Split Thread DEI in the US

[Trausti]

edited for persnickety-ness: DEI attempts to remove the preferential treatment that white people have.

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

 

[Trausti]

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". There are no hiring quotas. It is simply that you, as an angry white guy, are upset that you no longer get the preferential treatment that you have always gotten.

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

 

[Trausti]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1958185038673068486

 

[plague311]

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

I love that you typed this out while thinking, "Got him there, didn't I?", when in reality it just shows how ignorant you are.

I don't think any of you have any ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue in the slightest as to what DEI actually does or what the guidelines are. In fact, I bet you couldn't accurately describe it to me in your own words if I paid you.

 

[plague311]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1958185038673068486

And we should give a ◊◊◊◊ what this guy says because....why again? This is just a naked appeal to authority and not even a good one.

 

[Trausti]

I love that you typed this out while thinking, "Got him there, didn't I?", when in reality it just shows how ignorant you are.

I don't think any of you have any ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue in the slightest as to what DEI actually does or what the guidelines are. In fact, I bet you couldn't accurately describe it to me in your own words if I paid you.

Can you? Or is this one of these ideas keep deliberately vague so that its proponents can escape scrutiny?

 

[Trausti]

And we should give a ◊◊◊◊ what this guy says because....why again? This is just a naked appeal to authority and not even a good one.

But he ain't wrong. DEI is meant to exclude unfavored groups; otherwise, its beneficiaries wouldn't obfuscate so hard for it.

 

[Trausti]

 

[plague311]

Can you? Or is this one of these ideas keep deliberately vague so that its proponents can escape scrutiny?

Not sure what this word salad means. Can I define it? Sure. I absolutely can. Would you agree with it? No. Would you handwave it away? Yes.

But he ain't wrong.

Yes, he is. What you mean to say is, "I don't think he's wrong". That's accurate; however, I think you're wrong pretty much all of the time. So we'll disagree. You can think he's right all you want, and I can think he's an old crank talking out of his ass. Just because he teaches at a school and makes a claim doesn't mean I have to agree with it. There's no sources, there's no evidence, it's just his opinion. It means nothing more to me than anyone else's opinion.

DEI is meant to exclude unfavored groups; otherwise, its beneficiaries wouldn't obfuscate so hard for it.

Yes, I've already seen you say this. As I said to your buddy, just because you repeatedly say it doesn't mean that it's actually true.

We can flip this logic easily. "If DEI didn't put PoC on equal footing, then old, angry, white men wouldn't bitch about it so much". See? I can make unsupported, random claims too!

 

[plague311]

Again, give us a reason why we should care about this. Who is she? What does she do? What's the context of the picture? What is she teaching?

You're like a facebook grifter that just posts random ◊◊◊◊ to try and make a point, but you can't actually make a point. Seriously, this is a skeptics forum. Try some skepticism.

 

[Trausti]

Again, give us a reason why we should care about this. Who is she? What does she do? What's the context of the picture? What is she teaching?

You're like a facebook grifter that just posts random ◊◊◊◊ to try and make a point, but you can't actually make a point. Seriously, this is a skeptics forum. Try some skepticism.

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.

 

[plague311]

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.

And what the ◊◊◊◊ does that image have to do with any of what you're saying?

I absolutely, completely, and entirely agree that NO ONE should face a disadvantage due to their sex or race. I absolutely, completely and entirely know that, given blind resume submissions, their sex and race put PoC and women at a disadvantage. I absolutely, completely and entirely know that DEI initiatives are aimed at combating those very issues.

So we can agree. I'm glad you now see the virtues of DEI initiatives. Good on you.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've said it before. The opposite of diversity is uniformity. The opposite of equity is discrimination. The opposite of inclusion is exclusion.

If you're not in favour of DEI, then you are in favour of uniformity, discrimination, and exclusion. Since it's only ever white people who argue against DEI, this amounts to white supremacy.

The basic premise of the anti-DEI argument is that people of colour, women, disabled people, LGBTQIA+ people, and people of other minority groups should not get opportunities when there is a cishet white man who could get it instead.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Firms whose business is to coach other companies on improving their financial performance and competitiveness are among the loudest cheerleaders for DEI...

McKinsey and Co

McKinsey has been examining diversity in the workplace for several years. Our latest report, Diversity Matters, examined proprietary data sets for 366 public companies across a range of industries in Canada, Latin America, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In this research, we looked at metrics such as financial results and the composition of top management and boards.1 The findings were clear:

• Companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians.
• Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 15 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians (exhibit).

Deloitte
More DEI cheerleading.

A Forbes article

Beyond profitability, DEI contributes to stronger stakeholder capitalism. Companies prioritizing inclusivity are better equipped to meet the needs of diverse consumers, enhance employee satisfaction, and build resilient organizational cultures. As the workforce becomes increasingly global and multicultural, ignoring DEI risks alienating key stakeholders and forfeiting market opportunities.

The proof is in the pudding/data.

 

[Trausti]

And what the ◊◊◊◊ does that image have to do with any of what you're saying?

I absolutely, completely, and entirely agree that NO ONE should face a disadvantage due to their sex or race. I absolutely, completely and entirely know that, given blind resume submissions, their sex and race put PoC and women at a disadvantage. I absolutely, completely and entirely know that DEI initiatives are aimed at combating those very issues.

So we can agree. I'm glad you now see the virtues of DEI initiatives. Good on you.

How can you say you agree that NO ONE should face disadvantage then say that race should be a factor?

 

[Trausti]

Firms whose business is to coach other companies on improving their financial performance and competitiveness are among the loudest cheerleaders for DEI...

McKinsey and Co


Deloitte
More DEI cheerleading.

A Forbes article


The proof is in the pudding/data.

No.

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

When people say that DEI is good for business, they nearly always look at a business that is already successful and contend that its later adoption of DEI is why it is successful. But - and I've certainly asked this on this forum - there is no example of a poorly performing company that righted itself to profitability by adopting DEI. DEI was simply a contemporary tithe paid by already successful companies for public relations. Yet, when the cash runs low DEI is the first to go.

 

[arthwollipot]

there is no example of a poorly performing company that righted itself to profitability by adopting DEI

Why should that be the litmus test?

 

[Trausti]

Why should that be the litmus test?

If you (maybe not you) are going to argue that businesses need DEI to be successful, there should at least be some evidence of that by now. But, nada.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you (maybe not you) are going to argue that businesses need DEI to be successful, there should at least be some evidence of that by now. But, nada.

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

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

McKinsey isn't the only source for data:

JSTOR

The results support seven of these hypotheses: racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. Gender diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, and greater relative profits.

ResearchGate

Evidence across education, workplaces, healthcare, and the justice system shows that DEI fosters innovation, builds trust, and reduces inequities, while its absence reinforces systemic barriers and weakens social cohesion. Analysis of Executive Order 13950 (Office of the Federal Register, 2020) illustrates how political resistance misrepresents DEI as divisive and obstructs equity work. Findings demonstrate that eliminating DEI imposes social and economic costs, and the paper concludes by recommending that DEI be embedded as a permanent pillar of policy and practice.

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