DEI and Misogynistic & Foreign/Other Political Attacks on Harris

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 322
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
It's not dismissing achievements. It's the fact that initiatives like affirmative action and DEI are going to raise questions in peoples' minds about why Minority Person A is in their position. Are they there because they are the best and most qualified or are they there because of race?
Click to expand...
Entertaining that question is, in itself, racist.

Unless there’s specific reason to believe that a person is unqualified or under-qualified for a given position (e.g., they lack experience or academic pedigree), it’s bigoted to assume they got to where they are solely on the basis of race.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not dismissing achievements. It's the fact that initiatives like affirmative action and DEI are going to raise questions in peoples' minds about why Minority Person A is in their position. Are they there because they are the best and most qualified or are they there because of race?
Click to expand...
If we’re trying to tightrope why someone would question a hire because of policies meant to address racial inequality, and they’re using those policies to justify their suspicions, then yes, they are likely racist.

Put another way, if white person A doesn’t question hires B, C and D because they are also white, but proposes hire E was due to DEI because they are not white, then yes, they are likely racist.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not dismissing achievements. It's the fact that initiatives like affirmative action and DEI are going to raise questions in peoples' minds about why Minority Person A is in their position. Are they there because they are the best and most qualified or are they there because of race?

Some people will say it's irrelevant if Minority Person A is in their position because of race, because of the history of oppression, poor educational opportunities, etc.. and that's fine, but there's nothing racist about making logical connections.
Click to expand...
I'm very happy that the DEI program for the company I work for is about so much more than race.

It's about culture and understanding, inclusiveness and acceptance. In the years of DEI initiatives, I've been a part of I can't honestly recall one of them being about race.

Many of the DEI groups we sponsor cross racial boundaries.

An in all of the interviews I've led and all of the jobs I've filled, I've never once been instructed to consider race, religion, gender as deciding factors.

I work with people from all over the world, every day at my company.

I've also noticed that, from my experience, the people who are making the statements about a person being hired to fill a quota or based on anything other than qualifications, are normally low performers who seem to have inadequacy issues. But that is just my experience.


Also, I have no issue if a DEI program is questioned as some companies are doing. There are often bad actors that hide under an acceptable title or program but don't actually do what they outwardly proclaim. In cases like that it is better for the overall DEI movement to help ensure that the programs are aligned with the mission.

But, as I'm seeing DEI being used in the political race, it is being used in a racist way. If Kamala Harris was white, we wouldn't be hearing the same rhetoric about her being a DEI hire.
 
UNCatTech said:
I'm very happy that the DEI program for the company I work for is about so much more than race.

It's about culture and understanding, inclusiveness and acceptance. In the years of DEI initiatives, I've been a part of I can't honestly recall one of them being about race.

Many of the DEI groups we sponsor cross racial boundaries.

An in all of the interviews I've led and all of the jobs I've filled, I've never once been instructed to consider race, religion, gender as deciding factors.

I work with people from all over the world, every day at my company.

I've also noticed that, from my experience, the people who are making the statements about a person being hired to fill a quota or based on anything other than qualifications, are normally low performers who seem to have inadequacy issues. But that is just my experience.


Also, I have no issue if a DEI program is questioned as some companies are doing. There are often bad actors that hide under an acceptable title or program but don't actually do what they outwardly proclaim. In cases like that it is better for the overall DEI movement to help ensure that the programs are aligned with the mission.

But, as I'm seeing DEI being used in the political race, it is being used in a racist way. If Kamala Harris was white, we wouldn't be hearing the same rhetoric about her being a DEI hire.
Click to expand...
If she were white and male……since she’s female, she’s still a DEI nominee.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not dismissing achievements. It's the fact that initiatives like affirmative action and DEI are going to raise questions in peoples' minds about why Minority Person A is in their position. Are they there because they are the best and most qualified or are they there because of race?

Some people will say it's irrelevant if Minority Person A is in their position because of race, because of the history of oppression, poor educational opportunities, etc.. and that's fine, but there's nothing racist about making logical connections.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has reviewed resumes and interviewed people for jobs knows that "achievements" are neither linear nor scalable. It's not a math problem. Everyone brings something to the table, and has some potential drawbacks.

Having a variety of different perspectives - whether cultural, racial, religious, or otherwise - is in many ways advantageous to an organization. DEI has been *fantastic* in increasing diversity of perspective in our organizations, and not sacrificing one iota for talent, work ethic, or intelligence. DEI is medicine our country needs, and god bless what it's done for countless people of color - and their children - across this country.

The fact that some people whine and whinge about it is not the problem of DEI, it's the problem of those people themselves. "It raises questions in peoples minds." So what? Those people are not nearly as smart or talented as they think they are, and they can just fuck off.
 
CallMeTyler said:
If we’re trying to tightrope why someone would question a hire because of policies meant to address racial inequality, and they’re using those policies to justify their suspicions, then yes, they are likely racist.

Put another way, if white person A doesn’t question hires B, C and D because they are also white, but proposes hire E was due to DEI because they are not white, then yes, they are likely racist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had a question about Trump appointing 3 conservative white persons to SCOTUS. Did he pass over 3 liberal black persons who were more qualified than those 3 conservative white persons ?

If so, then I'm just wondering if this is going to raise questions in people's minds why they are SCOTUS justices. Is it because they are white and/or conservative ?
 
I ask this as someone who retired from the USAF.

For those who are anti-DEI, would you consider programs that focus on hiring vets under that umbrella?

I do. When I retired, I attended veteran hiring events that got us access to recruiters/hiring managers that the general public didn’t. If I fill out a federal or state job application, I get preference points because of my veteran status…especially with a VA disability rating attached.

You can’t say DEI is about race, but say veteran programs/preferences are ok IMO.
 
RockyMtnHoo said:
I ask this as someone who retired from the USAF.

For those who are anti-DEI, would you consider programs that focus on hiring vets under that umbrella?

I do. When I retired, I attended veteran hiring events that got us access to recruiters/hiring managers that the general public didn’t. If I fill out a federal or state job application, I get preference points because of my veteran status…especially with a VA disability rating attached.

You can’t say DEI is about race, but say veteran programs/preferences are ok IMO.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, and let me just add in foster kids of all races as additional beneficiaries of DEI and similar programs.
 
TarSpiel said:
Anyone who has reviewed resumes and interviewed people for jobs knows that "achievements" are neither linear nor scalable. It's not a math problem. Everyone brings something to the table, and has some potential drawbacks.

Having a variety of different perspectives - whether cultural, racial, religious, or otherwise - is in many ways advantageous to an organization. DEI has been *fantastic* in increasing diversity of perspective in our organizations, and not sacrificing one iota for talent, work ethic, or intelligence. DEI is medicine our country needs, and god bless what it's done for countless people of color - and their children - across this country.

The fact that some people whine and whinge about it is not the problem of DEI, it's the problem of those people themselves. "It raises questions in peoples minds." So what? Those people are not nearly as smart or talented as they think they are, and they can just fuck off.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that a diverse workplace has benefits, particularly in employee retention. Again, arguments can be made that, because of past events, affirmative action/DEI are justified.

Those things can all be true and a reasonable person can wonder if a black MIT student there because of race-based initiatives.

Again, these aren't "white" ideas. These are questions being raised by respected members of the black community.

Labeling as racist anyone and everyone who raised the question is precisely the kind of thing that will help get Trump elected again.
 
ZenMode said:
Those things can all be true and a reasonable person can wonder if a black MIT student there because of race-based initiatives.
Click to expand...
1. You can wonder anything you want. It's when you start to act or form beliefs on the basis of that rank speculation that things get dicey.
2. It actually doesn't matter if the person is there because of race-based initiatives. The whole point of those programs is to correct for bias in the standard credentialing. At my son's HS, kids took 8, 9, 10 AP courses. My son took 7 AP exams (5 on all of them!). The rural HS my wife attended had zero AP classes when she was there, and now it has two.

So if you use the standard credentialing process, in which 7 AP courses > 1 or 2 AP courses, the kid at my wife's old HS would never have a chance. The DEI programs that help rural white kids in addition to minorities are correcting for that bias.

What you want to know about a black MIT student is the same thing you want to know about anyone: are they successful in school, and after.

3. I am virtually certain that DEI was how JD Vance got into Yale Law School. I don't begrudge him that, but it is really bad taste for him to be railing against them now. Sorta like Clarence Thomas.
 
ZenMode said:
Those things can all be true and a reasonable person can wonder if a black MIT student there because of race-based initiatives.

Again, these aren't "white" ideas. These are questions being raised by respected members of the black community.

Labeling as racist anyone and everyone who raised the question is precisely the kind of thing that will help get Trump elected again.
Click to expand...

All of us have probably wondered those sorts of things -- I know I have - and entertained that train of thought, including the kid himself or herself who probably is dealing with imposter syndrome. Doesn't make it right.

My wife is a former foster youth. At her college at UC Davis, they had a cohort of FFY of about 15 kids, who were given special treatment. She said at that first meeting, they all sat around in a circle looking at each other before the leader arrived, and they were all thinking "So whose d*** did you suck to get in here?" It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad (okay, it's kind of hilarious anyway). But the DEI populations are often the very last people to think they're worthy of a seat at the table. And anyone who thinks or even implies that they don't deserve that seat - or excuses the supposedly innocent musings of those who were "just wondering" - can eff off.

What we can't do is normalize those kinds of questions or excuse them. People need to understand that diversity is an intrinsic value, and that the problem lies with those "reasonable people who wonder..." That includes the black MIT kid with imposter syndrome: no, young man, you DO belong.

(And just knock it off with the "those are the kinds of things that will get trump elected" bullcrap....it is neither meaningful nor productive in the context of this conversation).
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
1. You can wonder anything you want. It's when you start to act or form beliefs on the basis of that rank speculation that things get dicey.
2. It actually doesn't matter if the person is there because of race-based initiatives. The whole point of those programs is to correct for bias in the standard credentialing. At my son's HS, kids took 8, 9, 10 AP courses. My son took 7 AP exams (5 on all of them!). The rural HS my wife attended had zero AP classes when she was there, and now it has two.

So if you use the standard credentialing process, in which 7 AP courses > 1 or 2 AP courses, the kid at my wife's old HS would never have a chance. The DEI programs that help rural white kids in addition to minorities are correcting for that bias.

What you want to know about a black MIT student is the same thing you want to know about anyone: are they successful in school, and after.

3. I am virtually certain that DEI was how JD Vance got into Yale Law School. I don't begrudge him that, but it is really bad taste for him to be railing against them now. Sorta like Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
Great points.

I happen to be in a manager D&I ( as my company calls it) at this moment.

They haven't once mentioned race or gender.

It's about communications, making people feel comfortable and included at work, diverse perspectives.

It's so much more than employment numbers and quotas.

Maybe that's a benefit of a true global company.
We have sites in multiple countries.
 
superrific said:
1. You can wonder anything you want. It's when you start to act or form beliefs on the basis of that rank speculation that things get dicey.
2. It actually doesn't matter if the person is there because of race-based initiatives. The whole point of those programs is to correct for bias in the standard credentialing. At my son's HS, kids took 8, 9, 10 AP courses. My son took 7 AP exams (5 on all of them!). The rural HS my wife attended had zero AP classes when she was there, and now it has two.

So if you use the standard credentialing process, in which 7 AP courses > 1 or 2 AP courses, the kid at my wife's old HS would never have a chance. The DEI programs that help rural white kids in addition to minorities are correcting for that bias.

What you want to know about a black MIT student is the same thing you want to know about anyone: are they successful in school, and after.

3. I am virtually certain that DEI was how JD Vance got into Yale Law School. I don't begrudge him that, but it is really bad taste for him to be railing against them now. Sorta like Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
I was listening to an interview with Stacy Abrams, she said that JD is a DEI hire also. She provided good support for how DEI initiatives help many get into colleges.
 
ZenMode said:
I absolutely agree that a diverse workplace has benefits, particularly in employee retention. Again, arguments can be made that, because of past events, affirmative action/DEI are justified.

Those things can all be true and a reasonable person can wonder if a black MIT student there because of race-based initiatives.

Again, these aren't "white" ideas. These are questions being raised by respected members of the black community.

Labeling as racist anyone and everyone who raised the question is precisely the kind of thing that will help get Trump elected again.
Click to expand...
I assume white kids go to Harvard because because of DEI.
 
haroldminer said:
I assume white kids go to Harvard because because of DEI.
Click to expand...
I assume it’s white privilege. Assuming white people only achieve things due to privilege is fair, right? I mean it’s the same thought process as assuming DEI is responsible for non-white success.
 
Lando said:
I assume it’s white privilege. Assuming white people only achieve things due to privilege is fair, right? I mean it’s the same thought process as assuming DEI is responsible for non-white success.
Click to expand...
Something like 40% of white Harvard students were admitted due to legacy, donations, or athletics versus merit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top