• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread DEI in the US

arthwollipot said:
It's in Australian Public Service Speak, which is a language all to its own, but it's pretty clear if you dig into it what the policy of the Australian Government is towards its staff. It's not at all vague - it's quite specific, supported by legislation, and implemented pretty effectively overall.

When I was an employee of the Australian Government, in fact, I had to do mandatory annual refresher course on workplace discrimination, bullying, inclusion, privacy, and a whole bunch of other things, so I know it pretty well. It's comprehensive and has many parts. Here's just one part:


There's quite a lot to it. You're not going to get a complete picture in just a few minutes.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone in a leadership role... please, please don't bring your "whole self" to work. There are parts of each of us that should stay private, and parts that simply have no role in our workplaces.
 
arthwollipot said:
It doesn't matter. Whenever someone argues against DEI it's because they think a woman, a gay person, or a member of a racial minority is getting benefits that they think they deserve more.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It think the problem is that what DEI is on paper and what it is in application are not the same things.

On paper, diversity means that people are hired without consideration given to their skin color or their sex or their orientation. I think everyone in this thread, and the vast majority of people in the developed world think this is a fine goal. But in application, it ends up meaning that skin color and sex and orientation become something is a goal in itself. It results in judging people not by the content of their character but by the color of their skin - the complete opposite of what MLK Jr. stood for. Diversity ought to mean "I will hire the best person for the job, and I don't care if that means they're a green-scaled alien with five arms". What it actually means is "I need to hire more black/brown/homosexual/etc. people".

On paper, inclusion means that nobody is intentionally made to feel unwelcome. It think we all agree that that's a good objective too. But in application, it ends up meaning that everyone is expected to actively celebrate and reify skin color or sexual orientation, and that anyone who doesn't is ideologically ostracised and made to feel like they're an outsider.

The problem with equity is a different one altogether. Some of you think that equity is a good objective, some of us understand that equity can only be achieved by treating people unequally, by actively favoring some people over others, by discriminating against some people in order to grant privileges to others. Those of us who think equity is a bad idea almost universally are strong supporters of equal opportunity. And many of us think that to achieve equal opportunity, we need to invest in childhood nutrition, education, and security without consideration to race, sex, orientation, or income.
arthwollipot said:
Remember the phrase "DEI hire"? Has that term ever been applied to a white man?
Click to expand...
As soon as we see a corporate goal to increase the portion of their workforce that is white and male, I guarantee you will. And you'll hear it from pretty much everyone in this thread.

ETA: I think I previously mentioned that the company I work for is about 70% female? It's also got a higher proportion of hispanic employees than the city. My company has more non-white employees than the are by a material margin.

But as part of the DEI Initiative, we have support clubs for female advancement, hispanic advancement, black advancement, LGBXYZ advancement, and weirdly pacific islander advancement (despite being landlocked and well away from the pacific coast).

So despite the fact that white male employees are a notable minority at my company... there is no effort to increase diversity or inclusion for them.
 
Last edited:
SpuriusMaximus said:
That's a silly argument, for the simple reason that no DEI policy ever said we need to hire more white men.
Click to expand...
Yeah, why do you think that is?

It's because white men have not been marginalised, and therefore don't need the help. People of colour, women, LGBTQIA+, all have been on the bad end of significant discrimination in the past. DEI aims to end that.

Also, a Venezuelan is a white man now?
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
Yes, I know Charlie Kirk's rhetoric. It's still another thing than I was saying in that answer and what I was answering to. He too wasn't demanding that someone be the best pilot on Earth, just that he be qualified enough to do the job.
Click to expand...
No, he thought that "policies adopted by major companies regarding ethnic minorities meant less-qualified people were being given jobs with significant responsibility, including airline pilots". Charlie wasn't stupid, so I doubt he meant unqualified, he just meant not as highly qualified as white pilots. And he worried that these less qualified pilots might not be able to handle the responsibity of eg. keeping the plane in the air and hundreds of passengers safe.

SpuriusMaximus said:
So, ironically enough, it actually is closer to what was presented in favour of DEI in this thread, than to what I was saying. Yes, he was making an unfair accusation, but even he wasn't demanding that his plane has Maverick and Iceman in the cockpit. The two goalposts aren't even in the same postal code.
Click to expand...
He was expecting to see a white male pilot and copilot. Do you know what many ex fighter pilots do after leaving the Air Force? They become commercial airline pilots. So yes, Charlie Kirk probably was expecting 'Top Gun' class pilots, not people who weren't top notch pilot material but managed to sneak into a civilian flight school via DEI.

You say airline pilots only need to be 'just qualified enough to do the job' - not 'Maverick and Iceman' - implying that they don't need to be exceptional. The acceptance numbers say otherwise.

Airline Cadet Acceptance Rates 2026: Real Numbers & How to Get In
British Airways Speedbird received over 20,000 applications for 100 places in its first year. TUI took 30 cadets from 6,700 applicants. Lufthansa's DLR aptitude test eliminates 95-97% before candidates can even submit an application... With acceptance rates below 1%, rejection is the statistically normal outcome. This is not a reflection of your ability to become a pilot — it is a reflection of the ratio between free places and people who want them.
Click to expand...
Airlines are selecting who they think are the best candidates for the job, before they even begin training. They are turning away thousands of potentially fine pilots because they want the best they can possibly get. If they have a choice between Maverick and Ted Striker, they're choosing the Top Gun.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Airlines are selecting who they think are the best candidates for the job, before they even begin training. They are turning away thousands of potentially fine pilots because they want the best they can possibly get. If they have a choice between Maverick and Ted Striker, they're choosing the Top Gun.
Click to expand...
I kind of think that merit only really matters for commercial pilots when it comes to emergencies. That's were competency makes a big difference. Otherwise, for decades now planes have auto-pilot and such that most people could probably fly one. That's not an excuse for racial discrimination, just an observation.
 
d4m10n said:
Not sure why people seem to think light-skinned Europeans only colonized Anglophone nations. Visitar españa! 🇪🇸
Click to expand...
I think it is in relationship to what seem strange definitions of race to many of us but are common in the USA, for example "Hispanic", in most European countries such people would be classed as "white". It is akin to how the Irish were not originally considered "white" in the USA.
 
Darat said:
I think it is in relationship to what seem strange definitions of race to many of us but are common in the USA, for example "Hispanic", in most European countries such people would be classed as "white". It is akin to how the Irish were not originally considered "white" in the USA.
Click to expand...
Hispanic is not a race; it is an ethnicity. Hispanics can be white, black, or Asian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom