Split Thread DEI in the US

[d4m10n]

In relatively late-breaking “DEI in the U.S.” news, it appears Employee Resource Groups will be targeted next.

Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[theprestige]

I've always been curious how ERGs were allowed. I think it's because (a) they're employee-organized, (b) the employer doesn't restrict which protected groups can and cannot organize an ERG, (c) employer-supported ERGs are required to admit any interested employee, whether they are a part of that particular protected class or not.

To me, that seems like a reasonable way to do it. I'm not opposed to providing specialized resources to specific protected groups. Whether that's ERGs, networking opportunities, training and coaching, etc. All that needs to be done is to make sure that an employer will offer similarly specialized resources to any protected group that asks for them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You don't. There is actual policy supporting the goals I listed. That policy does not include blatantly sexist (and also illegal) implementations.

What are those policies supporting the goals you listed? What are they called?

 

[theprestige]

What are those policies supporting the goals you listed? What are they called?

I'm not sure what policies you have in mind, but I'm referring to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which says that nobody can be discriminated against in employment, because of their membership in a protected class (sex, race, etc.). Nothing in the EEOA mandates that men should be discriminated against, in order to shatter the glass ceiling. In fact, the EEOA is pretty clear that it would be illegal to discriminate against men for the purpose of advancing women in the workplace.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How does an employer ensure they are in compliance with that act?

 

[theprestige]

How does an employer ensure they are in compliance with that act?

Not by offering benefits to women because of their sex, and denying those same benefits to men because of their sex, that's for sure!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not by offering benefits to women because of their sex, and denying those same benefits to men because of their sex, that's for sure!

Ok.
So what's the beef with DEI programs?

 

[theprestige]

Ok.
So what's the beef with DEI programs?

It depends. The ones that grant and withhold privileges based on an employee's or candidate's protected class are both immoral and illegal. I don't have much of a beef with the ones that aren't.

To your other question, it's not clear to me that a DEI program of any kind does anything to ensure compliance with the EEOA. Since they tend to focus on protected class membership, rather than ignore it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, unlike other MAGA, you don't attack DEI as a means to promote white supremacy?

 

[arthwollipot]

It depends. The ones that grant and withhold privileges based on an employee's or candidate's protected class are both immoral and illegal. I don't have much of a beef with the ones that aren't.

Except that you and others are always assuming that such programs are always and without exception discriminatory by definition.

That's the problem I have with this entire thread. The idea that there is no such thing as DEI without discrimination, when in fact that is the exact opposite of what DEI is.

 

[d4m10n]

The idea that there is no such thing as DEI without discrimination...

It is difficult to conceive of undertaking any particular DEI program without (1) identifying individuals based on their group membership status and (2) treating them differently based on that status. Mostly that differential treatment is just a notation somewhere in a database so the company can track how well they've been doing at your stated goals of "diversity in hiring" & "equity in remuneration" but sometimes it is more substantive, such as hosting an event just for female employees.

 

[theprestige]

Except that you and others are always assuming that such programs are always and without exception discriminatory by definition.

No. Not by definition. In fact we keep telling you that the way it keeps getting implemented in the US is nothing like the definition. This particular policy is a textbook for example of how DEI champions in the US thumb their noses at the definition.

That's the problem I have with this entire thread. The idea that there is no such thing as DEI without discrimination, when in fact that is the exact opposite of what DEI is.

There you go, appealing to the definition again, instead of acknowledging the facts on the ground. Is this women's retreat consistent with the definition of DEI? No. Is it consistent with how DEI tends to get implemented in the US? Yes. Please do your best to internalize this information.

 

[arthwollipot]

It is difficult to conceive of undertaking any particular DEI program without (1) identifying individuals based on their group membership status and (2) treating them differently based on that status. Mostly that differential treatment is just a notation somewhere in a database so the company can track how well they've been doing at your stated goals of "diversity in hiring" & "equity in remuneration" but sometimes it is more substantive, such as hosting an event just for female employees.

See? This is exactly what I mean.

 

[d4m10n]

Counterexamples welcome.

 

[arthwollipot]

Counterexamples welcome.

Except they're not.

 

[theprestige]

Except they're not.

To be fair, an employer-sponsored women's only networking retreat isn't much of a counter-example. No surprise it hasn't received a warm welcome.

 

[arthwollipot]

To be fair, an employer-sponsored women's only networking retreat isn't much of a counter-example. No surprise it hasn't received a warm welcome.

Do you understand why women's retreats exist?

 

[theprestige]

Do you understand why women's retreats exist?

We've been over this.

An employer-sponsored networking retreat for its employees is a job benefit. If it's offered to some employees but not others, based on their sex, it's an immoral policy that goes too far in attempting to satisfy the need for women's retreats. It also happens to be blatantly illegal under current US equal opportunity in employment laws. It also pretty obviously runs afoul of your idealized view of what DEI should be.

I have no idea why you keep trying to lump this retreat in with other more benign, more ethical, and more legal kinds of women's retreats. Is it the dictionary problem again? Anything that's called a "retreat" must have the same positive qualities as an ideal retreat, the same way anything that's called a "DEI program" must have the same positive qualities as an idealized idea of a DEI program?

 

[arthwollipot]

We've been over this.

An employer-sponsored networking retreat for its employees is a job benefit. If it's offered to some employees but not others, based on their sex, it's an immoral policy that goes too far in attempting to satisfy the need for women's retreats. It also happens to be blatantly illegal under current US equal opportunity in employment laws. It also pretty obviously runs afoul of your idealized view of what DEI should be.

I have no idea why you keep trying to lump this retreat in with other more benign, more ethical, and more legal kinds of women's retreats. Is it the dictionary problem again? Anything that's called a "retreat" must have the same positive qualities as an ideal retreat, the same way anything that's called a "DEI program" must have the same positive qualities as an idealized idea of a DEI program?

I thought that was what you were going to say.

In other words, the answer is no, you don't understand why women's retreats exist.

 

[d4m10n]

Does anyone care to argue that the reasons why women's retreats exist—whatever those turn out to be—somehow create a loophole in American antidiscrimination law in the context of employment cases?