Split Thread DEI in the US

[Trausti]

But again, why should that be the litmus test? Why is capitalistic cash-grabbing the only measure of success that matters?

Have whatever gage you like, just don't pretend it makes a business profitable.

 

[Trausti]

McKinsey isn't the only source for data:

JSTOR


ResearchGate


The Conversation -- an article with many links to studies, including what leads many people to think DEI is bunk despite the evidence.

One example. Just one example of an underperforming company that adopted DEI and got profitable. Just one. You're aware that companies have been massively profitable without DEI for many decades, right? How'd they do that? And the main criticism of DEI studies is that they're not replicable. It's like they're just making stuff up.

 

[arthwollipot]

Have whatever gage you like, just don't pretend it makes a business profitable.

I ask again - why is making a business profitable the litmus test?

 

[Trausti]

I ask again - why is making a business profitable the litmus test?

So you don't go bankrupt?

 

[jt512]

Nonsense. DEI is not affirmative action. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. There is no preferential treatment for "preferred identity groups".

I don't know whether you are lying or willfully ignorant to the extreme, because there is no reasonable way that anyone could believe that DEI the embodiment of classical Enlightenment values, as you claim it is.

 

[jt512]

Among the many articles in the peer reviewed literature and elsewhere that document that DEI is just a form of affirmative action driven by "progressive" ideology is the peer-reviewed article "Politicizing Science Funding Undermines Public Trust in Science, Academic fFeedom, and the Unbiased Generation of Knowledge" by Epimov et al. (2024). As the article explains:

There has been a broad effort to use science funding to further the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) agenda (OSTP, 2022; Barabino et al., 2023; EO 13985; EO 14091). While the terms “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” connote lofty goals with which the majority of Americans agree, a close look at what is actually implemented under the DEI umbrella reveals that these words represent something entirely different.​

Actual DEI policies do not promote viewpoint diversity, equitable treatment of individuals based on their accomplishments, or equal opportunity for individuals regardless of their identity (e.g., race, sex, ethnicity). It can scarcely be questioned (Krylov and Tanzman, 2024) that DEI programs today are driven by an ideology, an offshoot of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) (Pluckrose, 2021; Deichmann, 2023). DEI programs elevate the collective above the individual. They group people into categories defined by immutable characteristics (race, sex, etc.) and classify each group as either “privileged” or “victimized,” as “oppressor” or “oppressed.” The goals of DEI programs are to have each group participate in proportion to their fraction of the population in every endeavor of society and to obtain proportionate outcomes from those endeavors. Disproportionate outcomes (with respect to science, such outcomes as publications, funding, citations, salaries, and awards), or disparities, are axiomatically ascribed to systemic factors, such as systemic racism and sexism, without consideration of alternative explanations (Sowell, 2019, 2023). Claims, such as “The presence of disparities is proof of systemic racism” and “Meritocracy is a myth” are propagated widely despite the vagueness of the claims and their lack of support by concrete data.​

The remainder of the paper meticulously documents these claims.

 

[arthwollipot]

We know that some institutions mask their activities by calling them "DEI" but that does not mean that they are actually upholding the principles of DEI. We know that the rightists, led by known sex pest and friend of Jeffrey Epstein, Lawrence Krauss, are spreading the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea that DEI is somehow undermining science. There was a whole multi-author book about it, with contributions from folks like Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne (all known bastions of moderate and thoughtful discourse) published by Swift Press, a small publishing company that usually publishes right-wing conservative political and Christian works. An odd choice for a bunch of atheists, in my opinion, but anyway. How are sales going on that, by the way?

That some people are calling "DEI" things that are definitely not diversity, equity or inclusion in no way undermines the importance of those three principles. That some people are writing and publishing papers documenting these things that are definitely not DEI doesn't mean that DEI is somehow bad or undesirable.

We know that DEI was the culture-war-du-jour for a while, like CRT before it and "political correctness" before that. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Everyone except the brainwashed anti-woke warriors (AWW) can see it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

DEI is only for Christians

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

One example. Just one example of an underperforming company that adopted DEI and got profitable. Just one. You're aware that companies have been massively profitable without DEI for many decades, right? How'd they do that? And the main criticism of DEI studies is that they're not replicable. It's like they're just making stuff up.

I linked to articles that show exactly that. I encourage you to go back to The Conversation piece and follow some of the links.

But let me ask you a question, Trausti. Do you acknowledge the long history (that continues in the present) of minorities being denied jobs by the majority in power? Or that when they get jobs, they're often paid less than their majority counterparts? There's a ton of research on that, right?

So how would you like to see these problems addressed?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's not just Minorities - it's the natural instinct of any employer to hire someone very much like them in ethnic, cultural, educational and socio-economic background. There is no need to invoke Racism, though it is often the easiest explanation.

In short, if I know that someone like me can do the job okay, I will be reluctant to give anyone not like me the chance to try; not only, because they might be worse than me at it, but - the true risk - they might be better, showing that hiring me was the mistake.

It is beneficial for an economy and society to compensate for human fallacies.

 

[wareyin]

I don't know whether you are lying or willfully ignorant to the extreme, because there is no reasonable way that anyone could believe that DEI the embodiment of classical Enlightenment values, as you claim it is.

As someone with direct, firsthand experience, I find your explanation of DEI to be laughably mis-informed.

 

[wareyin]

But not remove preferential treatment that non-White people get. Kinda racist, dude.

Well, that's good to know. Then we can just get rid of it as it doesn't actually do anything.

Does it do anything or not? You seem to be rather confused. I'll give you a hint though, non-white people aren't getting preferred treatment either.

 

[wareyin]

My point is that DEI is discriminatory, otherwise it would not exist. If DEI has nothing to do with preferences, then surely we can all agree that NO ONE should face disadvantage due to their sex or race. But I gotta feeling you'd not be okay with that.

DEI is explicitly to prevent people from facing disadvantage over their sex or race. Removing the advantages that white men have is the opposite of discrimination, and the unconscious bias (or conscious bias in some cases here) that people have for thinking white men are automatically a better candidate is the exact "preference" it is trying to overcome.

 

[dirtywick]

We know that some institutions mask their activities by calling them "DEI" but that does not mean that they are actually upholding the principles of DEI. We know that the rightists, led by known sex pest and friend of Jeffrey Epstein, Lawrence Krauss, are spreading the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea that DEI is somehow undermining science. There was a whole multi-author book about it, with contributions from folks like Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne (all known bastions of moderate and thoughtful discourse) published by Swift Press, a small publishing company that usually publishes right-wing conservative political and Christian works. An odd choice for a bunch of atheists, in my opinion, but anyway. How are sales going on that, by the way?

That some people are calling "DEI" things that are definitely not diversity, equity or inclusion in no way undermines the importance of those three principles. That some people are writing and publishing papers documenting these things that are definitely not DEI doesn't mean that DEI is somehow bad or undesirable.

We know that DEI was the culture-war-du-jour for a while, like CRT before it and "political correctness" before that. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Everyone except the brainwashed anti-woke warriors (AWW) can see it.

i don’t mind that. seeing someone bring up dei is like an early warning signal you’re about to hear something stupid about black people

 

[wareyin]

Among the many articles in the peer reviewed literature and elsewhere that document that DEI is just a form of affirmative action driven by "progressive" ideology is the peer-reviewed article "Politicizing Science Funding Undermines Public Trust in Science, Academic fFeedom, and the Unbiased Generation of Knowledge" by Epimov et al. (2024). As the article explains:

There has been a broad effort to use science funding to further the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) agenda (OSTP, 2022; Barabino et al., 2023; EO 13985; EO 14091). While the terms “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” connote lofty goals with which the majority of Americans agree, a close look at what is actually implemented under the DEI umbrella reveals that these words represent something entirely different.​

Actual DEI policies do not promote viewpoint diversity, equitable treatment of individuals based on their accomplishments, or equal opportunity for individuals regardless of their identity (e.g., race, sex, ethnicity). It can scarcely be questioned (Krylov and Tanzman, 2024) that DEI programs today are driven by an ideology, an offshoot of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) (Pluckrose, 2021; Deichmann, 2023). DEI programs elevate the collective above the individual. They group people into categories defined by immutable characteristics (race, sex, etc.) and classify each group as either “privileged” or “victimized,” as “oppressor” or “oppressed.” The goals of DEI programs are to have each group participate in proportion to their fraction of the population in every endeavor of society and to obtain proportionate outcomes from those endeavors. Disproportionate outcomes (with respect to science, such outcomes as publications, funding, citations, salaries, and awards), or disparities, are axiomatically ascribed to systemic factors, such as systemic racism and sexism, without consideration of alternative explanations (Sowell, 2019, 2023). Claims, such as “The presence of disparities is proof of systemic racism” and “Meritocracy is a myth” are propagated widely despite the vagueness of the claims and their lack of support by concrete data.​

The remainder of the paper meticulously documents these claims.

At a first glance, the paper starts with a flat out lie that DEI plans are required for funding, and goes from there. It badly distorts the grant process to be unrecognizable to those with decades of first hand knowledge and in fact has had a few rather thorough takedowns of the many errors and misrepresentations in the paper.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We know that DEI was the culture-war-du-jour for a while, like CRT before it and "political correctness" before that. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Everyone except the brainwashed anti-woke warriors (AWW) can see it.

I think it's encouraging that they have to keep rebranding the bugbear, it shows it's not working. I wonder what the next iteration will be?

 

[dirtywick]

that immigrants are causing all the problems and we need to get rid of them

 

[Resume]

I think it's encouraging that they have to keep rebranding the bugbear, it shows it's not working. I wonder what the next iteration will be?

The way things seem to be going, it's just gonna be the n-word.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So you don't go bankrupt?

Interesting to see that question being asked by the same person who cited Spiked as an authority:

No, DEI is not good for business All those studies supporting ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ have turned out to be bunk.

Spiked arose from the ashes of Living Marxism, which went bankrupt in 2000. Why did LM go bankrupt? Because LM accused Independent Television News (ITN) of deception in its coverage of the Trnopolje internment camp during the Bosnian war. According to LM, the Muslims at that camp were refugees who could leave any time they wished. But "history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia." It was LM, with its anti-Muslim agenda, that was fighting against the truth.

That anti-Muslim agenda continues at Spiked, often promoted by contributors who promoted that agenda at LM. As noted by Wikipedia, Spiked regularly speaks out in support of folks like Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson.

I haven't read the article cited by @Trausti. But if Spiked is the authority @Trausti chooses to cite in support of his anti-DEI views, I find it easier to understand why @Trausti holds those views.

You believe that white people get preferential treatment

They do. See: the Trump administration

In particular, look at Trump's cabinet. You don't get that kind of clown show by selecting on the basis of merit.

 

[plague311]

So you don't go bankrupt?

This doesn't even make sense. Plenty of businesses start off diverse, are we not taking those into consideration? You're looking for something that, more than likely, won't be documented. Mostly because DEI's goal isn't to increase revenue, it's not a business plan to save a failing business, but that doesn't mean that businesses haven't become more profitable after implementing DEI protocols. We also have a very prime example of a massive company ditching their DEI standards and losing a ton of money, we all know it as Target.