• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

I wonder how the new rules about total equality are going to be enforced. Will there be somebdoy who feels, they are being discrimnated aginast can complain to?
And why did Trump also revoke Anti Dsicrimantion EO dating back to the 60's?
4.
 
Last edited:
And if this truns into a purge of all now White from any higher position, will the Trumpers here walk back what they have said?
 
dudalb said:
I wonder how the new rules about total equality are going to be enforced. Will there be somebdoy who feels, they are being discrimnated aginast can complain to?
Click to expand...
Same as ever: Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, federal courts, state courts.
dudalb said:
And why did Trump also revoke Anti Dsicrimantion EO dating back to the 60's?
4.
Click to expand...
I already answered that question. Lyndon Johnson's 1965 EO 11246 was "the federal authority underpinning affirmative action for federal contractors and subcontractors," as the law firm Duane & Morris explains.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
So racsim and bigotry is not wrong in your book. Totally expected.
Click to expand...
It's kinda already been established in this thread that DEI provides no objective benefit to private business; so why should taxpayers have to pay for it in the public sector? How does DEI bureaucracy help the DOT build or maintain roads? How does DEI bureaucracy help NASA with space flight? Considering how overbudget and behind schedule Artemis is, the answer is not at all. The purpose of taxation and government shouldn't be to provide useless sinecures for political commissars.
 
Trausti said:
It's kinda already been established in this thread that DEI provides no objective benefit to private business...
Click to expand...
No it hasn't. You and jt keep saying it is, and showing us biased sources that agree with you while ignoring sources that don't, but this has not been established.
 
Trausti said:
It's kinda already been established in this thread that DEI provides no objective benefit to private business...
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
No it hasn't. You and jt keep saying it is, and showing us biased sources that agree with you while ignoring sources that don't, but this has not been established.
Click to expand...
This is pretty funny. Not only have you made up that I have shown you studies that DEI provides no benefit to private business, you've decided without seeing them that the studies agree with and are biased. This might lead one to believe that any study you were to see that showed no benefit of DEI to business you would conclude is biased.
 
Anyway, it seems that corporations are figuring out for themselves that DEI doesn't help them (or actually harms them). Here is a list of major American corporations that have recently ended their DEI programs according to Time magazine:
  • Target,
  • Meta,
  • Amazon,
  • McDonalds,
  • Walmart,
  • Ford,
  • Lowes,
  • Harley-Davidson,
  • Brown-Forman (makes Jack Daniels),
  • John Deere,
  • Tractor Supply.
The list will only grow.
 
It is sort of amuisng that a number of bigots here try to disguise their bigotry and fail miserably.
 
jt512 said:
That claim is made all the time, but there is little if any good data to support it. There are also contradictory studies that have found that homogenous groups to be more productive.
Click to expand...
Jujst to show where this poster is coming from.
 
jt512 said:
Anyway, it seems that corporations are figuring out for themselves that DEI doesn't help them (or actually harms them). Here is a list of major American corporations that have recently ended their DEI programs according to Time magazine:
  • Target,
  • Meta,
  • Amazon,
  • McDonalds,
  • Walmart,
  • Ford,
  • Lowes,
  • Harley-Davidson,
  • Brown-Forman (makes Jack Daniels),
  • John Deere,
  • Tractor Supply.
The list will only grow.
Click to expand...
How many aren't ending it though?
 
arthwollipot said:
No it hasn't. You and jt keep saying it is, and showing us biased sources that agree with you while ignoring sources that don't, but this has not been established.
Click to expand...
The sources are addressing different questions.

Your sources demonstrate that companies with a high pre-existing level of diversity in terms of age, ethnicity, socio-economic background, and beliefs tend to be more successful than companies with lower levels. And it's correct about that assessment, although there are a few other factors that could contribute that haven't been considered by your sources. For example, the companies with the highest degree of diversity are those that are larger companies with a lot more employees spanning a much broader scope of roles within the company; smaller companies generally tend to have a smaller scope of work and a smaller pool of applicants who tend to be locally sourced. That smaller scale is more likely to result in less diversity in the workforce, but does NOT suggest that any racism is at work at all.

What your sources do not demonstrate is that DEI policies and departments lead to higher success. That's something you (and others) have extrapolated based on your own personal belief. You believe that DEI policies will force diversity to occur, and that forced diversity is as effective as naturally occurring diversity.

The sources that Trausti and others shared are looking at the effectiveness of DEI policies and departments, and showing that they don't correlate with success, and can in some cases increase employee abrasion.
 
dudalb said:
Guy, why d you hate diversity so much?
Click to expand...
Disliking forced diversity does not imply that one dislikes naturally occurring diversity.

Seriously, I would very strongly oppose any intentional efforts to incentivize people to marry outside of their own ethnic background... which doesn't at all imply that I oppose mixed marriages. I'm all for them - my parents, several of my aunts and uncles, my sibling, and most of my friends all have mixed marriages. I'm the outlier in that I married a white person... but my spouse's skin color was 100% not a factor in our relationship, and many of my prior relationships were diverse. My spouse just happened to be the one I jived with best.

It's the authoritarian nature of DEI programs and the inherent assumption of racism that I oppose, not the diversity.
 
dudalb said:
Jujst to show where this poster is coming from.
Click to expand...
Just stop already. Your views are based in your own malice-infested assumptions, not in reality.

There are very likely many situations where homogeneity across some aspect does produce more effective outcomes. At a minimum, homogeneity tends to increase the likelihood of shared core values and similar approaches to work. It depends on the nature of the work. A retailer that serves a highly diverse population of customers will probably be more successful if they have a similarly diverse group of product designers, purchasers, marketing and sales groups, and leadership. On the other hand... a technology company that designs airplanes probably doesn't make any difference if people look the same or different as long as they're all using the same math and engineering principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom