The future of DEI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Tell yourself that. You’re admitting that you trick white applicants to come in under the guise of an interview when you’re not hiring whites.

You do realize this behavior fits several personality disorders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

If you followed directions and read the post on 5/6 at 15:23 you would see that it has nothing to do with getting "Offered" the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Tell yourself that. You’re admitting that you trick white applicants to come in under the guise of an interview when you’re not hiring whites.

You do realize this behavior fits several personality disorders.

Clearly they hired white applicant with is why they only have white employees. No more giving a friend a job, just tell him he needs to apply and compete instead of getting a leg up from his buddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

If you followed directions and read the post on 5/6 at 15:23 you would see that it has nothing to do with getting "Offered" the job.

So you're arguing white males are entitled to interviews? Btw you're using the example of a person who somehow managed to land a "high level detail" after and during his unsuccessful job applications as someone who has been oppressed in the job market. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Tell yourself that. You’re admitting that you trick white applicants to come in under the guise of an interview when you’re not hiring whites.

You do realize this behavior fits several personality disorders.

You're inventing an imaginary character in your head and then acting like it is some kind of gotcha to assume I am this character you invented. My workplace is majority White and has hired White people in the last 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Tell yourself that. You’re admitting that you trick white applicants to come in under the guise of an interview when you’re not hiring whites.

You do realize this behavior fits several personality disorders.

You're inventing an imaginary character in your head and then acting like it is some kind of gotcha to assume I am this character you invented. My workplace is majority White and has hired White people in the last 4 years.

No, the problem here is that you're cruel for wasting people's time. And I know you're very smart because I had to spell this out. You can google applicant names and see if they're white, should you be so committed to racist hiring.

As you've described, you were never going to consider them for a job anyhow, so don't bring them in. People spend hours, if not days, preparing for an interviews. They often buy new clothes to look sharp, take vacation days and/or arrange for childcare.

Whether or not you work in an office with a high concentration of white people doesn't excuse the sadistic behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

If you followed directions and read the post on 5/6 at 15:23 you would see that it has nothing to do with getting "Offered" the job.

So you're arguing white males are entitled to interviews? Btw you're using the example of a person who somehow managed to land a "high level detail" after and during his unsuccessful job applications as someone who has been oppressed in the job market. Come on.

What does a previously obtained job have to do with an agency head telling this person that it was highly likely they weren't invited to interview because they are a white male. Are you saying that this hiring practice is fair because the person was successful in landing a job in the past? This is why we are going to have Trump 2.0. Just effin' great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you will not believe me, but I served in a very high level detail in the federal gov't during 2022-23. As the detail was ending, I had a private exit conversation with a senate-confirmed agency head. When they asked what I was doing next, I replied that I had applied several times over the last few years for an SES role in their agency (and others) and this person said that although I was highly qualified, well known and liked etc., it was "highly likely" that I wasn't invited to interview because I am a white male. I couldn't believe they would actually say this aloud.

FWIW - I was literally abandoned as a teenager, finished high school while living on my own, and put myself through 5 years of undergrad (because I worked full time) and 6 years to get a PhD, also while working outside jobs. Sometimes, there were months on end where I didn't have a day off, but it's because of my skin color and the associated privilege that I was successful. Whatevs.

The response to your story from someone in the DEI field would be that throughout this you still benefitted from white privilege, which you did.

I get it though. I'm a similar story of low-income white person who improved myself, etc.

You’ve been brainwashed. No one is immune from privilege. If you are an American. Can walk. Are healthy. Have food. A family who loves you, you have something someone else does not. It is NOT limited to race, but these stupid programs aren’t nuanced enough for that kind of reflection.

Stop expecting people to feel bad. Society should not be encouraged to mope around full of guilt and whipping themselves all day. Probably explains the growing number of people offing themselves.

Just try to be nice and decent. And no, not as a mandate.

Ha. I'm not brainwashed. I am smart enough to know this country was built on the backs of free black labor and for generations the systems were set up to hoard wealth and opportunity with white people and the impacts of that are still in place all around us. Why is that hard to understand. Basic history. Implying all Americans have the same level of privilege makes you sound super dumb.

However, I do not think people should mope around full of guilt and whipping themselves all day. I'm a white person with a great life and let's see... zero of the white people I know are doing that so you seem to be worrying about something that's not actually happening.

Life is more complex than you're making it out to be.

It's a funny claim and historically wrong because for much of American history blacks were predominately concentrated in the South and in agriculture. They didn't build the railroads, work in the coal mines, staff the factories of the north until well into the 20th century, clear the vast forests of the midwest, break the sod on the prairies, etc cetera.

Black labor definitely played a role in helping create American prosperity but blacks did not "build" the country. If anything, how could they build the country when they effectively weren't allowed to be anything more than the most basic field hand and housemaid for much of American history? Ultimately, America really was built by white people for white people, which ironically is also what a lot of CRT people like to say too without realizing the full extent of their message when they focus about the hostility towards black people (which is also true, white Americans have historically not wanted black people around and resented their presence).

As it is, life is definitely way more complicated than DEI proponents like you want to believe in your delusional woe is me mindset. I'm a historical realist. Not a cherry picker of facts to explain away your personal failures.

But I'll tell you who the real privileged people are these days. The young urban black men who get to run red lights while the police do nothing.

The average black slave lived a similar life as a poor white sharecropper. Many people focus on a slave owner versus a slave, and don’t consider that slave owners were in the minority. There are numerous studies and papers about average calories, work hours etc and slaves truly had a very similar lifestyle as a poor white sharecropper. Of course slaves were owned and didn’t have their freedom but did the average poor white person in the south have a lot of freedom? But you’re not allowed to say any of this.

I think DEI has done more harm than good which is a shame.

Are you serious? Was the average white a slave? Yes the average white person in the south had a lot of freedom. They weren’t in chains. They could move west, north if they didn’t find opportunities south.
Maybe you don’t know what freedom is.

Not only that, but slaves were often sold to other farms and plantations and separated from their families. Sometimes as young as 4 or 5. And sometimes a slave was forced to breed with another slave at the direction of their master.
Sure, being poor is traumatic but being a black slave in 18th century America was a whole other trauma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Tell yourself that. You’re admitting that you trick white applicants to come in under the guise of an interview when you’re not hiring whites.

You do realize this behavior fits several personality disorders.

And its also illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

If you followed directions and read the post on 5/6 at 15:23 you would see that it has nothing to do with getting "Offered" the job.

So you're arguing white males are entitled to interviews? Btw you're using the example of a person who somehow managed to land a "high level detail" after and during his unsuccessful job applications as someone who has been oppressed in the job market. Come on.

What does a previously obtained job have to do with an agency head telling this person that it was highly likely they weren't invited to interview because they are a white male. Are you saying that this hiring practice is fair because the person was successful in landing a job in the past? This is why we are going to have Trump 2.0. Just effin' great.

I don't think hiring practices are typically very fair. I think if a person can get a "high level detail" I am really not concerned about their prospects or the impact on them of a temporary, reactive effort among some employees to hire more POC. Lots of people get excluded from specific jobs for dumb reasons.

[Anonymous]

pp here whose husband didn't get multiple jobs bc they self reported needing a diverse candidate.

i think what people get wrong is you are doing it wrong if your pool of candidates is not diverse NOT if you don't hire the diverse candidates.

You have to actively seek sometimes a diverse candidate pool. If you have a pool of just white people, that's bad. Diversity is a strength. In those cases when I've hired I have actively sought to reach out to diverse candidates or work with talent to do it. But at the end of the day i hire the most qualified person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

pp - he was unemployed for a year. this was at the height of covid when there was so much conversation about BLM and race was everywhere. He works in an industry which was facing a rough landscape overall, but accusations of racism were rife all over it at the time and no one wanted to hire a white male manager. I could actually understand given the tenor of the times, but it coincided with a major health problem of mine that I had to grind my way through because he was just freelancing and scrounging for work. It was hard. No one, but no one, sits around and thinks - oh well it's fair enough that i'm unemployed because x minority has been oppressed and therefore alan is more deserving of that role. They sit around thinking F*** i am poor and anxious.

I think we have too often approached this with a blunt tool. We needed to be much smarter. How can you increase diversity, increase equity, increase inclusion without it being a zero sum situation? DEI consultants were brought in to help panicking companies cover their *sses, and do performative stuff, rather than - for example - forge real robust relationships with HBCUs and integrate a talent pipeline for example

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

pp - he was unemployed for a year. this was at the height of covid when there was so much conversation about BLM and race was everywhere. He works in an industry which was facing a rough landscape overall, but accusations of racism were rife all over it at the time and no one wanted to hire a white male manager. I could actually understand given the tenor of the times, but it coincided with a major health problem of mine that I had to grind my way through because he was just freelancing and scrounging for work. It was hard. No one, but no one, sits around and thinks - oh well it's fair enough that i'm unemployed because x minority has been oppressed and therefore alan is more deserving of that role. They sit around thinking F*** i am poor and anxious.

I think we have too often approached this with a blunt tool. We needed to be much smarter. How can you increase diversity, increase equity, increase inclusion without it being a zero sum situation? DEI consultants were brought in to help panicking companies cover their *sses, and do performative stuff, rather than - for example - forge real robust relationships with HBCUs and integrate a talent pipeline for example

So he could get a job just not the one he wanted. Welcome to competition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

I used to get a lot of interviews and outreach on LinkedIn pre-Covid. My experience has actually gotten a lot more desirable. Nowadays, I apply for jobs that I am well-qualified for. I get *0* interviews. There’s another white guy in my field who is applying for many of the same jobs and we discuss (he also is getting no interviews).

I track the jobs I apply for, around 67% have gone to women, about 30% have gone to POC. Many of these candidates have fewer years of experience and/or less meaty experience in the field. Some don’t have any direct experience in the specific field but in an adjacency. 1 job has been filled by a white guy who was way over qualified for the role. I haven’t had a recruiter reach out to me on LinkedIn in over 2 years.

Fortunately I have a great job. But I’m resigned to the fact that I won’t be moving up (my company has conspicuously stopped promoting white guys to the level above me for the past year+… which has some merit because the senior leadership was rather homogenous so I do have some hope that once things get a bit more proportionate, there will be opportunities) and I won’t even be able to lateral somewhere. So I’m stuck for now. I am absolutely the best hire for a lot of openings I am applying for and am a top performer in my field - as I said, I used to have recruiters contacting me frequently and that has all ended.

It’s absolutely a fact that white men are being discriminated against in a way that no one would ever accept if it was against other populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI in large corporations can be misguided and suck AND systemic and structural racism can be real. Individuals definitely get negatively caught up in crappy DEI-led decisions just like individuals get negatively caught up in the downstream impacts of structural and systemic racism. And it feels not fair to all those people.

All the things can be true.

+1 OP here. I completely agree.

Is me as a White person being offended by a DEI training, or being passed over for a job because another candidate was similarly qualified and Black, the worst thing in the world? Of course not. The problems DEI is trying to address that mainly impact BIPOC people are much worse than that

But significant amounts of money and time, including taxpayer dollars, are being devoted to these initiatives, and it's all being made up on the fly and often alienating the people that need to buy into it while often putting BIPOC people in positions that become untenable because they are viewed as diversity hires and part of the DEI "stuff" that everyone already rolls their eyes at.

a white person being passed over for multiple jobs based purely on the fact that they are not diverse IS the worst thing in the world for that person, who may have a family to support, aside from dying or having a terminal illness.

I'm a staunch democrat but this is what the dems (and DEI initiatives) often get wrong. They assume a level of altruism that's wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to expect from any normal individual human. People are already struggling to handle their lives. You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it? of course they aren't! They are devastated. They worked their whole lives to get to this point. they have kids maybe. And hence is born anger and resentment.
No matter what preceded today, today is today and individuals are alive and they deserve to be judged on merit.

It's not realistic to assume you are going to get offered every job you apply for. Getting jobs is hard. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time searching. No, it is not the worst thing in the world.

Look—another candidate for brain de-worming. The PP didn’t say they expect applicants to get every job. Also, you are wrong if you think that racial discrimination is okay in any form.

Beating down on the majority of a nation is a mathematically fraught approach. It’s the kind of behavior that WILL get Trump elected, and then what happens.

PP said, "You expect that if someone unemployed doesn't get a job they really want bc it went to a poc BECAUSE that person is a poc, they should just be ok with it?" Nobody is going to "just be ok" with not getting a job they really want. Sometimes it's because someone else was a better fit, sometimes it's because someone else knew the right people, sometimes it's because of racial discrimination, which has had a much larger effect on POC than on White people in the grand scheme of things. I can't tell you how many times I've seen my boss push for hiring someone despite red flags because that someone knew somebody higher up who was pulling for them. Those people with connections have always been White.

I suspect what is happening is that the PP's spouse is applying for jobs that have lots of qualified applicants. Getting those jobs is going to be really hard. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because they are White, but if a workplace is predominantly White it absolutely looks bad to hire more White people when there are qualified POC candidates.

Who cares how it “looks” if the candidate is the best applicant? Businesses exist for profit, not so you can feel good. Many in-house applicants with invaluable institutional knowledge are being side-stepped because they don’t meet a racial quota. It’s a fact. These programs hurt good employees and they hurt business revenue.

The only goal of DEI was to promote and hire a disproportionate number POC to supposedly right to wrongs of yesterday.

The programs have NEVER promised to ensure the best candidate wins, which is why colleagues are right to question the capability of new diversity hires. And this really sucks because I’m sure many were the best candidate.

But policies like this can’t have it both ways.…which is why their time is extremely limited.

Actually companies who are diverse have higher profits so …

True, but context is important to avoid a false equivalency. A diverse company will be more successful if they truly chose the best candidate regardless of race. Outcomes are not the same for a company who places candidates for the sole purpose of meeting racial quotas. Ignoring white male candidates is a glaring example of this.

Look at any of major government agencies who have put national security at risk by lowering standards to fill subjective quotas.

Or, if you prefer, any of the top colleges who decided to throw out testing, sidelining objective scores to create more opportunity for POC. It didn’t work. The students they got were ill prepared and now the tests are back. MIT just dropped their formerly required DEI pact. Why? Because success follows natural diversity, NOT DEI.

The colleges are bringing back standardized tests because there is a clear financial incentive. Using standardized tests for admission decisions helps them justify admitting richer kids that can pay for prep classes.

Nobody is "ignoring white male candidates". They are getting interviews like they always have. The concern is that POC are getting the jobs that used to be held exclusively by White men.

100% gaslighting.

Who is being "ignored"? If I tell a candidate we can't hire them because they are White, that's not ignoring them. People who get ignored don't get interviewed and they certainly don't get feedback after the process is over.

Read the post on 5/6 at 15:23. That white male is being ignored.

I suspect that white male is doing just fine right now. Nobody is entitled to getting an offer for every job.

pp - he was unemployed for a year. this was at the height of covid when there was so much conversation about BLM and race was everywhere. He works in an industry which was facing a rough landscape overall, but accusations of racism were rife all over it at the time and no one wanted to hire a white male manager. I could actually understand given the tenor of the times, but it coincided with a major health problem of mine that I had to grind my way through because he was just freelancing and scrounging for work. It was hard. No one, but no one, sits around and thinks - oh well it's fair enough that i'm unemployed because x minority has been oppressed and therefore alan is more deserving of that role. They sit around thinking F*** i am poor and anxious.

I think we have too often approached this with a blunt tool. We needed to be much smarter. How can you increase diversity, increase equity, increase inclusion without it being a zero sum situation? DEI consultants were brought in to help panicking companies cover their *sses, and do performative stuff, rather than - for example - forge real robust relationships with HBCUs and integrate a talent pipeline for example

So he could get a job just not the one he wanted. Welcome to competition

A lot of these responses read like when white people tell black people that security doesn’t actually follow them around Best Buy in a targeted way..