Yet that’s how many orgs implemented it which is why so many people are against it. It’s not that DEI is bad, it’s that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI at all. But the pendulum ever swings and always with more momentum towards progress.
Utter trash. Please show me the organization that hired more women and minorities than white males.
The DEI pendelum allowed a few woman and even fewer minorities the chance at a job they could never get and now it is time to swing back to all white males again.
It is an extreme sexist and racist overreaction, end of story.
Sure, I do find it strange that you edgelords who seem to have a hard time with DEI training have never taken it
You take a class either independently or with a group. During this time you receive instruction explaining how all people are of value and how having a diverse range of decision makers produces better decisions.
There may be some scenarios that highlight how having, let’s say a woman in the workplace could be helpful. Imagine a bunch of men sitting around bitchinng about their wives. The women in the group explains something about how women think and the guys realize that they are misinterpreting what their wives are doing.
That is about the gist of it. In a lot of ways it is the kind of lesson you would learn in kindergarten. A lot of people never got this lesson and are extremely racist and sexist. DEI attempts to deliver the message they never got.
That doesn’t answer what I asked at all, you only answered once more what DEI is in theory.
I’m also not an edgelord though you are welcome to think that. I understand exactly how diversity is good and how it helps, being non white myself.
But I’ll repeat my question. How did organizations implement DEI hiring policies? How did they put what they supposedly learned in those classes in practice?
There is no smoking gun that you seem to be looking for. DEI is voluntary and does not actually affect hiring policies beyond the small chance of opening a hiring managers mind to the the possibility of hiring someone different than they are.
A common criticism from bigots is that there is some requirement to hire minorities/women. This is false.
This is why the racist and sexist push back is so ridiculous and why I said the characterization that the pendulum swings progressively forward is garbage.
DEI has ultimately lead to a small number of women getting hired and an even smaller number of minorities. It has in no way accomplished it’s stated goal of creating an inclusive and understanding workplace.
This actually makes sense since it is a very short training and it is up to everyone in the workplace to actually make the positive changes.
Another criticism that has been leveled at DEI is it is just another way to make money. This argument is actually about capitalism itself though which is a system where everything is motivated by money so I don’t really consider it valid.
The most valid criticism is around how effective DEI is at motivating change. It is true diverse organizations make better decisions and that means higher profits. As I said earlier the hard work comes from everyone at the company to improve things not a short presentation that is essentially treat people that are different than you as equals.
It is clear based upon this discussion that you probably hold an extreme belief about DEI. Hence the whole edgelord thing. Maybe you have not completely made up your mind yet.
Yet that’s how many orgs implemented it which is why so many people are against it. It’s not that DEI is bad, it’s that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI at all. But the pendulum ever swings and always with more momentum towards progress.
Utter trash. Please show me the organization that hired more women and minorities than white males.
The DEI pendelum allowed a few woman and even fewer minorities the chance at a job they could never get and now it is time to swing back to all white males again.
It is an extreme sexist and racist overreaction, end of story.
Could you explain how DEI works in practice. Not in theory or what it is supposed to do, but rather how companies implemented it and carried it out.
Sure, I do find it strange that you edgelords who seem to have a hard time with DEI training have never taken it
You take a class either independently or with a group. During this time you receive instruction explaining how all people are of value and how having a diverse range of decision makers produces better decisions.
There may be some scenarios that highlight how having, let’s say a woman in the workplace could be helpful. Imagine a bunch of men sitting around bitchinng about their wives. The women in the group explains something about how women think and the guys realize that they are misinterpreting what their wives are doing.
That is about the gist of it. In a lot of ways it is the kind of lesson you would learn in kindergarten. A lot of people never got this lesson and are extremely racist and sexist. DEI attempts to deliver the message they never got.
That doesn’t answer what I asked at all, you only answered once more what DEI is in theory. I’m also not an edgelord though you are welcome to think that. I understand exactly how diversity is good and how it helps, being non white myself.
But I’ll repeat my question. How did organizations implement DEI hiring policies? How did they put what they supposedly learned in those classes in practice?
There is no smoking gun that you seem to be looking for. DEI is voluntary and does not actually affect hiring policies beyond the small chance of opening a hiring managers mind to the the possibility of hiring someone different than they are.
A common criticism from bigots is that there is some requirement to hire minorities/women. This is false.
This is why the racist and sexist push back is so ridiculous and why I said the characterization that the pendulum swings progressively forward is garbage.
DEI has ultimately lead to a small number of women getting hired and an even smaller number of minorities. It has in no way accomplished it’s stated goal of creating an inclusive and understanding workplace.
This actually makes sense since it is a very short training and it is up to everyone in the workplace to actually make the positive changes.
Another criticism that has been leveled at DEI is it is just another way to make money. This argument is actually about capitalism itself though which is a system where everything is motivated by money so I don’t really consider it valid.
The most valid criticism is around how effective DEI is at motivating change. It is true diverse organizations make better decisions and that means higher profits. As I said earlier the hard work comes from everyone at the company to improve things not a short presentation that is essentially treat people that are different than you as equals.
It is clear based upon this discussion that you probably hold an extreme belief about DEI. Hence the whole edgelord thing. Maybe you have not completely made up your mind yet.