Wtf.you think apartheid is the way fwd?
The end of DEI (at least in America)
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
This is a typical right wing talking about, that institutional racism hasn't existed in the US because there are no more Jim Crow laws. But that view doesn't really understand institutional racism.
I think an example, that I am familiar with might illustrate this better. Relatively smaller law enforcement department used to have Jim Crow laws, all white employees and in practice this showed through extremely different treatment between white citizens and minorities. Laws change, no more "laws or explicit policies that discriminate against minorities" exist. However, the entire department is still staffed with the same people, including many racists. There are no more laws or explicit policies but the culture of the law enforcement department still heavily favors white males, and in practice their policing still favors whites and treats minorities vastly different. This culture of preference and racism can and does persists for decades, long after there were no more Jim Crow laws. 40-50 years later there might be no "laws or explicit policies" but in practice the department still has a very racist culture because that the institutional racism still propagates just unofficially. Their policing still massively favors white people and actively goes after minorities to the point where, for instance, many communities will know "you better avoid this town, the cops will pull you over for driving while being black". And internally, while some women and minorities get hired they are very much outsiders and still subjected to daily racist, sexist jokes and a clear bias that persists throughout the institution.
Now, some people will say well that's not institutional racism those are just individual racists. But that view ignores the point that the culture of racism still dominates in the institution and the institution is essentially still powered by racism because the original people that were part of the institution didn't stop propagating their racist culture just because the Jim Crow laws were outlawed.
My experience is anecdotal of course, but I have worked in places with strong DEI initiatives and I have never once seen a "DEI candidate" hired over a pool of more qualified candidates.
However, I have seen less qualified people hired over more qualified candidates for reasons like they are related to or friends with powerful executives, they happen to the exact same cultural background and religious sect as the hiring manager (both white, from west Texas and born again Christians), and a dubious case where the hiring admin clearly was attracted to the very attractive but much less experience candidate. So I think your suggestion that DEI means less qualified is not really true.
The entire idea of meritocracy is wonderful in theory, but in practice no hiring across all organization types will ever actually be a meritocracy. Biases and preferences and favoritism will always exist, DEI just tries, and maybe fails, to balance out all those other biases and preferences with some thought given to helping historically discriminated populations.
The problem is that systematically and statistically, in both USA and Western Europe, white people are not the most economically well off in the highest of positions.
Look at the average salary statistics by ethnic group, Indian/Chinese/Taiwanese always come out on top.
Look at the top 10 US companies by market cap, 2 chinese-American CEO's, 2 Indian-American CEO's. Extrapolate to top 100 and you have similar ratios, despite being around 3% of the population combined.
Is there really unconscious racism against all ethnic minority groups when you have two ethnic minorities who are well ahead of the curve.
Ultimately I think its down to economic opportunities, and the way to solve this problem is to start a grassroots level by funding education, community, and even take a look at cultural problems that are a symptom of long term terminal economic hardship. Not have DEI at the employment level.
The solution, for example to, "We need more women in Tech", should not be "Make it easier for women to get jobs in Tech" but ask the question, "Why do women broadly speaking not want to work in Tech or go down that particular path?". Start from there and it creates a better long term solution and causes less resentment.
No one is saying that. But the other side of that coin is that there's really nothing that says that the most qualified applicant won't be picked if you don't have DEI either. I'm just saying that I don't think imposing actual explicit discrimination will make anything more fair. My gut feeling is that managers that engage it dubious hirings (whether it may be hiring because of being attracted to the applicant or being a relative or whatever) will still find a way to do that as they clearly have no shame to start with. Either way, DEI policies certainly could make so that the outcome is more equal, and if that's what we want to achieve then I say go for it.
Yeah, this is how it should be done. Work for the long term solution instead.
Yes. I've a lot of family down there. The last few years you hear it alot from people of both sides as the country has quite literally fallen apart.
Thats not what i said is it.
You said exactly "It's often not about picking the DEI candidate of a pool of equally qualified candidates. It's about picking such a candidate amongst a pool of more qualified candidates."
That statement is not something I have ever seen. DEI is not at all about "picking a candidate amongst a pool of more qualified candidates". It's exactly as @Cheimoon said and about weighing in DEI amongst a pool of equally qualified candidates. It's simply incorrect to say DEI is about equality of outcome, it's about equality of opportunity.
Anyway, this idealized view of a meritocracy that some repeat simply doesn't exist in reality and, in my view, never will. Heck a more qualified candidate might not get hired over a less qualified candidate for a host of other reasons anyway besides the examples I gave or this notion of DEI. Like salary, I've seen a "less qualified" candidates get hired because the more qualified candidates asked for a higher salary that the employer didn't want or couldn't pay. Or the employer decided not to hire the most experienced candidate for a position because they thought the person wouldn't stay in the role long term and was just using it as a stepping stone. Someone's subjective view of "merit" is not even the only valid consideration for many jobs. I've heard quite a few people say "I'd rather hire or work with someone a little less skilled/qualified if they are easier to work with than someone a bit more skilled/qualified but is a pain in the arse to work with". I don't think any of those are unfair in any way to the "more qualified" candidate.
Are quotas about equality of opportunity?
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ndmark-40-quota-for-women-on-corporate-boards
Last edited:
Yes. They're a kind of affirmative action.
Part of the objective with EDI is to normalize diversity and create role models. Without either, you aren't changing unconscious biases and haven't created situations where diversity is the norm, and not part of an unconscious bias against hiring someone.
Also, there are unending examples of people explaining how being the only one from your sociodemographic community at an organization can be an unpleasant experience: people don't understand you (your challenges situation, needs) or take you into account, social interactions are limited in (potential) scope, and so on - which leads to people underperforming or dropping out (if not worse, like burn-outs and depression). Again, if diversity is more normal, these sort of situations are less common and diversity becomes more sustainable without policy support.
DEI ending is a good thing.
Laughable that quotas are in place for workplaces. What next, quotas for football? The best should be rewarded.
Laughable that quotas are in place for workplaces. What next, quotas for football? The best should be rewarded.
But that doesn't mean that I think it means less qualified (as in always less qualified). I'm not dealing in absolutes here - I'm merely saying that it's quite obvious with how such policies are implemented that it doesn't always work in the way that was described. No matter if it's extremely uncommon or very frequent that candidates gets chosen primarily for filling quotas it's too often. For me, that should never happen. If you think that is a necessity for reaching equality, then fair enough. I think it should be addressed from other angles.
Yeah, absolutely. I know from experience that all these things (salary, how the applicant would fit into the team etc.) plays a big part in chosing the "best" candidate. But I'm not really seeing how this matters? Let everyone be judged by the same standards and pick who you find most suitable.
Tbf he never said that. He was saying plenty of South Africans freely say that the country was better before. That's not saying he supports apartheid. That's quite a leap for you.
In EU countries like France, women in boardroom positions is normal already. The idea that they'll now say "ok we achieved it, we can stop the quota" is not convincing. Do you see them stopping the policy?
Last edited:
Those white europeans from south Africa sound exactly the same as those white Europeans from Chile that hope for a way back to the past when everything was better (Pinochet).
They just want to continue to rule their foreign lands and foreign slaves as they please. Nice people.
They just want to continue to rule their foreign lands and foreign slaves as they please. Nice people.
That's just being facetious now isn't it.
Maybe people just want their day to day to not contain rolling blackouts, loadshedding and not being to walk down Jo'berg with headphones on or face getting robbed.
So, 40%? Picked from all of global business? When China and India have over 50% of world population?
No, American companies.
S&P500 is an index of American businesses, not global businesses.
Chinese and Indians consitute 3% of America's population.
Globally, practically no Chinese/Indian large scale conglomerate has a none Chinese/Indian CEO.
But if you were a Standard and Poors company, why would you restrict yourself to only white American CEOs? You'd just hire the best in the world, which, statistically, should be genetically Chinese or Indian
Nobody wants that. Issue is the solution costs money, and the people with the money (the white Europeans owners of the productive lands and big corporations) don't want to spend the money on what is needed because the social return will come 20 years later and they also won't be as rich any more (still the richest).
Is this a serious question?
What % of China's population speak English? What % of India's population speak English?
Out of those that do speak English, how many of them work in that particular field or market, understand the American business culture and/or even have the rights to work in the USA?
Money is being spent in South Africa, 80% of all fiscal income of SA is by White families who got wealthy during aparthied. The problem is corruption.
https://www.econjournals.com/index....l analysis of tax,in South Africa are minimal.
South Africa has one of the better systems when it comes to mitigating tax avoidance and tax evasion - the problem is the money is just being pissed away somewhere.
To be fair you did directly answer, in the same post, that many people thought things were better during apartheid. And that whole discussion thread seemed to stem from you correlating DEI with South Africa getting worse.
I think you should factor in that majority of the big Indian/Chinese companies are either state owned or run privately by a family. If you discount those two segments, there really isn't scope or foreign exposure to make an argument effectively.
Not sure what your point is. Pretty much every CEO has been appointed on merit.
My point is that clearly despite whatever perceptions of institutional bias, Chinese/Indian Americans have clearly succeeded in the USA.
I don't disagree that they were appointed on merit. My disagreement is with the other posters bizarre assessment that US companies are actually underrepresenting Chinese/Indian industry leaders because population wise they represent 50% of the worlds population.
They are American companies, therefore Chinese/Indian American population is relevant, not the populations of India and/or China.
Of course, they own the means of production. But that 80% that sounds like a lot, for them is nothing and just covers the absolute minimum.
Just like in here (Chile), they have absolute zero incentive to improve the system. Private top tier education, healthcare and pension scheme for the white families and their friends. Crappy public system for the rest.
Equality of opportunity starts on the womb. Until every baby born can have the same chance as any other kid, the people will have to take it from their owners piece by piece. DEI is only a little piece, and it can't go back. (Well, it seems it can if you own the means of information as well)
Ps. I wonder who could be pissing the money away...
Isn't it the governments responsibility to facilitate civic development and not private wealthy families?
Like, there must be a seperation of concern between state building and private amassed wealth.
Yes, but governments can only work within the law.
There is nothing a president can do to improve society, without the support of a majority (or supramajority in many cases) of politicians. With plenty politicians (left, centre and right) in the pockets of wealthy families, every battle will be hard fought.
The wealthy families made sure the political system was rigged before "giving back" control.
DEI will always logically against picking the best candidate as that's how they're designed in the first place. To correct.
If DEI is doing it's job then by default they're not employing the best candidate
Business in a theoretical model will always appoints the most logical business appointment that maximises profit. Even if hiring a Black to cater for Black neighborhood store, it's profit maximising. Off course there's racist behavior in hiring processes which no policy can enforce.
You cant force these kinds of policy. Changes needs to come from the inside, education, fixing the wound from the past, better justice for the oppressed minority, and over time people will see things differently.
These man made quick fix policy drives statistic up but deepens the hate and grudge. They can't speak up, they're forced to pick minorities they dont like for the fear of being reprimanded, it works. Until they have someone like Donald Trump and all hell break lose. Because the changes didnt come organically.
And i say this as double minority. If the government made any DEi policy that gives us massive advantages I'd hurriedly prepare my exit. That's just a boiling pot hatred gathering
If DEI is doing it's job then by default they're not employing the best candidate
Business in a theoretical model will always appoints the most logical business appointment that maximises profit. Even if hiring a Black to cater for Black neighborhood store, it's profit maximising. Off course there's racist behavior in hiring processes which no policy can enforce.
You cant force these kinds of policy. Changes needs to come from the inside, education, fixing the wound from the past, better justice for the oppressed minority, and over time people will see things differently.
These man made quick fix policy drives statistic up but deepens the hate and grudge. They can't speak up, they're forced to pick minorities they dont like for the fear of being reprimanded, it works. Until they have someone like Donald Trump and all hell break lose. Because the changes didnt come organically.
And i say this as double minority. If the government made any DEi policy that gives us massive advantages I'd hurriedly prepare my exit. That's just a boiling pot hatred gathering
The argument that one can either meritocracy or diversity, but not both is a false premise to start with.
I'm not sure whether you are talking about Indians/Chinese from India/, China or Indian Americans or Chinese Americans?
Surely Indian/Chinese Americans would be well versed in English, as likely to be a specialist in a particular field as a white American, understand American business culture and have the right to work on the US?
If it's immigrants that you don't like running American companies, you only mentioned the Indian and Chinese ones, no mention of white Europeans, or white South Africans for that matter.
I have no idea what you are referring to. I have no problem with Indian/Chinese/Taiwanese American CEO's.
My point was that they have a huge % of leadership roles in the biggest businesses in the USA, much bigger than their population % suggests (3%) and are doing well for themselves on every metric.
And they are actually actively discriminated against in most DEI related metrics. Therefore something else is at play.
You're the one who went tangential with how apparently 50% of the world is Indian/Chinese etc and that apparently 50% of American companies should therefore have a Chinese/Indian CEO. Which is a wholly ridiculous point because most of the 50% of the world's population who are Indian/Chinese don't speak English and can't even legally work in USA.
An analysis based in big corporate CEOs is meaningless as it ignores 99.99 per cent of jobs. It’s like claiming women’s rights are far superior in India and Bangladesh than the US because we’ve had women prime ministers and they havent but instead just gave reigns to a rapist.
If you look above I mentioned the average salaries based on ethnic grouping and Chinese Asian and Indian Asian lead those as well, in most of Western Europe and USA and Canada
I was just using ceos as an example and others focused on on it
There was a video circulating on social media during the LA fires of LAFD’s diversity/equity chief, and how 3 of the department’s chiefs are female/lesbian. Someone here mentioned how current DEI practices over-correct for the past, and it reminded me of this.
It definitely exists in my field (public safety/civic government). Most major police departments represent their community. At my department specifically it’s very DEI heavy. People all gripe and talk shit when promotions and special assignments come out. And the academy graduates likewise always have a female, a black, Hispanic, Asian, or any mix of them. But fire departments are notorious for being a good ol boys club. Even in LA it’s majority white males. The hazing culture is still very strong, so if you don’t fit their “mold” as a rookie they can get you canned or make you quit. It’s always amusing to me when police and fire are both on an incident in somewhere like South LA, where it’s 90% black/latino, the cops are usually black and Latino including females. But when the fire trucks/paramedics arrive it’s nothing but white males stepping out.
It’s so blatant that you would think some DEI would be necessary in this case. Having 3 female chiefs is maybe over compensating though.
It definitely exists in my field (public safety/civic government). Most major police departments represent their community. At my department specifically it’s very DEI heavy. People all gripe and talk shit when promotions and special assignments come out. And the academy graduates likewise always have a female, a black, Hispanic, Asian, or any mix of them. But fire departments are notorious for being a good ol boys club. Even in LA it’s majority white males. The hazing culture is still very strong, so if you don’t fit their “mold” as a rookie they can get you canned or make you quit. It’s always amusing to me when police and fire are both on an incident in somewhere like South LA, where it’s 90% black/latino, the cops are usually black and Latino including females. But when the fire trucks/paramedics arrive it’s nothing but white males stepping out.
It’s so blatant that you would think some DEI would be necessary in this case. Having 3 female chiefs is maybe over compensating though.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are in charge of the United States of America.
It is very rarely the best who get rewarded.
Indian and Chinese rise to the top is despite all odds stacked against them. They have to be twice better than their counterpart to even getting looked at. Those that rises to the top are the best in their business.
You'd think American companies hires Chinese and Indians because they like their culture or any other bias?
Financial-wise, Indians and Chinese Americans do much better than white people (or any other group) in the US. I think Afonso's point is pretty clear, that if there was a systematic discrimination or racism in the West/US against non-white people, then Indians, Chinese, Taiwanese and co. (basically Asians) wouldn't do near as good as they are doing. Asian Americans median household is around 112K while White Americans at 89K. If you check when it comes to getting accepted at top universities, it is kinda similar. If an Asian American and an Afro American have the exact same CV, and if the Afro American has a 90% chance of getting accepted, I think that the chances of the Asian American are at just around 10-20%. With the same CV. So if there is some systematic discrimination in the US, it is against Asian Americans. Who nevertheless, still do much better than others.
Lots of people would argue DEI and affirmative actions are inherently discriminatory, if not racist policies. So kinda fighting racism/sexism with more racism/sexism. And in some cases, it is absolutely stupid, like the previous head of secret service wanting to have 50% women in Secret Service, despite that there is absolutely no good reason for that.
On the other hand, there are some reasons why DEI and affirmative action are good things. The most obvious one being that people need their own heroes, and let's be fair, humanity still does not have either equality of opportunity. In an ideal world, there should be equality of opportunity, and then everything else being merit-based. We are not in such a world, so maybe some type of DEI initiatives are needed. On the other hand, a lot of these initiatives have been absolutely stupid and have mostly irritated everyone while basically helping only the people who benefit from them, not their communities.
My best answer of what can be done different is to have a much better public education system. Invest in communities and public schools, especially in poor communities. And if you want to have some type of DEI, be it based on socio-economical status instead of race, sex, gender or other attributes. A poor kid being raised with no father and from an alcoholic mother needs help regardless if they are white, black, Asian or mixed. With the current DEI initiatives though, such a person if white or Asian would get overlooked in favour of someone who is Black or Latino even if they are much richer and coming from a functional family.
Last edited:
Understand this post was from a few days ago, but I'd say it's pretty much bang on from my own experience in the UK as someone that fits the DEI bracket and works for a big corporation.
I personally support increasing opportunity, but guaranteeing jobs for minorities isn't something I'm on board with. If you could rid the world of discriminating managers, then being judged purely on merits of the position would be ideal. However, in the real world what happens is lesser skilled people are picked for roles, purely to avoid hiring a more skilled DEI candidate.
Now the company I work for have gone too far the other way, I've been in meetings where high execs have openly stated they don't want to promote white males and are instead actively pushing for females and minorities to take up higher roles. My ideology would be that all lower members of staff have the opportunity to learn and progress equally and those that take the responsibility and opportunity should progress up the ladder.
I've always stated that hiring managers shouldn't be in the room for interviews. They should set the criteria they want to hire on, and then a manager of similar level should be asked to take the interview. This eliminates managers hiring friends or their biases towards certain groups being able to be enacted.
As for the negative impacts of DEI, I'd strongly agree that imposter syndrome is all too real. I scored the highest of all applicants for my current role amongst 30 something applicants for 18 roles, however I am the only DEI in my role and it does leave you feeling sometimes like that is the reason you was given the position to fill a quota.
He actually did say it was better during apartheid and used that as his reason for complaining about DEI.
What you'd need to do though would be ensure that already highly qualified white men didn't take all the places in the training courses while, say, black men didn't really know it existed. One way to do that would be to specifically target, say, black men to offer the training too. That's known as...?
All the stats show that more diverse executive teams perform better. Now obviously there's a limit to that - they still have to have relevant skills, interests and experience - but pushing for a deliberately more diverse representation in leadership is shown to benefit organisations on average. By all means it can be taken too far but the stats show that it rarely is, and much more frequently the opposite still.