Who is secretly a little relieved to see the end of DEI policies and trainings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a fed, but will say that at least at my company the expectation was that my company had to make up for the “barriers” in society that made it harder for certain populations to get the right education/certifications/etc. The expectation was that we should just not require those KSAs because then we were feeding into perpetuating racism. I very much believe those barriers exist so I’ll say that but I don’t think it’s the company’s job to make up for those limitation, especially when clients still expect staff to have those KSAs. It leads to individuals who are underqualified in jobs they cannot actually do who then decry any corrective actions as biased based — a self fulfilling proficey.

Proficey??? LOL okay. Did you meet the KSAs?? Bc you’re struggling.

[Anonymous]

Private sector here. Glad the trainings will be reduced. Performative waste of time and other resources with little effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of them were completely useless to fight against discrimination, so I don't think many people will be sorry to see them go.

However, the vitriol leveled against innocent workers in these offices and the obvious underlying racism and misogyny at the heart of that rejection is actually the bigger problem. I'd rather have a stupid DEI office with stupid meetings and stupid trainings than an executive branch filled with people convicted of sexual assault, whose ex-wives have described terrible abuse, and who routinely verbally attack non-whites, immigrants, LGBTQ+ and women.

The pendulum, in this instance, has swung too far both ways. But one way actually seeks to protect historically vulnerable populations, however awkwardly. And the other way just brazenly doubles down on oppression, Good Ol' Boys and crass vulgarity.

Agree . . . and would like to add that, in my experience, not all of the programs were useless or awkward. I attended a few that I found really helpful and informative, and one in particular truly changed my behavior and thinking. My guess is that these programs are most likely to have an impact when directed at an audience that is both open to the message and willing to be uncomfortable when it comes to confronting their own thoughts, behavior, and privilege. It seems that forcing them on people who don't want to be there creates the kind of counterproductive resentment that makes it easier to vote for the guy who promises to let you be the stunted human you want to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at a private co and I think some of the HR trainings and programs went too far. Not necessarily that we hired unqualified people- we didn’t- but we spent way too much time and $ jumping through hoops for HR trainings and following their hiring rules and procedures

I’m black FWIW and found the entirely enterprise be essentially worthless. I’m not relieved because the current effort is about more than getting rid of DEI; it’s a wholesale effort to dismantle the civil rights infrastructure — not that it should be unassailable, but it’s a much more ambitious project that is likely to lead to folks being affirmatively and unfairly targeted, including on grounds of race and gender, with no legal recourse. That’s the real goal / the DEI foolishness just gave them any easy hook.

+1. My take is that the Republican establishment was terrified at the legitimate and widespread uprising after George Floyd that unified the races and classes. They embarked on a furious counter-offensive that leveraged and distorted the weakest points and excesses like bad D.E.I. trainings and toxic (yes) reverse racism.

1000%. I felt it immediately and knew backlash to George Floyd was coming. I’m just tremendously disappointed how many people I know seem relived it’s here. FWIW- I also agree DEI efforts missed the mark. Could have been such a win for democrats. We need someone to message all this better for us and we need all the old politicians to move on.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, they included "A" in their banned activities the A being for accessibility. We hired an attorney who is in a wheelchair and our ADA office helped us get her the right desk made sure we put her in an office with the correct bathroom made sure we had the proper fire safety procedures in place because she couldn't use the stairwell.

I don't know how anyone could think getting rid of our accessibility staff is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Im just happy we will stop pressuring children on sexuality. Like who you want, but don’t feel pressured to “identify” as sexual. These are kids!!

[Anonymous]

I’m glad DEI is gone. It was an ineffective waste of time at best, and divisive and causing even more racism at worst.

If we really want to change society for the better, it is not race we should be emphasizing. It’s money privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im just happy we will stop pressuring children on sexuality. Like who you want, but don’t feel pressured to “identify” as sexual. These are kids!!

You think federal DEI hiring offices were pressuring kids on sexuality.

What? What do you think these offices actually do?

[Anonymous]

A lot of money was spent just to add an additional field for pronoun preferences and only about 2% of the people are providing the info anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even 17 year old high school students have to write essays about diversity. The essay prompts make you feel guilty for not being black or Hispanic.

If you want to understand why Trump won, DEI would be one of the top issues. My cousin who is a professor in a STEM field, who had been a hard core left wing liberal, got fed up with democrats. He voted for republicans, thought not for Trump.

No, they don’t. GMAFB.

You can't insist to someone that they do not feel the way they feel about their own race in a situation.
See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at a private co and I think some of the HR trainings and programs went too far. Not necessarily that we hired unqualified people- we didn’t- but we spent way too much time and $ jumping through hoops for HR trainings and following their hiring rules and procedures

I’m black FWIW and found the entirely enterprise be essentially worthless. I’m not relieved because the current effort is about more than getting rid of DEI; it’s a wholesale effort to dismantle the civil rights infrastructure — not that it should be unassailable, but it’s a much more ambitious project that is likely to lead to folks being affirmatively and unfairly targeted, including on grounds of race and gender, with no legal recourse. That’s the real goal / the DEI foolishness just gave them any easy hook.

+1. My take is that the Republican establishment was terrified at the legitimate and widespread uprising after George Floyd that unified the races and classes. They embarked on a furious counter-offensive that leveraged and distorted the weakest points and excesses like bad D.E.I. trainings and toxic (yes) reverse racism.

1000%. I felt it immediately and knew backlash to George Floyd was coming. I’m just tremendously disappointed how many people I know seem relived it’s here. FWIW- I also agree DEI efforts missed the mark. Could have been such a win for democrats. We need someone to message all this better for us and we need all the old politicians to move on.

Agreed. And as long as corporations were at the helm of pushing DEI, the real roots of all this inequity are never truly going to be discussed.

Churches could be at the lead on this if they were following Jesus's teachings, but so many have gone far right and basically are corporations themselves.

[Anonymous]

Yes, very happy. I'm private too, but I posted here maybe like a year ago about how I was voluntold to be the DEI Hispanic representative of for our group. Thing is, I am not Hispanic - I am a white woman with absolutely zero Hispanic background. I was asked to attend all of the Hispanic DEI meetings and represent our group - no one wanted to do this so my manager's manager voluntold me to do it. Let me make it clear that this wasn't a 'learning about Hispanic culture thing' - no this was some sort of support group for Hispanic employees. I did not feel comfortable doing this at all, and told him this. He said he'd 'get back to me.' Never did, nothing ever came of it.

[Anonymous]

DEI hurt the hiring process.

When a female quit or was let go, DEI policy dictated that another female had to be hired. If a POC left or was let go, same thing - the person hired had to be a POC.

Many excellent candidates were bypassed for simply being the wrong gender or wrong color. The first is easier to weed out... Abigail Adams, yes, Martin Smith, no. But the second one? Those weren't able to be weeded out until the first interview. I HATED logging on for a virtual interview with Travis Jones and seeing he was white because the interview was pointless. It was a waste of my time and theirs, but I couldn't say anything. "Hey, I'm going to end this b/c you're white and we need a POC. I'm sorry."

[Anonymous]

I found the focus insulting, premised as it was on the notion that [implicitly white male] people are necessarily biased against certain groups, with no reason to think that any particular employee actually harbored such such biases. Historical social norms no longer in vogue seemed a weak and useless basis for efforts to inform us all that such behavior violated policies which we could read for ourselves in a few minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im just happy we will stop pressuring children on sexuality. Like who you want, but don’t feel pressured to “identify” as sexual. These are kids!!

I'll take things that never happened for 1000 alex.