You're viewing a single thread.
'Diversity hire' is the old derogatory term that implies someone is unqualified and only hired because of their skin color or genitals, so they already openly hate diversity.
They don't know what equity means. They probably think it means equality, and they hate that too because in their minds equality requires giving up their relative standing in society.
They hate inclusion because they hate diversity.
The meme is though provoking for someone who already understands the concepts and is useful for bringing awareness to 3rd parties who are otherwise apathetic. It won't make the person who is put on the spot reconsider their opinion, but that's because they are morons who fell for the anti-DEI propaganda.
"WELL I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON'T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED"
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires. No amount of memes or conversation will convince them how ridiculous that is.
So funny story, my department had an employee survey and one of the questions that triggered a need for "team discussion" was:
"Do all people, regardless of race and gender, have good opportunities in our workplace?"
Evidently one person in the department said "no, they do not". So I'm sitting there wondering "oh crap, we are a bunch of white men except one woman and one black guy, which of those two have felt screwed over due to race or gender". But no, an older white guy proudly spoke up saying there's no room for white men at the workplace, that white men are disadvantaged. In a place that's like 90% white men...
It's the worst of both. They literally enjoy privilege and advantage over others every single day, yet they also get to feel indignant and "discriminated" against.
It's because he's an old guy still working in that department. He doesn't feel privileged and advantaged because he's not retired yet.
The MAGAts felt unheard by Democrats because they saw this attack on 99%er privilege while the 1% were unaffected.
In his specific case, he was going to retire next year (at 65) and felt he was going to have a relatively comfortable retirement (he was reasonably well off).
He objected to the existence of minority themed professional development organizations at work (there was one each for women, asian, latin, and black folks). The thing was, none of these orgs actually do anything, they just have speakers come and folks can go listen. But he wanted either none to exist or to have one dedicated to white men. He was offended by their existence and was big on replacement theory, even as these minority organizations had no real power and hadn't made a dent in the 90% white male workforce. He also would brag about how he got a wife from a country where women knew their place and would take care of the house and listen to what he said.
His younger friend was also ranting about how the South should have won the civil war, and the black guy in the department asked him to explain. His friend didn't bat an eye to explain that the south represented the natural order of things.
There may be some disenfranchised rural poor suckered by the MAGA while neglected by the left, but these dudes were 100% not this, relatively rich, entitled and super racist and misogynist.
We truly live in the drunk uncle administration
"Those other people are starting to get more fair consideration, so now my advantage is being threatened. No fair!"
Because they already believe that you are better because you are white. So two people with equal qualifications, the white is more qualified in their eyes.
nevermind that under qualified candidates are chosen all the time based on a variety of factors. Like nailing an interview, having an agreeable personality, available hours, or, just, you know, having the same skin color or genitals as the hiring manager. But DEI programs are a problem. Sure.
I'm not sure "it's the same as nepotism" is a good defense for it.
Yes - if a non-white person and/or woman has a job, it's only because they were chosen over a more qualified white man, because obviously they're superior in every way. But they're not racist or sexist - they just believe in a "meritocracy!"
They want white, cis-male to be the "default" again.
“WELL I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN THEY WON’T HIRE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE QUALIFIED”
The whole premise of equity is that there is a desired demography of people in a given position, and that positive action should be taken to approach or maintain the desired demography and that qualification, ability and merit are secondary to that. Meaning it doesn't matter who is better, so long as someone is good enough and the right race or sex they should have preference. Don't hire the best person, hire the best black person or woman or whatever the desired demographic is (sometimes these will be the same person either way, but not always).
Most of the people who are angry about "DEI" would be fine with things like blind hiring that exclude race/sex from the process entirely but whether or not blind hiring is a valid DEI approach depends on the result - for example a public works department in Australia tried blind hiring to eliminate gender imbalance and killed that project because they found that not knowing the sex of applicants actually reduced the number of women hired which was opposed to the goal (because the goal wasn't to remove discrimination but rather to hire more women).
They genuinely believe that white men are at a significant disadvantage in the workforce because DEI hires.
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/3/337/6412759?login=false
We first note that out of 36 possible outcomes, 23 favour females, as indicated by callback gender ratios > 1. This is interesting, but due to the small sample for each occupation within each country, most of these outcomes are not significant by conventional standards (see right-hand column). In Germany, we find statistically significant hiring discrimination against male applicants for receptionist and store assistant jobs, with callback ratios of 1.4 and 1.9, respectively. In the Netherlands, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants for store assistant jobs, with a callback ratio of 2.2. In Spain, we find clear evidence of hiring discrimination of males in two occupations, with callback ratios of 1.9 (payroll clerk) and 4.5 (receptionist). In the United Kingdom, we find strong evidence of hiring discrimination against males in payroll clerk jobs (callback ratio of 4.8, the highest of all). Interestingly, in the data, we find no evidence of gender discrimination in hiring in Norway or the United States. Thus, the evidence shows hiring discrimination against male, not female, job applicants in 1–3 occupations within four of the six countries.
Based on country-specific regression models, Figure 1 (and Supplementary Table S2) shows the probability of receiving a callback separately for each country. According to these estimates, we find evidence of hiring discrimination against male applicants in United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. The gender differences range from 0 per cent in the US to 9 percentage points in Germany. Thus, we observe gender discrimination in hiring against men in four out of six countries.
You left out the important part that actually proves my point.
"In female dominated occupations."
They believe that they’re struggling financially, and statistically many of them are. The better argument is to show them abolishing DEI doesn’t even give them a better chance, and there are better ways to make opportunities for everyone.
They'll say they just want the best person for the job to get it, and that DEI gives that job to a [insert minority group] instead of the most qualified person.
To be fair, they may actually believe that. A lot of these people don't believe they're racist, sexist, pigs. They are, but they don't think they are. It's not part of their calculus. They see a diversity program and feel victimized by it, they may relate troubles they had to getting a job to a diversity program instead of their own qualifications.
Because, these people are terminally self centered and the hero of their own story.
They will tell you that liberals just want a hand out, while sucking down every hand out they can get. But THEY earned it, no one else does, but they did. Regardless of their circumstances they worked hard to get what they have, and no one else is willing to.
There is no argument you can make that they do not have an answer for. They're almost always misinformed misanthropes. You're either in their group or you're the bad guy. There's no winning when you engage them.
Their monkeys throwing shit. You can throw shit back by the money will have a good time, and you'll still be covered in shit.
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate. This is why "blind" hiring is a good idea in the situations where it can be implemented.
Except that's not what's happening. Or rather, that's not what DEI was doing.
DEI programs are just making underrepresented people more visible. No one's being hired because they look different.
And for centuries white men have been getting jobs that more qualified people were passed for, because they were white and male. DEI was just to level the playing field.
What does making more visible mean? I'd personally rather try to make things like race, sex and whatnot less visible so they'd have less effect on the hiring process.
Look, everyone agrees the best candidate should be the one that's hired.
Unfortunately, there's no objective truth in how to rank candidates - minus anything obvious. Humans make the choices and humans are prone to bias. Consciously or not, people are going to favor candidates that meet the expected stereotypes for said positions.
There are plenty of studies out there documenting it. For example, resume response rates can vary drastically based solely on the name of the applicant. (The same resume sent to various companies with changes to the applicant's name. Masculine names, feminine names, "white" names, "black" names, etc).
It does bother me if people are hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender and not because they were the best candidate.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They're something ""everyone"" should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
minus anything obvious
Honestly, not even that.
I've been on a hiring panel (for want of a better term) where we interviewed on the ground floor. We all worked up in the building. Post-interview we wouldn't say anything, we'd just write "yes" or "no" on a piece of paper. In the elevator going back up we'd turn our cards around. It gave a simple litmus test, if we all agreed then we can go to the pub. If we disagree then we find a meeting room and discuss.
To my point. One hire, technically brilliant. They were technically, absolutely the best candidate we'd had for that role. It was clear. We got into the elevator, and all turned around "no". The candidate was an absolute arse of a person. Clearly the best person for the job. Clearly the last person I wanted to spend 8 hours a day sitting next to. They knew they were fucking good, and they spoke like it.
I wouldn't be surprised if that person, knowing they were good, still goes home and rants about DEI hires or similar. But entirely misses the point on why they were not hired for that role.
Yep.. the "best" candidate is not the same as being the most "talented." Maybe they're a bad fit because they're an asshole, or because they'd want a team structure that's incompatible with the current one.
It all adds to the complexity and subjectivity recruitment inheritly has.
That's why I was suggesting blind recruitment where possible. Name, gender, all that sort of things are hidden so they won't affect that part of the recruitment process.
Statements like these are easy to cling onto and rally a false narrative. They're something ""everyone"" should agree on at a first glance. They miss the underlying issues and the driving force behind various movements.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
Everyone should agree with them but not everyone does.
What is it you think the "not agreeing" people want?
If the statement is that everyone should be treated equally then those opposing are hoping for unequal treatment