The coordinated attack on D.E.I. is a vast right wing conspiracy

[Anonymous]

all the weird DEI outcomes flow from the flawed underlying premise that, absent discrimination, you ought to have equal representation of different cultural groups in any given profession (though as pointed out earlier we only seem to care about nice white collar jobs) - so that any unevenness must mean discrimination

it's like left wing creationism - complexity must equal magic

if a bunch of people with East Asian ancestry beat my kids out for spots as science post docs I'm pretty sure it won't be because of racial discrimination

[Anonymous]

Good job derailing a thread when it’s pretty clear that the rightwing intelligentsia leading the “anti-Woke” mob are straight up racists and bigots.

Leak more emails!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all the weird DEI outcomes flow from the flawed underlying premise that, absent discrimination, you ought to have equal representation of different cultural groups in any given profession (though as pointed out earlier we only seem to care about nice white collar jobs) - so that any unevenness must mean discrimination

it's like left wing creationism - complexity must equal magic

if a bunch of people with East Asian ancestry beat my kids out for spots as science post docs I'm pretty sure it won't be because of racial discrimination

This is exactly right. There is no such thing as equal representation in any profession. I played HS football with a guy who played in the NFL for over 10 years.

We both loved football, worked our butts off and wanted to win, but he was bigger, faster, stronger and was far better than me. Oh...he was white and I'm Asian. Shocker.

There is no such thing as equal representation in professions. Plain and simple. To force it is a farce, and most rational people who have spent any time in a corp environment know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good job derailing a thread when it’s pretty clear that the rightwing intelligentsia leading the “anti-Woke” mob are straight up racists and bigots.

Leak more emails!

I agree that some of the right-wingers criticizing DEI are racists and bigots. Certainly some of the emails demonstrate that. But it is not accurate to characterize all right-wing critics that way, any more than it would be fair to criticize all DEI proponents as classist anti-labor corporatists. Certainly some are, but it’s not a fair description of all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI programs have nothing to do with inclusion, diversity or equity. They are deliberately designed to exclude people that are not members of the woke left's preferred minority groups, instill guilt and shame in non-members and provide a rationale for asset seizures from non-members to right contrived grievances.

People confuse DEI with equality. DEI initiatives don't want equality and equal opportunitiesbut rather equity, which means equal outcomes no matter the input. It is a social engineering program that has nothing to do with equality. It may come as a shock to people, but individuals are different. Individuals have different experiences and aptitudes...there will be candidates who are better than others. DEI doesn't care about any of that though and thinks we should all have equal outcomes in the end. It is just communism wrapped up in package under a different name. No one is fooled.

How do you explain why so many mediocre men have been promoted to the top over more qualified and experienced women?

You are conflating equal opportunities with equity. The latter is what DEI wants, not the former. No one is debating they women deserve their fair shake at equal opportunity.

DEI wants equitable outcomes for women who do the same job as men. On paper that sounds good, but in practice this means hiring or promoting women who are grossly unqualified into positions because we need to fast track equitable outcomes. That's not equality. It is social engineering and communism.

Maybe back in the 1980s men could skate by. But in the modern world the tables are now reversed and there are so many unqualified to mid women who get hired for jobs or promoted into leadership positions just so the corporate world can show they're meeting a quota.

Dunno. Turnabout is fair play. Did you ever complain or speak out in the past about the undeserving men who were promoted above deserving candidates? Why not? If not then take a chill pill. I am not going to cry over this given how often and even in recent times I’ve seen the reverse happen.

That pretty much sums of the state of DEI. It's not about DEI, it's about revenge. It's no wonder there's such backlash from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It’s about getting us o ground zero if you want.

Unless you spoke up about the unfair advantages men had and continue to have in many fields it’s kind of baffling why you suddenly care if women seem to have them.

So revenge.

At least you can stop labeling as DEI and just call a spade a spade - you want revenge, or perhaps even vengeance for any contrived slight you come up with next.

Total brainwashing.

Diversity and inclusion. What’s wrong with those two words?

I’ve never been on a hiring panel that had one star candidate so obviously superior to the other candidates who was then rejected in favor of an unqualified candidate for reasons of diversity. And I’ve hired a lot. Never once been in that situation.

It’s telling that you seem to think that white men are always the best candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI programs have nothing to do with inclusion, diversity or equity. They are deliberately designed to exclude people that are not members of the woke left's preferred minority groups, instill guilt and shame in non-members and provide a rationale for asset seizures from non-members to right contrived grievances.

People confuse DEI with equality. DEI initiatives don't want equality and equal opportunitiesbut rather equity, which means equal outcomes no matter the input. It is a social engineering program that has nothing to do with equality. It may come as a shock to people, but individuals are different. Individuals have different experiences and aptitudes...there will be candidates who are better than others. DEI doesn't care about any of that though and thinks we should all have equal outcomes in the end. It is just communism wrapped up in package under a different name. No one is fooled.

How do you explain why so many mediocre men have been promoted to the top over more qualified and experienced women?

You are conflating equal opportunities with equity. The latter is what DEI wants, not the former. No one is debating they women deserve their fair shake at equal opportunity.

DEI wants equitable outcomes for women who do the same job as men. On paper that sounds good, but in practice this means hiring or promoting women who are grossly unqualified into positions because we need to fast track equitable outcomes. That's not equality. It is social engineering and communism.

Maybe back in the 1980s men could skate by. But in the modern world the tables are now reversed and there are so many unqualified to mid women who get hired for jobs or promoted into leadership positions just so the corporate world can show they're meeting a quota.

Dunno. Turnabout is fair play. Did you ever complain or speak out in the past about the undeserving men who were promoted above deserving candidates? Why not? If not then take a chill pill. I am not going to cry over this given how often and even in recent times I’ve seen the reverse happen.

That pretty much sums of the state of DEI. It's not about DEI, it's about revenge. It's no wonder there's such backlash from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It’s about getting us o ground zero if you want.

Unless you spoke up about the unfair advantages men had and continue to have in many fields it’s kind of baffling why you suddenly care if women seem to have them.

So revenge.

At least you can stop labeling as DEI and just call a spade a spade - you want revenge, or perhaps even vengeance for any contrived slight you come up with next.

Total brainwashing.

Diversity and inclusion. What’s wrong with those two words?

I’ve never been on a hiring panel that had one star candidate so obviously superior to the other candidates who was then rejected in favor of an unqualified candidate for reasons of diversity. And I’ve hired a lot. Never once been in that situation.

It’s telling that you seem to think that white men are always the best candidate.

It’s telling you have a preconceived biased against white men. Literally no one anywhere has explicitly cited white men in their attacks against DEI. That’s something you assume, which just means you have a subconscious bias against white males.

Newsflash: DEI also has Asian males on their S list too.


If there is any justice in this world, hopefully one day your racial biases in hiring get exposed and you lose your job.


The best part is probably the fact you have probably hired a bunch of white females to meet diversity quotas. Gotta love it when white women get to double dip with white privilege and their ‘oppressed’ ID group that needs special treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good job derailing a thread when it’s pretty clear that the rightwing intelligentsia leading the “anti-Woke” mob are straight up racists and bigots.

Leak more emails!

and misogynists. Did you read the part where one of the men said that a patriarchal society is best?

I am not a progressive liberal; used to be a R now Independent. Some of the DEI stuff is stupid, but I am not worried about CRT being taught in school because CRT <> "white men are evil". My white DH recognizes that our system has and continues to hurt URM the most; even so, he also thinks progressives have gone too far with the DEI.

I read that article, and I found it so disturbing. It boggles my mind that URM and women who support Trump cannot see that this is the direction that the MAGA extremist contingent want to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI programs have nothing to do with inclusion, diversity or equity. They are deliberately designed to exclude people that are not members of the woke left's preferred minority groups, instill guilt and shame in non-members and provide a rationale for asset seizures from non-members to right contrived grievances.

People confuse DEI with equality. DEI initiatives don't want equality and equal opportunitiesbut rather equity, which means equal outcomes no matter the input. It is a social engineering program that has nothing to do with equality. It may come as a shock to people, but individuals are different. Individuals have different experiences and aptitudes...there will be candidates who are better than others. DEI doesn't care about any of that though and thinks we should all have equal outcomes in the end. It is just communism wrapped up in package under a different name. No one is fooled.

How do you explain why so many mediocre men have been promoted to the top over more qualified and experienced women?

You are conflating equal opportunities with equity. The latter is what DEI wants, not the former. No one is debating they women deserve their fair shake at equal opportunity.

DEI wants equitable outcomes for women who do the same job as men. On paper that sounds good, but in practice this means hiring or promoting women who are grossly unqualified into positions because we need to fast track equitable outcomes. That's not equality. It is social engineering and communism.

Maybe back in the 1980s men could skate by. But in the modern world the tables are now reversed and there are so many unqualified to mid women who get hired for jobs or promoted into leadership positions just so the corporate world can show they're meeting a quota.

Dunno. Turnabout is fair play. Did you ever complain or speak out in the past about the undeserving men who were promoted above deserving candidates? Why not? If not then take a chill pill. I am not going to cry over this given how often and even in recent times I’ve seen the reverse happen.

That pretty much sums of the state of DEI. It's not about DEI, it's about revenge. It's no wonder there's such backlash from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It’s about getting us o ground zero if you want.

Unless you spoke up about the unfair advantages men had and continue to have in many fields it’s kind of baffling why you suddenly care if women seem to have them.

So revenge.

At least you can stop labeling as DEI and just call a spade a spade - you want revenge, or perhaps even vengeance for any contrived slight you come up with next.

Total brainwashing.

Diversity and inclusion. What’s wrong with those two words?

I’ve never been on a hiring panel that had one star candidate so obviously superior to the other candidates who was then rejected in favor of an unqualified candidate for reasons of diversity. And I’ve hired a lot. Never once been in that situation.

It’s telling that you seem to think that white men are always the best candidate.

It’s telling you have a preconceived biased against white men. Literally no one anywhere has explicitly cited white men in their attacks against DEI. That’s something you assume, which just means you have a subconscious bias against white males.

Newsflash: DEI also has Asian males on their S list too.


If there is any justice in this world, hopefully one day your racial biases in hiring get exposed and you lose your job.


The best part is probably the fact you have probably hired a bunch of white females to meet diversity quotas. Gotta love it when white women get to double dip with white privilege and their ‘oppressed’ ID group that needs special treatment.

You sound triggered. Maybe that’s why you’re not getting promoted- your entitlement is just dripping from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

I call bullsh*t. They had other reasons for promoting that woman. There must be something about her they like. Maybe they just don't like you. You never know what is happening behind the scenes. Signed a COO.

Nope. You just don’t hire someone with only 5 years experience and no experience managing personnel for a number of years into a director level role. It’s a blatant diversity hire.

Some people just have that “it” factor. They have potential, the makings to be a superstar. They remind some exec of themselves when they were at that age. Or they have great connections- really wow’d the CEO in a chance encounter on the golf course one day with their poise and confidence. Director level skills tend more toward the soft skills in many places where the title actually means something.

Experience doesn’t always necessarily equate to being good at a job. In fact, if you’re known to be an entitled whiner who plays at victimhood all day long and never actually takes any steps to advance your skills or your career, your long tenure can work against you. It’s ok. Some people are just meant to be office drones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I work, DEI is a bunch of garbage. They keep hiring and promoting based on identity, most often women, and it leads to completely inexperienced staff with gaping holes in backgrounds managing everything. Lol, they just promoted a woman with only 5 years experience right out of grad school to a director level position. Absolute joke when it usually requires 10-15+ years experience, most of which you've at least had multiple years of managing personnel at a middle management level first. Her resume is nothing astounding, yet she's fast tracked to upper manager level positions for God knows why. 100% DEI wokeism garbage at work.

A bunch of mid, unqualified and mediocre women get to benefit these days. It's also funny, because it is often white women too who get the reap the most benefit - they get their white privilege AND can leverage DEI wokeism in their favor by citing something something something about gender.

I call bullsh*t. They had other reasons for promoting that woman. There must be something about her they like. Maybe they just don't like you. You never know what is happening behind the scenes. Signed a COO.

Nope. You just don’t hire someone with only 5 years experience and no experience managing personnel for a number of years into a director level role. It’s a blatant diversity hire.

Some people just have that “it” factor. They have potential, the makings to be a superstar. They remind some exec of themselves when they were at that age. Or they have great connections- really wow’d the CEO in a chance encounter on the golf course one day with their poise and confidence. Director level skills tend more toward the soft skills in many places where the title actually means something.

Experience doesn’t always necessarily equate to being good at a job. In fact, if you’re known to be an entitled whiner who plays at victimhood all day long and never actually takes any steps to advance your skills or your career, your long tenure can work against you. It’s ok. Some people are just meant to be office drones.

Nope. You don’t have an “IT” factor with virtually zero years of experience in any management capacity before a director level position. Kinda hard to demonstrate any soft skills dealing with any personnel when you’ve literally never held a position doing that kind of job.


Hopefully your CEO recognizes your incompetence when it comes to hiring and lets you go. You sound like you’re a big reason why your company is probably floundering or is inefficient. You hire a bunch of unqualified people because your judgment stinks.


Lol, a director with zero experience in any prior management roles has demonstrated an “IT” factor. Too funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI programs have nothing to do with inclusion, diversity or equity. They are deliberately designed to exclude people that are not members of the woke left's preferred minority groups, instill guilt and shame in non-members and provide a rationale for asset seizures from non-members to right contrived grievances.

People confuse DEI with equality. DEI initiatives don't want equality and equal opportunitiesbut rather equity, which means equal outcomes no matter the input. It is a social engineering program that has nothing to do with equality. It may come as a shock to people, but individuals are different. Individuals have different experiences and aptitudes...there will be candidates who are better than others. DEI doesn't care about any of that though and thinks we should all have equal outcomes in the end. It is just communism wrapped up in package under a different name. No one is fooled.

How do you explain why so many mediocre men have been promoted to the top over more qualified and experienced women?

You are conflating equal opportunities with equity. The latter is what DEI wants, not the former. No one is debating they women deserve their fair shake at equal opportunity.

DEI wants equitable outcomes for women who do the same job as men. On paper that sounds good, but in practice this means hiring or promoting women who are grossly unqualified into positions because we need to fast track equitable outcomes. That's not equality. It is social engineering and communism.

Maybe back in the 1980s men could skate by. But in the modern world the tables are now reversed and there are so many unqualified to mid women who get hired for jobs or promoted into leadership positions just so the corporate world can show they're meeting a quota.

Dunno. Turnabout is fair play. Did you ever complain or speak out in the past about the undeserving men who were promoted above deserving candidates? Why not? If not then take a chill pill. I am not going to cry over this given how often and even in recent times I’ve seen the reverse happen.

That pretty much sums of the state of DEI. It's not about DEI, it's about revenge. It's no wonder there's such backlash from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It’s about getting us o ground zero if you want.

Unless you spoke up about the unfair advantages men had and continue to have in many fields it’s kind of baffling why you suddenly care if women seem to have them.

So revenge.

At least you can stop labeling as DEI and just call a spade a spade - you want revenge, or perhaps even vengeance for any contrived slight you come up with next.

Total brainwashing.

Diversity and inclusion. What’s wrong with those two words?

I’ve never been on a hiring panel that had one star candidate so obviously superior to the other candidates who was then rejected in favor of an unqualified candidate for reasons of diversity. And I’ve hired a lot. Never once been in that situation.

It’s telling that you seem to think that white men are always the best candidate.

It’s telling you have a preconceived biased against white men. Literally no one anywhere has explicitly cited white men in their attacks against DEI. That’s something you assume, which just means you have a subconscious bias against white males.

Newsflash: DEI also has Asian males on their S list too.


If there is any justice in this world, hopefully one day your racial biases in hiring get exposed and you lose your job.


The best part is probably the fact you have probably hired a bunch of white females to meet diversity quotas. Gotta love it when white women get to double dip with white privilege and their ‘oppressed’ ID group that needs special treatment.

You sound triggered. Maybe that’s why you’re not getting promoted- your entitlement is just dripping from you.

You sound like a double dipping white female enjoying privilege from both sides of the coin. Racially privileged and playing up the sex oppression.

Gorge on the freebies while you can, Susan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. DEI is a corporatist anti-labor movement. It is meant to and very successfully divides people who would otherwise be aligned in their financial interests, thus preventing the rise of organized labor. I think that DEI has very deliberately arisen as a concept during a time when the gap between the richest and the poorest has become even shockingly wider — it’s intended to provide a mild outlet for anger and some bandaid fixes while still keeping labor weak. Meanwhile DEI itself has become a significant wealth generator for some. So, there are a lot of corporate interests that keep it going.

You know what all these identity-based groups at colleges and corporations never seem to have? A class-based affinity group. Why? Because that would be called “a labor union.” And none of the organizers, not universities or corporations, want a strong labor movement.

Yep. There is a reason why corporate America embraced DEI not long after occupy Wall Street quieted down. It’s much easier and cheaper to have employees add their pronouns in their bio than it is raising wages and improving benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. DEI is a corporatist anti-labor movement. It is meant to and very successfully divides people who would otherwise be aligned in their financial interests, thus preventing the rise of organized labor. I think that DEI has very deliberately arisen as a concept during a time when the gap between the richest and the poorest has become even shockingly wider — it’s intended to provide a mild outlet for anger and some bandaid fixes while still keeping labor weak. Meanwhile DEI itself has become a significant wealth generator for some. So, there are a lot of corporate interests that keep it going.

You know what all these identity-based groups at colleges and corporations never seem to have? A class-based affinity group. Why? Because that would be called “a labor union.” And none of the organizers, not universities or corporations, want a strong labor movement.

Yep. There is a reason why corporate America embraced DEI not long after occupy Wall Street quieted down. It’s much easier and cheaper to have employees add their pronouns in their bio than it is raising wages and improving benefits.

True story: Trump did not want to offer better benefits to his hourly workers at his LV hotel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI is total crap and it’s great that people are fed up and have had enough. Whether it’s refusing to attend stupid work events that honor every group other than White people or pulling your kids out of public schools that no longer recognize merit because some race grifter like Ibram Kendi told them merit is a racist concept, people are finding ways to rebel.

Yeah, so tired of the oppression Olympics and diversity calendar at work. Why can't people just go to work and do their jobs? I don't need to wear rainbow pants and be forcefed rainbow cookies at work during pride month. I don't need to be forcefed dimsum and noodle soup during Asian heritage month.

Just go to work and do your damn job. So tiresome.

Seriously. Nobody cares. Nobody. We don’t need to be personally involved in everyone’s life. Just be professional and polite and do your job. Nothing else is required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is not wrong about the nannies raising the kids…

Why encourage your daughter to go to college then? You don’t need a college degree to be a SAHM.

NP, but so she can work before having kids, after her kids are grown, if her husband dies or leaves her, or wants to homeschool her kids or just be an educated person? Or maybe she’ll never marry or have kids & doesn’t know that yet at 18. I mean, come on.

Women stay in the workforce and hire nannies because American workplaces “punish” women for leaving the workforce to raise their kids. It’s called the Motherhood Penalty and has been well-studied and documented

It’s weird that Heather MacDonald criticizes women for working, but doesn’t do anything to tackle this issue that would allow American women to stay home to raise their kids…

https://fortune.com/recommends/banking/the-motherhood-penalty/

The workforce punishes anyone who leaves their job to do anything other than stay at their job and do their job.

If a father left his job to raise his kids he would be “punished” as well.