Changing Tenor in HR Departments

[Mulberry Heel]

Meh... DEI was a blow to average performing white guys who expected to move up if they paid their dues (i.e., hung around doing mediocre work).

I remember reading a biography of Jackie Robinson integrating the Major Leagues and it noted that many of the mediocre white players were among those who were the most opposed to integrating baseball, because they knew it would mean the end of their playing careers in the Major Leagues. Some of the opposition to Robinson was racism, but much of it was also the plain fear of having to compete against top-notch black talent. Hall of Famer Ted Williams said as much. And from what I can see that attitude and sense of entitlement by many white men hasn't changed much in all the decades since then, and not just for baseball, but in all career fields.

 

[UNCatTech]

Do you have hard data that the new right would be for affirmative action for men in college admissions? I find that claim pretty fantastical.

I've read a couple of articles talking about men's admissions already being helped. One was discussing the numbers at Ivy league schools. The numbers they used showed that if admissions were strictly based on academics, and didn't try to balance make/ female then the number of males accepted would drop by about 30%.

 

[superrific]

I agree with super on this one. Whether one agrees with it or not, the author describes a very real source of frustration among young people.

It's not just about agreeing or not. It isn't our place to tell people how they should feel internally. The author was saying specifically he was not angry at the minorities who got the position. That is the right attitude.

Humans are going to have frustrations. That's inevitable. Our moral duty is not to project our frustrations onto other people. It is to avoid characterizing personal disappointment as hostility to out-groups. Our duty is to accept that misfortune happens, which demands empathy of those who struggle AND no scapegoating of others. It is never a duty to silence people.

The problem is that 99% of what comes out as grievances completely fails that moral test. The right-wing is nothing without its scapegoats. That's all they seem capable of.

So when there's a guy who's not scapegoating, he shouldn't be harshed on. Maybe he secretly scapegoats; who knows. Maybe he's scapegoated elsewhere. I don't know. But this article is not scapegoating. The disclaimer I cited above occurred at the end, but it wasn't tacked on. The entire logic of the piece is "white Gen Xers failed me," which is a completely different concept than what we almost always hear from MAGA.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I've read a couple of articles talking about men's admissions already being helped. One was discussing the numbers at Ivy league schools. The numbers they used showed that if admissions were strictly based on academics, and didn't try to balance make/ female then the number of males accepted would drop by about 30%.

Are these ivy league administrators members of the new right? That seems even more fantastical.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I remember reading a biography of Jackie Robinson integrating the Major Leagues and it noted that many of the mediocre white players were among those who were the most opposed to integrating baseball, because they knew it would mean the end of their playing careers in the Major Leagues. Some of the opposition to Robinson was racism, but much of it was also the plain fear of having to compete against top-notch black talent. Hall of Famer Ted Williams said as much. And from what I can see that attitude and sense of entitlement by many white men hasn't changed much in all the decades since then, and not just for baseball, but in all career fields.

I'm sure that happened but its not really a valid comparison to DEI. Those owners weren't hiring black players over better white players just to fill some diversity goals.

 

[UNCatTech]

Are these ivy league administrators members of the new right? That seems even more fantastical.

I'm not following the "new right" discussion.

I'm saying that men already recieve affirmative action in college admissions and the Anti-DEI movement may actually hurt male enrollment.

Why do men fare better than women in the college admission process? - The Brown Daily Herald Why do men fare better than women in the college admission process?

 

[UNCatTech]

Another article:

Seeking gender balance, selective colleges are giving men an advantage in admission Seeking gender balance, selective colleges are giving men an advantage in admission

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I'm not following the "new right" discussion.

I'm saying that men already recieve affirmative action in college admissions and the Anti-DEI movement may actually hurt male enrollment.

Why do men fare better than women in the college admission process? - The Brown Daily Herald Why do men fare better than women in the college admission process?

Sunnyheel said that the new right was hoping to end DEI in favor of affirmative action for white men in college admissions.

While I am sure there are some people that would want that, I don't feel like that's the aim of the overwhelming majority of conservatives that want to end DEI in college admissions. I think most conservatives want to end racial preferences whether they be black white or purple.

So I replied to Sunnyheel asking if there was any data that the new right was hoping to use racial preferences in favor of white men. Then you noted that college administrators are hoping to increase male enrollment. That's very likely true but in the context of speaking about the new right, I felt like it was extremely unlikely that most college administrators would be defined as members of the new right.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

While I am sure there are some people that would want that, I don't feel like that's the aim of the overwhelming majority of conservatives that want to end DEI in college admissions. I think most conservatives want to end racial preferences whether they be black white or purple.

The pretzel logic it takes to square these statements with even a casual awareness of what conservatives have said in various media or what elected/appointed MAGA have done in officials acts is a momentous achievement in self delusion.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]

By that same token, DEI was a boon to mediocre minorities and a blow to talented minorities who weren't given the credit they earned.

Why is it that it offends you when it's mediocre minorities with an advantage? Mediocre white men have been getting a leg up since the beginning of time. A handful of mediocre minorities get helped, and this is suddenly a travesty which can't stand?

And why would DEI be a blow to talented minorities? Do you think they were getting the credit they deserved before DEI? If your point is that DEI gave racists an excuse for not properly giving credit to minorities, sure. But the value of their work and whether people choose to recognize it has not been impacted by DEI...

And to be clear, my opening two sentences are tongue in cheek. As DEI is not at all about helping one set of mediocre people over another set of mediocre people. DEI is about forcing people to face the unconscious biases at play when they make decisions. It's about ensuring that there is a diverse slate of people to choose from when you make a hire. It's about recognizing the value of diverse perspectives and avoiding group think.

DEI should never be about quotas. DEI done right is about leveling the playing field, making decisions based on capability not comfort/ familiarity, creating an environment where everybody feels valued equally based on the value of the work they produce. Why would you not want that?

 

[grubar]

For goodness sake. Can’t we understand that these idiots have fabricated a false definition of DEI? DEI does not mean Affirmative Action.