The future of DEI

[Anonymous]

Recently read this WaPo piece about workplaces stepping back from DEI: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/05/dei-affirmative-action-rebrand-evolution/

Marilyn Fish, an Atlanta-based employment attorney who specializes in affirmative action, said she’s seen companies “looking at policies more holistically” since the Harvard-UNC decision. Many of her clients — among them Fortune 500 companies — have renamed their programs to put “inclusion” up front, hoping it will resonate with employees.

Some of her clients recently moved away from
employee resource groups that had identified some people as “members” and others as “allies.” Some opened up mentorship programs that were reserved for employees of certain races to people of all backgrounds.

“I do think that some programs were operating with an exclusivity that was potentially problematic,” Fish said.

I am a White presenting Latina and I have been in several DEI trainings that have been really interesting and helpful. But many others have not only been unhelpful, but have actually been offensive to me in various ways, such as shaming Latinos who don't speak Spanish (I do speak Spanish but am well aware it's a colonizer's language) or trainers feeling the need to single me out, based on my Latino heritage, to remind me I have White privilege (since apparently White Latinos don't know this and need to be reminded, but White Anglos do not). It's not uncommon for trainers to explicitly discriminate against White participants (e.g. setting ground rules that only apply to White people like not interrupting or "doing your own research), which I get the reason for but it results in White participants staying quiet and just nodding their heads because they don't want to be accused of racism. They become completely disengaged since they've essentially been told they are lesser than due to their race and then the burden of implementing DEI falls on the BIPOC staff.

The article highlights that while DEI is a multi-billion dollar industry, it is new and rapidly evolving, and there are few or no standards for trainers or data/assessment of what actually works and what does more harm than good. It does feel like business have jumped on this to placate people that might accuse them of racism, rather than being more thoughtful recognizing this takes time and nobody really knows how to do it.

[Anonymous]

The nation is at a breaking point and I anticipate the pendulum is getting ready to swing hard in the other direction. DEI hucksters should enjoy their remaining ten minutes on stage.

[Anonymous]

it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

Or it just meant he had to compete evenly instead of just skating and getting a job a buddy gives him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

That does sound really frustrating. I'm surprised they actually said that to him out loud.

I think this comes down to companies not wanting to actually address racism and instead just put on a show. Giving job candidates points for their racial background seems lazy, legally dubious and harmful to BIPOC workers who will then face the perception they were a diversity hire. They will get that anyway but I think this just adds fuel to the fire.
I think it's more helpful to:

- Scrub names/identifying information from resumes for review
- Create paid internships that are advertised at HBCUs and other schools with diverse student bodies
- Intentionally create networking opportunities such as coffee chat programs advertised at HBCUs and other schools with diverse student bodies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

Or it just meant he had to compete evenly instead of just skating and getting a job a buddy gives him.

DP. Kudos on the victim mindset. Actually, it's the opposite of fair competition and your racist comment openly suggests that bosses cannot be POC. Therapy could go a long way for you.

[Anonymous]

I'll go out on a limb and say these programs created more racism than they've cured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recently read this WaPo piece about workplaces stepping back from DEI: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/05/dei-affirmative-action-rebrand-evolution/

Marilyn Fish, an Atlanta-based employment attorney who specializes in affirmative action, said she’s seen companies “looking at policies more holistically” since the Harvard-UNC decision. Many of her clients — among them Fortune 500 companies — have renamed their programs to put “inclusion” up front, hoping it will resonate with employees.

Some of her clients recently moved away from
employee resource groups that had identified some people as “members” and others as “allies.” Some opened up mentorship programs that were reserved for employees of certain races to people of all backgrounds.

“I do think that some programs were operating with an exclusivity that was potentially problematic,” Fish said.

I am a White presenting Latina and I have been in several DEI trainings that have been really interesting and helpful. But many others have not only been unhelpful, but have actually been offensive to me in various ways, such as shaming Latinos who don't speak Spanish (I do speak Spanish but am well aware it's a colonizer's language) or trainers feeling the need to single me out, based on my Latino heritage, to remind me I have White privilege (since apparently White Latinos don't know this and need to be reminded, but White Anglos do not). It's not uncommon for trainers to explicitly discriminate against White participants (e.g. setting ground rules that only apply to White people like not interrupting or "doing your own research), which I get the reason for but it results in White participants staying quiet and just nodding their heads because they don't want to be accused of racism. They become completely disengaged since they've essentially been told they are lesser than due to their race and then the burden of implementing DEI falls on the BIPOC staff.

The article highlights that while DEI is a multi-billion dollar industry, it is new and rapidly evolving, and there are few or no standards for trainers or data/assessment of what actually works and what does more harm than good. It does feel like business have jumped on this to placate people that might accuse them of racism, rather than being more thoughtful recognizing this takes time and nobody really knows how to do it.

I don't think I'd call this discrimination, but it needs to be called something. This is common and reality is most white people are not going for it. I don't know what the answer is. Genuinely. It becomes a room full of people who already all agree with each other as a lot of white people just opt out of these conversations if they are able to or resent them if they are forced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently read this WaPo piece about workplaces stepping back from DEI: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/05/dei-affirmative-action-rebrand-evolution/

Marilyn Fish, an Atlanta-based employment attorney who specializes in affirmative action, said she’s seen companies “looking at policies more holistically” since the Harvard-UNC decision. Many of her clients — among them Fortune 500 companies — have renamed their programs to put “inclusion” up front, hoping it will resonate with employees.

Some of her clients recently moved away from
employee resource groups that had identified some people as “members” and others as “allies.” Some opened up mentorship programs that were reserved for employees of certain races to people of all backgrounds.

“I do think that some programs were operating with an exclusivity that was potentially problematic,” Fish said.

I am a White presenting Latina and I have been in several DEI trainings that have been really interesting and helpful. But many others have not only been unhelpful, but have actually been offensive to me in various ways, such as shaming Latinos who don't speak Spanish (I do speak Spanish but am well aware it's a colonizer's language) or trainers feeling the need to single me out, based on my Latino heritage, to remind me I have White privilege (since apparently White Latinos don't know this and need to be reminded, but White Anglos do not). It's not uncommon for trainers to explicitly discriminate against White participants (e.g. setting ground rules that only apply to White people like not interrupting or "doing your own research), which I get the reason for but it results in White participants staying quiet and just nodding their heads because they don't want to be accused of racism. They become completely disengaged since they've essentially been told they are lesser than due to their race and then the burden of implementing DEI falls on the BIPOC staff.

The article highlights that while DEI is a multi-billion dollar industry, it is new and rapidly evolving, and there are few or no standards for trainers or data/assessment of what actually works and what does more harm than good. It does feel like business have jumped on this to placate people that might accuse them of racism, rather than being more thoughtful recognizing this takes time and nobody really knows how to do it.

I don't think I'd call this discrimination, but it needs to be called something. This is common and reality is most white people are not going for it. I don't know what the answer is. Genuinely. It becomes a room full of people who already all agree with each other as a lot of white people just opt out of these conversations if they are able to or resent them if they are forced.

Setting different rules for people based on their race is discrimination. It is distinct from racism.

[Anonymous]

My DH has had do some pretty freaky things under the DEI banner. I've heard some of his calls since we overlap on remote work. His work involves outreach to businesses and his work place wants him to create a sharable list of people he's come in contact with who might fall under the DEI banner. This list will do into a larger database. On its face, it's okay but he's also supposed to include the LGBTQIA+ community and any other minority. Some people don't want to be labeled by their minority status (and absolutely reject the premise) and some people are mixed race and some people have their own thoughts on how they want to identify. But, he's not allowed to ask them outright of course and yet some how create an actual list and certify it.

I'm Latina and this all is weird and suspect to me. I wouldn't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

Utter BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

Utter BS

Not this poster, but why do you think this is BS? I work for a large organization and our hiring practice is if all things are equal, hire the diverse candidate. It does count against you not to be a diverse candidate. I can also tell you with certainty it is much more difficult to deal with performance issues with a diverse employee. They will get a lot more chances and a lot more rope than a white person. No one cares if you fire a white person.

The issue (to me) is there are so many environments, systems, and employers where black people genuinely are discriminated against and are treated unfairly. Those persist and then in these more DEI-forward environments, or whatever we want to call it, the pendulum has swung so far the other way it's causing other problems that I believe actually hurt the issue overall in the end.

[Anonymous]

They need to include white people in D&I.

My old company started this and white peoples from 50-60 and 60 plus, white people with kids, working white moms, white handicapped people, white gay people etc.

It is a farce if it is accused white peoples hace no adversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

Utter BS

Not this poster, but why do you think this is BS? I work for a large organization and our hiring practice is if all things are equal, hire the diverse candidate. It does count against you not to be a diverse candidate. I can also tell you with certainty it is much more difficult to deal with performance issues with a diverse employee. They will get a lot more chances and a lot more rope than a white person. No one cares if you fire a white person.

The issue (to me) is there are so many environments, systems, and employers where black people genuinely are discriminated against and are treated unfairly. Those persist and then in these more DEI-forward environments, or whatever we want to call it, the pendulum has swung so far the other way it's causing other problems that I believe actually hurt the issue overall in the end.

+1 OP here

We cannot actually give points to diverse candidates but my boss has indicated race matters - if we can't justify not hiring a BIPOC candidate we have to hire them, whereas the same does not apply to a White candidate. Basically the underlying assumption is the BIPOC candidate has to be significantly worse to not get the job. In one case we hired someone who I could tell was not awesome, then she turned out to be horrible, had to be fired and then raised a big stink about being because of racism.

And none of this helps competent BIPOC employees who have to contend with perceptions they are diversity hires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's so hard.

when dh lost his job just before the pandemic, it coincided with the apex of all this and he had multiple interviews for over a year where people said look - you are not a diverse candidate and that counts against you. I think the issue is that DEI has too often been either presented as or misconstrued as an 'at the expense of' situation. which actually runs counter to the entire premise. I dont know the answer but it sucked at the time.

Or it just meant he had to compete evenly instead of just skating and getting a job a buddy gives him.

Not poster but I was flat out refused jobs based on sex, race and age.

In fact my last three jobs offers were at mostly minority companies and minorities hired me. A black man or black women can hire a white guy. A white guy cant.

Also companies where senior management is mainly black or Spanish I had great luck with. Asian or Indian not so much they like to hire their own. And white peoples don’t want white people.

I wish job ad would say women only, etc.