Republicans are blaming DEI for the wildfires in California and the domestic terror attack in New Orleans. But DEI, unlike MAGA's racism, will actually help America prosper and grow.
The only way I know to explain DEI is to point out that people tend to stick with people who look like themselves. So it's not necessarily nefarious that white men hire only white men, it's more to do with staying in the tribe. And so many businesses and governments are run by white men that DEI helps ensure that white men actually look at women and people of color as candidates for hire.
DEI is absolutely necessary. The hard part is when you're dealing with racists and misogynists. Regulation is all we've got because you're not likely to succeed with these people by trying to teach them sensitivity.
This is simplistic, but it's like using traffic signals to let other people through the intersection. Some folks have to be forced to do it and be fined when they don't.
Any teaching probably needs to focus on showing people that exercising superiority over others is bad for society. All folks are created equal. In a true democracy, that is.
It's the "industry of DEI" that I find the objectionable pieceof all this- as with prior iterations going back to "sensitivity training" 50 yrs ago. Once those workplace seminars or protocols with boxes to check become requirements, people tune out.
I appreciate the article and the sentiment behind it. I don't believe it's strong enough and it fails to address issues caused by poor understanding and implementation of DEI programs.
Philosophically, Americans shouldn't need convincing that Diversity is a worthwhile goal. It says it on our money: E Pluribus Unum, or "Out of many, one." Immigration has been a strength of our country since early days, and continues to be so. That said, sometimes "better qualified" candidates are rejected in favor of those who help satisfy diversity metrics. We hear about those stories but not those where the "unexpected" candidate outperforms expectations.
Equity is a little tougher, because critics and some supporters take it to mean, "everyone gets the same outcome, regardless of contribution." That's a far cry from a merit-based world that I think most of us would support (am I wrong about this?).
Last, the idea of inclusion is also very traditionally American. In Boy Scouts, we learned that we could only hike as the slowest boy, so we had to get him up to everyone else's level.
In DEI education that I have been exposed to, there is discussion of "oppression" and "privilege." These get hammered on by right-wingers, and rightly so. That framework sets up a us/them framework, and endorses the notion of specific classes as "victim." This is "anti-American" as it asks for redress instead of championing self-reliance (despite structural obstacles). There are few things as annoying as people claiming victimhood (well, especially when they are right-wingers or "Christians" who have huge advantages).
DEI deserves a place in American businesses. But it has to do better at reinforcing American values rather than attacking those who pushed through their own obstacles to achieve success.
I tune out ( or change the channel) as soon as someone starts basing their commentary on the oppressed v oppressor dichotomy. It's simplistic, shallow and lazy IMO.
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying you dislike the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy (as sometimes presented in DEI courses) or that you think critiques of that framing are puerile? Or something else?
The only way I know to explain DEI is to point out that people tend to stick with people who look like themselves. So it's not necessarily nefarious that white men hire only white men, it's more to do with staying in the tribe. And so many businesses and governments are run by white men that DEI helps ensure that white men actually look at women and people of color as candidates for hire.
DEI is absolutely necessary. The hard part is when you're dealing with racists and misogynists. Regulation is all we've got because you're not likely to succeed with these people by trying to teach them sensitivity.
This is simplistic, but it's like using traffic signals to let other people through the intersection. Some folks have to be forced to do it and be fined when they don't.
Any teaching probably needs to focus on showing people that exercising superiority over others is bad for society. All folks are created equal. In a true democracy, that is.
It's the "industry of DEI" that I find the objectionable pieceof all this- as with prior iterations going back to "sensitivity training" 50 yrs ago. Once those workplace seminars or protocols with boxes to check become requirements, people tune out.
I appreciate the article and the sentiment behind it. I don't believe it's strong enough and it fails to address issues caused by poor understanding and implementation of DEI programs.
Philosophically, Americans shouldn't need convincing that Diversity is a worthwhile goal. It says it on our money: E Pluribus Unum, or "Out of many, one." Immigration has been a strength of our country since early days, and continues to be so. That said, sometimes "better qualified" candidates are rejected in favor of those who help satisfy diversity metrics. We hear about those stories but not those where the "unexpected" candidate outperforms expectations.
Equity is a little tougher, because critics and some supporters take it to mean, "everyone gets the same outcome, regardless of contribution." That's a far cry from a merit-based world that I think most of us would support (am I wrong about this?).
Last, the idea of inclusion is also very traditionally American. In Boy Scouts, we learned that we could only hike as the slowest boy, so we had to get him up to everyone else's level.
In DEI education that I have been exposed to, there is discussion of "oppression" and "privilege." These get hammered on by right-wingers, and rightly so. That framework sets up a us/them framework, and endorses the notion of specific classes as "victim." This is "anti-American" as it asks for redress instead of championing self-reliance (despite structural obstacles). There are few things as annoying as people claiming victimhood (well, especially when they are right-wingers or "Christians" who have huge advantages).
DEI deserves a place in American businesses. But it has to do better at reinforcing American values rather than attacking those who pushed through their own obstacles to achieve success.
I tune out ( or change the channel) as soon as someone starts basing their commentary on the oppressed v oppressor dichotomy. It's simplistic, shallow and lazy IMO.
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying you dislike the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy (as sometimes presented in DEI courses) or that you think critiques of that framing are puerile? Or something else?
The 1st - I dislike the dichotomy. The world and people are way more complicated than that.
Thanks. I agree and think it is insulting to the "oppressors" and debilitating to those who want to take on the mantle of victim.
IF DIE is good, why are the best neighborhoods White?
Musk wants to use federal money (our $$$$) to promote crypto.
Free speech, my ass, it’s all about $$$$$$$$.
Clinton balanced the budget. Obama did the affordable care act. And musk wants our money. Which we have given before.
Nothing wrong with given companies support to make the lives of ALL the people better…… SEE THE EMPHASIS….
Musk nearly shut down the government last week…