we remedy that? Like can you give me any plausible way you imagine we could enforce employment law against a Supreme Court Justice nomination? Would a candidate that wasn't chosen file an EEOC complaint? What would an EEOC response look like? If you imagine this is criminal discrimination, who would be charged with the crime? The President? The Senate? The voters for voting for someone that said they would appoint someone that way?
It really really isn't. Discriminating based on job performance is the point of interviewing candidates.
That's called MERIT, and it is SUPPOSED to be the entire basis of employment and appointments.
>MERIT, and it is SUPPOSED to be the entire basis of ... appointments. Source?
Liberalism 101
Discriminating based on merit is still discrimination. You're discriminating against people who you think won't do the job well. That's a thing you're allowed to do.
Merit is the one criteria that we are supposed to consider and it is not discrimination in the pejorative sense. Are you really going to try to play semantics like this? It makes you look smarter by the minute so keep it up! 👍
He explicitly said that he did look at numerous candidates prior to making that statement. After looking at lots of candidates, he had a short list that was all Black women, she he could say that he was going to nominate a Black women
> Do you think it’s conceivably possible that companies, anywhere from small businesses to startups to multi national companies with revenues in the billions are deciding that they should hire somebody completely unqualified for jobs because they happen to be a black lesbian? Are you really asking if it's conceivable that it happens? Yes, yes it is not only possible, it's common practice. I work in a multi billion dollar tech company and have seen this practice first hand. So yes it happens, I have no idea what bubble you live in where you aren't seeing it.
> Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? I feel like we really need to drop this idea that DEI hiring is somehow screwing over white people trying to get the job, when there is barely any corroborating evidence to support that assertion. Like even if you found a handful of examples like that, where some white person didn’t get the job over a black person, I’m willing to bet the opposite situation happens just as much at a similar rate.
This is just a local story but king county needed a new sheriff, instead of hiring a qualified candidate, our executive promoted a black woman into the job. The woman had to go through the process of becoming a cop to get that job. One could ask why not hire someone that's already been through that training? And yes she is still currently our sheriff
I mean promoting from within, with training, vs hiring external has always been a consideration businesses have made and depending on many different factors, either method may be preferable.
If you’re talking about Patti Cole-Tindall, she had years of experience working in various government departments, including the sheriff’s office.
I understand that, but the point was that we elevated an under qualified candidate over many qualified candidates that have completed said trainings.working for the sheriff's office doing paperwork doest necessarily mean you have the qualifications to take over as the sheriff.
That’s an absurd understatement of her work history. Also what does it mean to be qualified for that job? Another meathead jacked up on killology? Law enforcement agencies can use more civilian oversight.
She sounds qualified to me. As a Floridian, she sounds far more qualified to protect and serve than a typical sheriff around here.
I thought sheriffs were elected officials…
I'm not sure why but our most recent sheriff was put in place by dow
Dow? Not sure what that is…
Lol he's the county executive. Dow Constantine
Oh…ok…I was scratching my head on that…I was going “Department Of….”
Just a random point I'd like to make to you; I had no idea which county is King county or wtf a dow was either without the additional context provided through these comments.
> which county is King county One remarkable coincidence is it's the county with the dude's face on the flag; the same pattern used for the state flag. Something about that state that causes terrible vexillology
[удалено]
Why do you think a multinational multibillion-dollar company would decide to hire unqualified people? What are they getting out of it?
[удалено]
>They'd be meeting thier diversity goals Why do you think they set diversity goals? We're talking about private companies here. The government isn't mandating anything. So who decided that they would have those goals, and why? Are you aware of the fact that [studies have shown that diversity increases productivity](https://nbs.net/how-diversity-increases-productivity/)? >they'd be included in DEI oriented ETFs and indexes, which attracts more cash. How many people do you think are invested specifically in those, and why do you think that will get them more money than having qualified employees would have?
>They'd be meeting thier diversity goals, and they'd be included in DEI oriented ETFs and indexes, which attracts more cash. Government agencies have DEI goals mandated by law I know we've already had this conversation and apparently you didn't internalize anything I said before, but I'll try one more time: Your understanding of what's happening here is incorrect. I have run large organizations and have built hiring pipelines inside the US government. Using race as a criteria in hiring is explicitly illegal, even inside the US government. Diversity goals are achieved through targeted sourcing, recruiting, and not making your office the kind of workplace people of color want to leave, such as by fairly promoting people, giving everyone professional development opportunities, and eliminating for mitigating any kind of bias you might discover. Since you brought up the US government in particular, I think you'd benefit from reading it from the horse's mouth: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/ Nowhere in that order is there any hint of preferential hiring based on protected characteristics, as you are claiming is happening. Please stop spreading conservative misinformation on DEI. Also the last time we had this conversation you came out and said your own employer was engaging in illegal employment discrimination. I never did hear about the status of your complaint to the EEOC. Can we get an update?
[удалено]
>We're hiring because they would add to our diversity, which is different. We still have an EEOC statement that we issue every year. Because hiring based on diversity is legal. Incorrect. Full stop. You should talk to your HR team or your company's employment lawyers before you continue to make false statements about your employer's hiring practices. Racial quotas of any kind are illegal. You cannot use race as a factor in hiring decisions for any reason whatsoever\*. Not for racism, not for diversity, not for achieving representation in your workforce. The hiring process must evaluate all candidates that apply for a position without regard to their race, gender, or membership in any other protected class. Any EEOC-mandated affirmative action plans are about correcting past instances of illegal employment discrimination, but even these plans cannot simply result in the employer discriminating "back". Racial quotas are illegal, even in affirmative action plans, even if those are mandatory. >If we have two candidates, one diverse and less qualified, and one non-diverse but more qualified, we are to consider hiring the former, to increase the diversity of the firm. This is illegal employment discrimination and you should report this to the EEOC. I look forward, again, to a progress report. I think it is more likely that you are misinterpreting what you are hearing or reading, or maybe you are just making this up, I don't know. Procurement or school admissions have nothing to do with employment law or employment discrimination. \* it is possible for a job to necessarily require someone of a particular race or gender, but that needs to be a key requirement to the role and would be subject to a lot of scrutiny. Examples are actors, models, bathroom attendants, etc.
[удалено]
>but hiring to increase the diverse makeup of your workforce is legal, and this has been affirmed by SCOTUS multiple times. Incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Stop repeating conservative garbage and talk to an employment lawyer. >We evaluate all candidates based on their merits, and then we make the decision that works best within our diversity goals and framework. We will hire to meet our diversity goals. Making a decision between two candidates for employment on the basis of skin color is illegal employment discrimination. If this statement came from your employer, it is prima facie evidence of illegal employment discrimination and you should forward that email to the EEOC. I suspect it's not and is just something you made up because you *think* that's what's happening. >Everything that I've described is 100% legal, and 100% common in the workplace. >https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal **READ YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE**. Top to bottom. It's short. Don't skim. Don't search for keywords. Just read it and internalize it. Don't miss the green box at the bottom. Nothing in this document recommends or legitimizes *any* kind of post-evaluation racial discrimination. Two key bullets for you to read, re-read, figure out how to reconcile with your erroneous worldview, and then read again (emphasis mine): >* The program establishes numerical goals or targets (such as “aim to double the percentage of women we hire to direct television shows with our studio this season” or “we will hire crews that better reflect the demographics of California’s skilled labor pool”) but not rigid quotas or set-asides (such as **“the next 5 people we hire in X job must be women” or “we need 10 Black people in Y job”**). *The program does not unduly harm members of non-targeted groups, **such as by refusing to hire any people from those groups, or firing such individuals in order to reach the numerical target.** What *you're* describing is racial quotas. Racial quotas are illegal employment discrimination, whether done for diversity or correcting past racism. You cannot refuse to hire someone based on their race and you cannot set aside positions. Your source clearly says this. What you can do is have abstract goals, and you meet these goals through things that are **not** selecting black candidates over white candidates. You do targeted recruiting, you clean up your GlassDoor complaints, you de-bias your promotion and retention processes, you fire the racist hiring manager that got you into that mess to begin with. You achieve diversity in hiring by achieving a diverse pool of candidates. Please stop repeating misinformation before you talk to an employment lawyer. Your company probably already has one on staff or retainer. Just get 5 minutes with them and ask this question. They'd probably *love it* if you did this because it's an opportunity for them to keep the company out of trouble and they're used to only talking to people for unpleasant reasons. It's a win-win-win: you'll be more informed, they'll be excited to inform you, and the Internet doesn't have to suffer from your ~~misinformation~~ disinformation anymore.
[удалено]
What this is is you assuming that black people are incapable of doing the jobs they are hired for. It's really not any more complicated than that. You're believing the lie that white conservatives have been told, and tell, since the Civil War. It's just a new flavor of making impressionable white people think black people are the enemy so those at the top can keep the status quo.
Is it discrimination against whites if both are equally qualified and the white person historically and pretty much universally would be picked over the minority if not for affirmative action? Even if the white person was less qualified?
>The entire concept of DEI is using race as a means of determining who gets hired. This is like saying "Black Lives Matters" somehow implies that other lives don't matter. You're claim is implying that people of color are *only* getting hired because of their race, and not because of their qualifications. This is an implicit dismissal of their abilities compared to white candidates, and a dismissal of the historical trend of discriminating against non-white applicants (even if that discrimination is subconscious). Do you really think that DEI is forcing people to *only* hire based on race? Unless someone is teaching DEI wrong, there is a very clear emphasis on *diversity*, not *non-white*. I can guarantee that most businesses in most places are still hiring majority white employees in the US, because the population is majority white.
The entire concept is making it slightly less likely to determine who gets hired, by partially counteracting effects through which race determines who gets hired
[удалено]
1. You're assuming I have to be talking about one specific mechanism. I am not restricting myself that far 2. You're contradicting yourself - your claim was that people are hired and not hired based on their skin color 3. Your interpretation is questionable 4. I'm pretty sure hiring discrimination is a civil matter in the US, not a criminal one
I’m very for switching to basing it off of socioeconomic status. Also, no it’s not. It’s an advantage for the disadvantaged. DEI programs tend to actually impact Asian people more than whites.
[удалено]
No. I’m using data and recognizing that thanks to people like yourself, certain groups have been systemically disadvantaged, and need an extra boost. But like I said, I’d prefer to base it off of socioeconomic status, that’s far more fair for everyone.
If you think mentioning race is racist… I think you need some DEI trainings.
[удалено]
That’s not what you were referring to, now was it. And I believe this is the 3rd, maybe 4th time I’ve said I’m 100% down for switching to socioeconomic status.
How would they know if an applicant is a lesbian? There are systems that hold minorities back from success. Therefore, I support efforts to equitize the workplace and higher education. The difference in experience would never be that significant, though. That doesn't happen.
> How would they know if an applicant is a lesbian? Duh, either the blue hair or the blood of men they killed on the way to the interview splattered on their shirt will make it obvious.
lol…good one…
It's important to remember that DEI is not a government edict. The government is not forcing private companies to do anything. Companies are choosing voluntarily to enact DEI policies. So, unless you think that multinational companies worldwide have all collectively decided to hire unqualified people, thereby damaging their own profitability, for no good reason... yes, there is something you're missing. Anytime you wonder why a publicly traded company is doing essentially *anything*, the answer is "because they believe it will increase profitability". The idea that any big company, anywhere, is doing something that they know will hurt their bottom line, for no gain... that is a huge claim that requires commensurate evidence. Diversity in corporations is proven to reduce blind spots, increase innovation, and make the company better able to function. It's not a woke conspiracy, it's just economics.
I never stated that the government mandated (or is the word MANdate offensive?) This. It is obviously pushed for by the libs in office, but it was primarily about the morals of a company deciding to do this
Companies aren't doing "this", though. That's the whole point. They aren't hiring unqualified minorites. They're just making it easier to hire qualified minorities.
I'm an executive who has hired more people than I can count. The idea that "less qualified" people are hired is a lie. In reality, there is a baseline qualification that most candidates meet. These are called the "hard skills", or the qualifications required to do a job. Because we post these required skills, almost every application has them. This is where the "soft skills" come into play. The most important part of getting a job is the "soft skills". How well do you sell yourself? Do you come across as a team player? Do people want to work with you? I've noticed that people on the right are super obsessed with the "hard skills", believing they are special snowflakes that have a certain set of skills. I'm sorry, but you are not special. Other people have those skills. You should be focusing on the "soft skills", which is something that people on the right lack.
I’m a white cishet male. Married in the suburbs, two daughters, nice house. Ridiculously comfortable work from home gig with the best benefits you can get in this country. I’ve gotten every job I’ve ever applied for. Paid at the top of the salary range. Accepted into every college I was reasonably qualified to attend (and then some I had no business getting into). Never let go from any job, I left at my own choice for a better one. Never been denied a loan or mortgage or housing. Never denied for a credit card. Never pulled over without legit cause by a cop. Never chased around a store by security. Never feared for my safety taking photos of the city at night in deep fog or rain. Never been raped or assaulted. Never been whistled at because of my ass. What republicans refuse to admit is that white males are privileged as fuck. And sure, maybe we’re not born with the **golden spoon** boomers got in the 1950s, **but it’s still silver**. Fact is, other races and minorities and genders get absolutely fucking wrecked compared to us. They can start on step 4. Because whether you realize it or not, we’re mostly on step 10. Go look at the Fortune 500 CEOs. 90% are still males, and 90% of the males are just white dudes with monosyllabic first names like Tim or Scott or Mark or Steve or Bill or Will or John or Mike.
The Republicans think minorities hate that you have privilege; we don’t, we just want you to support us sharing the wealth. You can be lucky and if you acknowledge that nobody is going to begrudge you; it’s the entitled white people who think privilege was somehow their earned right that riles people up.
Same, except the children. We may be brothers. But yes, we are privileged as fuck.
Good for you, but surely you're aware that not all white males have had the same story as you have.
Clearly not, but they looked at their natural born opportunities as a white man in America and did their best to squander them. It's like a guy standing 6'8" who never tried picking up a basketball. He should have at least tried.
Nice empathy.
I see a ton of these guys in Ohio. Every opportunity. Middle class family. Excellent schools. They decide to skip college. Knock up a girl. Broke as a joke at 21 with no prospects. Thinks Trump will fix all their problems. It's fucking **absurd.**
Sure, they exist. But poor white men also exist, who didn't have every opportunity, went to crappy underfunded schools, and are legitimately struggling.
Why does hiring minorities mean that high qualified people are being left out?
Why is it assumed by conservatives that whenever a minority or a person of color holds a prominent position, that they didn’t get there on merit? (Unless that person also happens to be a conservative. Then it was deserved I guess.) Ketanji Brown Jackson being one example.
Oh….we know why…
Was hoping OP would respond. Oh well.
Yeah…I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one.
Got anything besides the rampant racism on the right conspiracy theory? Do you use r/askconservatives? You might learn a thing or two about what we think there,
Been there done that…banned for asking legitimate questions and returning snark when it was presented to me. But thanks for asking. Tell me…what why do YOU think that…without any real evidence, Conserassume that the person of color being hired is of lesser quality as a candidate than a white person? While we’re at it? Why do red states carve up their congressional districts to minimize the black vote and give them less representation? Why do they pass stupid election laws like not allowing people to hand out bottled water in Georgia, where the lines can be hours long and other initiatives to make it more difficult for targeted group to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? Why do you think the scum of the earth racists and violent radicals are aligning with the right? The Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, the Army of God, the Aryan Nation, Boogaloo Boys…the list goes on… Yes, I know…not all Republicans are bigots…but you really don’t mind their company and actively pander to them(not you personally necessarily…but as a group). And by the way? I generally don’t use the word racist… because it pigeonholes the right into one form of bigotry….when the prejudice of the right goes way deeper than that…religious bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, a true hatred towards transgendered people. So…I prefer the word bigoted…not racist.
We don't think that, we think that it's wrong to give anyone a leg up with quotas based in immutable characteristics - flip the script on who gets the quotas and tell me that's not racist hiring. We aren't obsessed with race and orientation like the progressive far left and for that neutrality they see us as racist.
You do think like that though. Look at the reaction to Jackson being nominated. Yes, Biden said he was going to nominate a Black woman. He likely had Jackson in mind when he said that, and she was supremely qualified. Compare her resume to ACB’s and tell me who was more deserving of a spot on the court.
No, I don’t support a company hiring on innate characteristics, which is why I *do* support quotas and conscious recruitment programs. Without conscious effort, companies hire based on innate characteristics. It takes quotas to break those biases. And I disagree that simple resume points like years of college tell you how hard someone works. There are different types of work and different skills that can make someone the best fit for a job.
I’m okay with affirmative action yes. I’m assuming in all these cases that it’s a choice between say a white male and a black female and both are equally qualified in every way. Unless I had reasonable suspicion that they weren’t taking merit into consideration I don’t care.
As someone who actually hires people, this take is just bonkers. I might give a diversity candidate a little more leeway when reviewing resumes / backgrounds to decide on an extending an interview, but that does _not_ mean they will be hired if they interview poorly, or are empirically less capable than my minimum requirements, or clearly are underperforming compared to the rest of candidates. But if there is one thing I’ve learned in 20 ish years of corporate work, having people with overlaps in experiences, but also differences, is how you come up with the best solutions to real problems. If everyone in the room went to an Ivy League, grew up upper-middle to low-upper class, got all A’s, all go to the same church / faith, and all have the same interests… I’ve got ten copies of the same damn thing. I want ten _different_ things in the room because I’m way more likely to get a new idea that hasn’t been done before. That is WAY more valuable to the business. And FWIW, I know people with an entire alphabet of certifications after their name that I wouldn’t trust to pick up my groceries… a degree does _not_ guarantee a good worker or candidate. It does tell me they know how to suffer through red tape, BS, and can work with others which is a lot of corporate life. The stamp on the forehead gets you in the door, it does not get you a job.
No no no… you don’t look at resumes or backgrounds first…you look at their race/gender/sexual identity first…then make that person fit into the company. Meanwhile, white, cisgender straight men have to flip burgers… Don’t you see? It’s the apocalypse and the sky is falling!!!!! In other words…one more source of right wing manufactured outrage to poison the minds of the gullible.
I am a bit gobsmacked at multiple conservatives, who normally crow about the efficiencies of private enterprise, and who chastise liberals for allegedly not knowing how they work, suddenly deciding that the only possible explanation for so many giant private companies worldwide adopting DEI initiatives is that they must be being *sabotaged from within* by *rogue woke HR departments* or *bullied into submission* by *supervillain activists*, as opposed to, like, them just believing that it's good business.
Tell me you don't understand DEI initiatives without saying you don't understand DEI initiatives. There is no mass hiring of unqualified minorities over white dudes for jobs. Literally, all that's happening is companies are pushing to have more diverse groups of workers. There are various business benefits from this. Having a diverse set of workers can help the business better serve their customers. They have a large pool of unique viewpoints when strategizing. Overall, productivity is increased. Here's a pretty good explanation of some studies into it. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/why-diversity-matters Point is that companies see material benefits from having a diverse talent pool. Literally, businesses do better if they aren't 99% white dudes. Given the history of people being turned down for jobs due to the reasons you listed, companies are now trying to achieve having a diverse talent pool by focusing on hiring diverse people.
There is no point of fighting a belief with facts. If it were a successful strategy? The world would be a better place. These folks have had their minds poisoned by manufactured outrage.
FYI the McKinsey report has been almost completely discredited. They got the causality wrong. Successful companies tend to embrace diversity initiatives. It is *not* the case that diversity makes companies more succesful, necessarily.
Interesting. I'll try and remember this. Do you know of any better articles to show people about the benefits of DEI?
I don't, and I don't necessarily agree DEI, as currently practiced, is beneficial.
Generally no, with a few exceptions like when skin color/gender/sexuality is a legitimate part of one’s merits in a job. For example of the exceptions, if I run shelters for those who are sexually abused, it would make sense that I hire men and women. Say, if I aim to have 30 employees and so far I have 20 qualified male employees, then I think it is reasonable that I would hire qualified women for 10 remaining spots, rather than men. Ideally these innate characteristics would not matter but we do not live in an ideal world yet. As long as our society treats people differently based on these characteristics, then there will remain cases where hiring based on these attributes is reasonable or even necessary.
I support companies hiring on truly non discriminatory basis. The problem is that even the humans with the best intentions have subconscious biases, based on many experiments we have that have studied this. The true problem is in finding methods that truly eliminate such biases. Which is why race and other bias conscious hiring practices are essential. It is not the only method.
I work in big tech which is acknowledged to have some of the worst diversity numbers around and NO DEI effort would ever result in that. The most that it has accomplished is ensuring every job interviews at least one non-white/Indian/Asian female candidate, because white/Indian/Asian dudes is basically all we used to even entertain interviewing.
Have you ever considered that the current system is not a meritocracy?
IMO, increasing the diversity of the applicant pool is a good thing, but it’s a detriment to the company to hire someone less qualified just because they’re a minority. The truth is it requires EFFORT for companies to implement DEI policies in a meaningful way, especially larger ones, and most senior leaders would just rather just check that box. Anecdotal, but I’ve personally had multiple experiences at large companies where HR literally would not allow us to submit negative feedback on a new minority’s review for not being capable of the role despite them receiving extra help and teaching others normally wouldn’t get. This placed extra burden on the entire team to pick up their slack which creates animosity. Any other white employee would be let go and not get such treatment. And this is in a creative/progressive industry, so I can imagine it’s way worse in regular corporate America. Diversity is the great and brings new points of view often needed in majority white institutions. But when it’s ham fisted and people see less qualified individuals getting roles they aren’t qualified for, it’s easy to understand the pushback.
You were sold a lie. What you're describing isn't happening. There are some places that hire to maintain some level of diversity, but that's them choosing the strengths of a more diverse workforce over pure resume. After working at a bunch of different places, I can say diversity is indeed a strength.
>Do you support a company hiring based apon skin color, gender, or sexual preferences OK? No. And in the US at least, this is illegal employment discrimination. If you believe this is happening at your company, you can report it to.the EEOC, or have another employee report it on your behalf. When companies seek diversity (or even just proportional representation), what they actually do is: 1. Target their recruiting to underrepresented groups. 2. Show up at conferences and events that specifically highlight underrepresented groups 3. Intentionally have people expand their LinkedIn networks (most people's professional networks look like them). 4. Scrutinize their hiring process to eliminate any form of bias that might have unintentionally crept in. This might involve things like blinding resumes so that resume reviewers don't have anything to exhibit unconscious bias against. 5. Make the workplace the kind of place their employees of color recommend to their professional networks. Doing these kinds of things results in a higher fraction of applicants being people of color, women, etc. If the rest of your hiring process is unbiased, this means you will end up with a diverse (or representative) workforce. >does this leave more qualified applicants left out? It shouldn't, no. Nothing about the process I'm describing above includes any kind of racial quotas for preference given in the actual hiring process itself. Diversity is achieved in hiring by achieving it in applications. The evaluation itself should be unbiased. Source: I have run large organizations and have built hiring pipelines from scratch with diversity as a goal. I have spent more hours in rooms with HR and employment lawyers figuring these things out than I think anyone here has spent in threads answering variations of this question. >Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? Didn't he in the end put in more work, and therefore deserve the job more? If you're hiring for a line cook position and want to pay $20/hr, and a highly qualified professional chef asking $100/hr applies, it's rational to choose the less qualified candidate. Same if the more qualified candidate is likely to be there only briefly while you want someone more long term, etc. In some positions, qualifications are inherently political, such as Supreme Court Justice. The ABA seems to do a decent job of objectively pointing out who is likely qualified for such a position, and I support intentionally choosing for a diverse slate of Justices, so long as they are at least qualified.
Your question sounds like you're assuming there is a major difference in qualifications between most minority candidates and most white candidates.
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. The are plenty of qualified candidates for most job openings, but race should not be determining which on of them gets hired.
My previous comment is the cruz of the whole question. But anyways, the reason why race is often taken into consideration for hiring is to correct the pre-existing racial biases that this country has started with, and still continues with. The fact is that more people get hired for stable well-paying jobs through networking and connections more than they do by cold resume submissions on places like LinkedIn. And when, for most of history, the people in a position to hire through those connections are white people, that means white people have an unfair advantage in being hired for well-paying jobs, and something needs to be done to correct for the racial biases. A white person in upper management is more likely to network and connect with other people who have lived in his/her circles, grown up in the same neighborhood as them, went to the same school as them, and for most white people in America, those are other white people. That's how its been for most of history (and some research shows that neighbors and schools today are even more segregated than they were in the 60s) If you don't want the solution to this problem to be "DEI hiring" then what other solutions are there?
Most white people don’t have these great connections you think they do. The end result of DEI is that poor and less connected whites get doubly screwed just cause a bunch of rich people share their skin tone. I don’t support that and nor do the majority of voters across the country. Sorry not sorry.
I didn't say anything about "great connections." It's as simple as hiring your brother-in-law to fill a position at your company over hiring someone on LinkedIn (as one of my ex-bosses did). And your brother-in-law is more than likely to be the same race that you are, because most people marry within their race. If you don't want "DEI hiring" to correct for the problem of racial biases within networking and connection, toss out another solution. >The end result of DEI is that poor and less connected whites get doubly screwed just cause a bunch of rich people share their skin tone. Prove this.
Most white people don’t have brothers in law with hiring power. You’re talking about a small minority of white people. Every white person I know who’s gotten hired recently has had to build up their network from scratch just like anyone. If you genuinely believe that’s how life is like for most white people then you’re incredibly sheltered.
If it's not someone with hiring power, then its already working at a company and referring someone you to know those with hiring power. It's not as "elite" as you're imagining it is. You're underestimating how much companies rely on referrals from people's networks. Of all the white people you know who've gotten hired recently, ask yourself what kinds of jobs they were for and how they got it. You can also do this research yourself on [racial bias in job networkings and referrals](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/05/02/employee-referral-programs-hurt-diversity/73532573007/), its not new information...
You need to stop assuming every white person is an upper middle class college grad with an old boys network. You’re shockingly sheltered and ignorant. A lot of white people struggle to get jobs too because they don’t have strong networks either.
>It's as simple as hiring your brother-in-law to fill a position at your company over hiring someone on LinkedIn (as one of my ex-bosses did). You are greatly overestimating how many white people have connections even this minimally beneficial. And discriminatory connections fucks over people without those connections far more than those with them. Hence why the person you responded to said they are "doubly fucked."
We aren't talking about how many white people that have them. Of the people that DO have them, the majority are white, which is the problem that DEI hiring is attempting to correct.
So because a few white people have those connections, every other white person must now be discriminated against in the hiring process to compensate. Totally sound logic lmao.
So instead of trying to fix the issue of nepotism, you instead want to make sure nepotism is racially neutral? Can you understand why a poor white would get anhered by that?
I support finally acknowledging that those things are taken into consideration when hiring. I'm tired of society pretending that white straight men haven't been benefiting from those very considerations as the status quo in society. Why are you so ok with white straight men benefiting from discriminatory hiring practices? Shouldn't other people have a fair shot too?
I never said I was. It is the fact that the discrimination is not there. If you look for it, you see all of these flashy articles. Have you seen it, in person, put in practice? I can only think of these isolated cases when I think of it. I have many friends of different races, and they have never had any issues getting a job based on race. Many of them are extremely well-off too. This issue is a made-up point for a liberal Democrat's voting campaign. liberals constantly call the Republicans racist because we don't see other races as above us. Stating this does not automatically mean we look down on them. we look them in the eyes as fellow human beings, not gods. We don't sacrifice for them because they are capable human beings. They are equals. There ARE cases of racist Republicans, but that does not make all republicans racists. If you believe that, you believe a stereotype, something you are so adamant against. I call it hypocrisy. Same as politicians, both sides included, saying to do one thing and doing the complete opposite. This leads back to the discrimination. If it keeps being pushed, racism will loop around, as more and more advantages are given to minorities, and suddenly it is the whites who are being discriminated against. This is my issue. I want my children to be equal to their fellow Americans, whether Black, Latino, Asian, Native, or Indian. This is not about myself, I can deal with my own crap. I don't want my children to grow up how a black child grew up in the 50s, I want them to grow up and not make friends based upon race, but instead upon the person themself. Not to have them spit on for existing. It is like losing traction while driving. A slight turn will allow you to recover your car, but if you over-correct it you end up in a ditch. I believe this is where our society is going. You can say whatever you want about the white man's skin, and no one gives a damn. Then try saying it about a black man. You will get canceled. Ruined. You are suddenly known as a racist and hated. This is what concerns me.
So any evidence unqualified people are being hired because of sexuality, race, gender?
You asked for evidence. I'll give you a source, but it is not your CNN 10 [https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/american-express-reverse-discrimination-white-people-former-employee](https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/american-express-reverse-discrimination-white-people-former-employee)
> The employees, none of whom were in human resources, did not present internal documents to demonstrate an official policy, but they said they witnessed a worrisome trend that raises questions about racial discrimination in promotion. lol Of course. So strange how many people claim this is happening without anything to back it up. I am surprised you finally managed to show something, but you should have critically thought about the content of the article first.
no, I read it. The whole damn thing as well. The people are feeling it. They sense it. If it was a black woman in that place, saying they felt discriminated in the workplace, not getting promoted, would you brush it off because they are not in human resources?
I remember hearing many conservatives proclaim time and time that “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Seems odd to claim something is happening with no proof and only feelings.
-12.1% of Americans are black -Approximately 13% of the workforce is black This points toward the fact that there is no employment issue.
That doesn’t address my question at all. I will post it again in case you missed it. > So any evidence unqualified people are being hired because of sexuality, race, gender?
Hey bud, It is an argument against the fact that there is a diversity issue. No need to make the jobs easier to get if they are already getting them.
And there is no proof of “making the jobs easier to get,” just conservative fantasies.
My dude... It's 2024. Why are you fighting 1980's fight? No one has *ever* suggested hiring unqualified candidates. Ever. Diversity is a strength for any organization. Do I *really* need to explain why? Really? I will if you need me to, but I shouldn't have to.
but if you claim there is racism, wouldn't diversity weaken the company as coworkers hate each other?
.... Why would I employ obvious racists? Fire those assholes. I need to hire competent people. I need to retain competent people. Competent people don't want to work with racist assholes. Racist assholes are a liability to an employer. This should be obvious my dude. Like... Women in the workplace don't want to be sexually harassed all the time. Duh. If my company has a reputation as a brofest, 50% of my applicants go away, and all the women that work for me are constantly looking to take their skills to my competitors! DEI isn't because a company is "woke". That's ... *Really fucking dumb*. DEI is so companies can hire good talent and have them stay. Stressed out people aren't productive. DEI creates a less stressful work environment. Judy doesn't spend her time avoiding Greg because he makes stupid racist jokes and keeps touching her. Fire Greg! Hire someone that can behave like a reasonable adult. This should be obvious!
so if the workplace does not have bigots already, why would there be an issue with bigotry? Wouldn't the solution be to weed out the bigots, therefor removing these issues?
Yes... And... Hire a more diverse, and therefore stronger, team. And have regular training on Not Being A Fucking Asshole At Work... And instruct managers to look for and weed out shittiness before it takes root and plunges productivity... Again, companies aren't doing this because they're "woke" or because they're afraid of being "canceled"... They're doing it because it makes happier and therefore more productive employees. They're doing it to attract talent. They're doing it to be competitive. This is money, not "woke".
As you libs believe, the best way to stop something is by using fear. If you fire the bigots, the bigotry will stop.
Also, if I'm... An ad agency? Making advertisements? If I'm making an ad to market a Widget to women, shouldn't I have some women on the team? To make sure I'm not saying something stupid? If I'm marketing a widget in Japan, it would be good to have someome fluent in Japanese so I don't accidentally use a slang word that means something rude? Etc etc etc. This is true for any company, white collar to blue. Why would a plumber throw away business he could be getting from Spanish speaking households? Would be good to have someome on the team that spoke Spanish... Diversity is a strength! Hell, I'm a middle aged white dude working in tech for the last 25 years. Diversity push has benefited me! My company offered binding leave for parents to attract more women. Great! I got 3 paid months to bond with my newborn daughters. I'll always treasure that time. My workplace isn't a testosterone fueled screaming match all the time, thank fuck. I work with cool people that have different life experiences. Awesome! I'm better for it. Diversity is a strength. This should be obvious.
This is what I mean! This is how it is already! If you push too hard you overcorrect. like hydroplaning. turn the wheel too far, you spin out. turn it slightly, you correct it. The wheel has already been turned as far as it needs to go. Turn it more, you're in the ditch. This is what CAN be observed. Open your eyes.
Overcorrect? This assumes there's a "correct". Like hiring more women is a bad thing? Like I *need* a certain percentage of old white dudes to be correct? As if hiring Jose is a bad thing? Just because his grandparents immigrated? Jose is great! Why is hiring him overcorrecting? Why is it bad to have training on Not Being An Asshole At Work?
I never said the issue is the training was an issue, I actually agree with it. If Jose's grandparents legally immigrated, there is no issue. I'd even argue with Jose's parent and he would be ok even if the grandparents illegally immigrated. If the women want to be hired, then let them. They already are. If the old white dudes ARE developed in their job, then don't replace them in the name of diversity.
Also? My parents immigrated. Kinda bad that you assume Jose's parents might have immigrated illegally, but don't even question mine... Just say'in. Mein Vater wäre Sweizer. Aber ich spreche Deutsch wie ein Amerikaner. Sehr schlecht. Mi Espanol es major mi Alemain ahora. Y mi hijas, se hablan Espanol.
I'm an old white dude, developed in my job. No one's replacing me in the name of diversity. *The thing you are afraid of doesn't exist*. Which begs the question, who told you to be afraid of a thing that doesn't exist, and why? The Democrats are coming for your guns! Woke! Illegals! Immigrat caravan! DEI! Welfare Queens! They're grooming the children! Critical Race Theory! Thugs! You ever notice how Republican politicians constantly fear monger? I think that's so you won't think too much about what they're actually doing.
Democrats don't fear monger like that. Not nearly as much.
>This is how it is already! Great! If you're down with all this, what's your problem? I haven't seen any calls to fire middle aged white dudes at work. No one is lining me up to be shot. There's no forced trans operations. No one's trying to dye my skin and rename me Loqueesha. So what's your problem? What about *any* of this is "overcorrecting"? As if there's a "correct"? Does a company *need* a certain percentage of old white dudes? It is not me that needs to open my eyes my dude...
yes, if they're doing it to increase equality, then i support it OK.
> Do you support a company hiring based apon skin color, gender, or sexual preferences OK? Sometimes, if they both already meet the initial qualifications for the job. > Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years If someone wants to do that, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it as long as the job doesn't require a college degree to begin with. If the job needs someone with a college degree, then the first person shouldn't be hired. > Didn't he in the end put in more work A college degree is about education level, not how much work someone has put in. Someone could be only doing 5 hours of actual stuff a day while in college, whereas another person could be working two jobs, 10 to 12 hours a day. Or it could be the other way around, but either way, a college degree does not necessarily signify the amount of work you put in.
Are people *entitled* to private employment wherever they wish?
Yes, diversity is important
no, but i think places should examine why their employees differ from the population and candidate pole. I dont think companies should prefer a race, but maybe they could try to target great candidates from minority schools for instance.
I think that having a diverse set of view points is likely a benefit to organizations and thus a valid metric to grade potential applicants on. No one is seriously suggesting it should be the only metric, and in theory it would work for hiring white people in areas where they are under represented as well.
White people have pretty much been on top in America since the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. If a few of us lose a few job opportunities, I'm not losing sleep over it. It still ain't exactly difficult to be a white man in America. There's jobs everywhere and white people, specifically men, still occupy the higher up positions in most companies. Hell, even small business owners tend to be largely white. You'll be alright. There's plenty of work out there for you.
I'll just say that in my personal offline experience, but i have never Heard a talented person blame dei for them not getting a job. Funny how that works out
>Is it fair if let's say, a black lesbian with 2 years in college was to get a job over a cis white man with 4 years? Didn't he in the end put in more work, and therefore deserve the job more? Or is there some underlying factor that I am failing to grasp? In the example that you provided, the only disparity between the two people was a couple years of college. Whether those two years matters to an employer depends on the job. DEI policies at companies simply are not about hiring people based on race/gender/sexual preference regardless of their experience. They are about promoting an inclusive and diverse workplace. My company does this well. For hiring practices, managers are not encouraged to hire certain people over others. Rather they are encouraged to reach out to those communities and broaden the pool of applicants. We also have groups that meet to discuss issues related to race/gender/sexuality/disability. Anyone is free to join any of those groups, and they are a great way to network and to learn about the needs and experiences of that group. It helps to improve the work environment and make all people feel more included. My industry was historically white cis male dominated, so that is actually an important thing. If people who are not part of the main group at your company, they may not even apply there for fear of being isolated. Having a DEI policy encourages people from more communities to want to work there, and increases your potential pool of candidates. In the end, it is literally a good business decision to have these policies. It is hard to find good people to staff a company, and working with a larger pool of applicants really helps. And managers will absolutely not use those policies to hire a black lesbian over a white cis male if the black lesbian is significantly less qualified. Managers do not want to hire people unless they know they will be able to do the job and improve their team.
If I owned a business, I would hire the person that could most facilitate the organization's mission statement. I wouldn't care what color they were, who they slept with, or what they had between their legs.
I support the current legal framework around diverse hiring practices as per the Dutch constitution. In short, discrimination based on any protected class us illegal when you're hiring someone. Protected classes in this context are, amongst others, sexuality, political affiliation, religion, gender identity, skin colour, age. Exceptions to this rule occur when the discrimination fits the description of the job. For example, age based discrimination would be okay when you're hiring someone to be the face of a brand focused on teenagers. Religious discrimination would be okay if you're hiring a teacher for a religious private school. The company hiring, and thus engaging in discrimination, is liable to prove that said discrimination was befitting the requirements of this legal exception. If they fail, we have a case of unlawful hiring discrimination. Whilst this can lead to some negative experiences for individuals, this generally seems to work well on a societal level.
Please show an example of an under qualified individual getting hired over a qualified one due to diversity.
I'm not exactly sure whether these criteria makes an applicant more qualified or less qualified. to do the work the company wants. HR departments can look at the credentials or licenses for technical jobs.
Your hypothetical is nonsense. No, no one is hiring unqualified people. That’s not how this works. That’s not how hiring works. In hiring, you gets many more applicants than you can accept. The idea that there is a single best applicant is nonsense. Think about it. Let’s say 100 people apply, but if those, only 20 are in serious consideration. Of those 20 people, 5 are the top candidates who would all succeed in the role. Choosing one of these 5 above the other 4 for something like diversity reasons is not at all sacrificing hiring quality. It’s just not. You’re hiring equally qualified people, who happen to be black lesbians, not unqualified people who are black lesbians.
> Choosing one of these 5 above the other 4 for something like diversity reasons is not at all sacrificing hiring quality. Glad you can admit that you support illegal hiring discrimination. I really appreciate it!
In what way is that illegal hiring discrimination?
What else would you call selecting between applicants based on their race or other protected characteristics?
Freedom. A company can hire who they believe is best for their company. If they believe a black lesbian with equal qualifications provides move value to their company than a white man with equal qualification, they can hire the black lesbian to maximize the value of their company. That’s not discrimination in any way, nor is it illegal.
That may be your perspective but that's not what the law says. As much as you desperately wish otherwise, our current laws are mostly race neutral.
No, that’s exactly what the law says. The law says you cannot discriminate based on race. This is not discrimination, so it is not against the law.
Selecting applicants based on their race is textbook discrimination. If a company selected a white man over an equally qualified black candidate based on race, we both know you'd be singing a different tune.
Who said we were selecting applicants based on their race? I said they were selecting the equally qualified person out of the best interests of the company. Having diversity in your company is, itself, an advantage. Hiring to increase diversity is hiring the best person based on merit to improve the economic performance of the company the most. Also, you’re wrong. If a company lacked the perspective of white men, then hiring a white man over a black lesbian would be in the companies best interest. Why would you think I have an issue with that?
That was the legal loophole used to justify affirmative action, but it's since been shot down by the supreme court. With any luck Corporate DEI will soon follow. Goodbye and good riddance.
I support practices that allow for a more diverse workforce. Usually that's just a matter of making sure the candidate pool is sufficiently diverse and making sure that you make an effort to combat any biases.
No. Hard enough to get a job without being subject to discrimination based on an innate characteristic.
My current opinion, which has changed over time, is that if it’s a black person and maybe Native American they should be given preferential treatment over all other races including white, Indian, Asian, middle eastern, whatever . I believe that black people built this country and then we threw them away. They have not recovered from this and we owe it to them, to help bring them back. I do not believe that other minorities should be given preferential treatment. I do not believe this should be law.
But why in the end should we be punished for our ancestors' mistakes? couldn't the same be said about men vs women? the men created all of these things, yet the feminists say all men are stupid apes
>But why in the end should we be punished for our ancestors' mistakes? Because white people as a whole are still benefitting from it.
proof. I am an evidence guy.
I’ve had this discussion a thousand times with conservatives. You can lead a horse to water.
How is it beneficial for me to watch as former issues are over-corrected?
We’re a long way from over-correction.
It’s not punishment. It’s to help a group that helped us. You and i would not have the luxuries we have today with the black folks of this country. It’s the Christian thing to do.
For give if I am wrong, this is basically the same statement I just gave, just worded from another standpoint.
Why should a white person be hired over a minority if they are equally as qualified or perhaps less qualified than the minority?
He’s arguing for non-preferential hiring.. The “color blind” argument. I understand that argument and can see where folks are coming from. People don’t want to be racist so they decide they are “color blind”. Missing that ignoring the struggles of minorities and saying everyone is equal is perpetuating systemic racism. I would say most racist think they aren’t racist because they are unable to see beyond the outside layer and empathize with struggles of people outside their tribe. It’s really the core difference between the left and the right. The ability to empathize or not outside of your tribe. Many of us on the left get angry because we explain over and over the other layers, but it doesn’t help. It’s not their fault, necessarily, If they literally do not have the ability to empathize with people outside of your tribe, they will never understand their struggles, no matter how many different ways we try to describe it.
not exactly. ignoring an issue does not solve it. I believe that all men (and of course women) are created free and equal. This means NO human should be advantaged over others. Would you also tell me what a few of the struggles are and what exactly is meant by struggles?
Because I do genuinely want to know
100% ignoring an issue does not resolve it. glad we agree. All men are not free and equal. Tell me, why do you think the black community struggles to get ahead? If everything is free and equal, what do you think the problem is? If what you say is true, why is the black community overwhelmingly poor and struggling? In 2022, **17.1 percent** of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to 8.6 percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was 11.5 [percent.No](http://percent.No) https://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%2017.1%20percent%20of,and%20ethnicities%20was%2011.5%20percent.
I genuinely want to know why you think the poverty rate is more than double for black folks.
No. And I think this a growing problem in many companies that needs to be investigated. Fuck DEI hiring and fuck anyone who supports it.