Do you believe there is no benefit to DEI?

[TimHauck 2,866]

Inspired by the Tractor Supply thread.

I would agree that the left took DEI overboard and there’s probably no need to have entire positions dedicated to it like a “Chief Diversity Officer,” so I’m not surprised to see Tractor Supply say they are going to eliminate those roles.

But while they did say they’re “going to ensure a respectful environment,” I was a little surprised to see them say they are also going to eliminate DEI “goals.”  Yeah you probably don’t need to set a goal for a certain % of minority workers, but I do believe there is benefit to DEI initiatives such as not including names on resumes that are screened to be interviewed (and hopefully Tractor Supply still does stuff like that).

Again, I would agree that DEI shouldn’t be taken to the extent that people get hired that are less qualified than other applicants.  It’s more about making sure minorities and women have a fair shot, and as much as the people here want to claim all minorities do get a fair shot, that isn’t always the case.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

There is nothing good about DIE

[Strike 5,538]

Making sure someone has a fair shot is not the same as DEI.  DEI initiatives harm others so any benefits have to be weighed against the harm it does.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

And equity is bullsh1t as well. That’s some communism stuff 

[Voltaire 5,316]

The country is increasingly ethnically diverse and because of that you already get DEI for free without needing to put in any effort. Just going back to race-neutrality and meritocracy, and excellence, which never should have been abandoned in the first place, you get DEI by osmosis.

[jerryskids 6,791]

21 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Inspired by the Tractor Supply thread.

I would agree that the left took DEI overboard and there’s probably no need to have entire positions dedicated to it like a “Chief Diversity Officer,” so I’m not surprised to see Tractor Supply say they are going to eliminate those roles.

But while they did say they’re “going to ensure a respectful environment,” I was a little surprised to see them say they are also going to eliminate DEI “goals.”  Yeah you probably don’t need to set a goal for a certain % of minority workers, but I do believe there is benefit to DEI initiatives such as not including names on resumes that are screened to be interviewed (and hopefully Tractor Supply still does stuff like that).

Again, I would agree that DEI shouldn’t be taken to the extent that people get hired that are less qualified than other applicants.  It’s more about making sure minorities and women have a fair shot, and as much as the people here want to claim all minorities do get a fair shot, that isn’t always the case.

I agree with your premise that the concept of DEI has value, and that removing names from interview screens is a good, objective step in that direction.

I disagree with the exponential additions of DEI-related positions to support graduates with DEI-related jobs.

I think the NFL has a good idea to require interviews, but that is a very self-contained fish bowl. And it doesn't translate to the general application to all American businesses.

We need to figure out a system to optimize the advancement of superior minority people into positions, without putting clearly insufficient people into those positions.

[TimHauck 2,866]

37 minutes ago, Strike said:

Making sure someone has a fair shot is not the same as DEI.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dei#google_vignette
 

DEI1

abbreviation for

1. diversity, equity, and inclusion: a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc

[Strike 5,538]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dei#google_vignette
 

DEI1

abbreviation for

1. diversity, equity, and inclusion: a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc

Well, if dictionary.com says it it must be true.  Look, I'm not going to get in to a semantics game with you.  If you believe DEI hasn't harmed anyone than there is nothing for you and I to discuss and we just fundamentally disagree on this issue.

[TimHauck 2,866]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Well, if dictionary.com says it it must be true.  Look, I'm not going to get in to a semantics game with you.  If you believe DEI hasn't harmed anyone than there is nothing for you and I to discuss and we just fundamentally disagree on this issue.

As I said in the OP I would agree that many companies have taken it too far, but the literal definition of DEI is about giving people a fair shot.

[kilroy69 1,248]

From my own personal experience as a recruiter in the IT industry I can say without question that DEI is used to discriminate against white men. There is ZERO benefit to DEI in the way it is applied currently. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dei#google_vignette
 

DEI1

abbreviation for

1. diversity, equity, and inclusion: a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc

Nobody deserves equity or inclusion 

[Strike 5,538]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

As I said in the OP I would agree that many companies have taken it too far, but the literal definition of DEI is about giving people a fair shot.

That's ridiculous.  It is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on the characteristics DEI is supposdledly fighting for.  Beyond that, if these companies are bending over backwards in the name of DEI they clearly aren't discriminating anyways.  If they get rid of all DEI initiatives that means they're going to discriminate?  Makes zero sense.  DEI is just a fancy way to discriminate in other ways.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,418]

Nepotism is just as bad.  

[Fireballer 2,642]

16 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dei#google_vignette
 

DEI1

abbreviation for

1. diversity, equity, and inclusion: a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc

What the hell does “full participation” mean?

[Strike 5,538]

7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Nepotism is just as bad.  

Yep.  Real Tim would be working at McDonald's if not for his dad.

[TimHauck 2,866]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

That's ridiculous.  It is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on the characteristics DEI is supposdledly fighting for.  Beyond that, if these companies were bending over backwards in the name of DEI they clearly aren't discriminating anyways.  If they get rid of all DEI initiatives that means they're going to discriminate?  Makes zero sense.  DEI is just a fancy way to discriminate in other ways.

The main point of my OP is that there can be a middle ground between overt discrimination and “bending over backwards in the name of DEI.”

We don’t need Chief Diversity Officers, but I think HR departments requiring employees to take a 1 hour online training module can be helpful.

[Gladiators 1,987]

22 minutes ago, Strike said:

That's ridiculous.  It is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on the characteristics DEI is supposdledly fighting for.  Beyond that, if these companies are bending over backwards in the name of DEI they clearly aren't discriminating anyways.  If they get rid of all DEI initiatives that means they're going to discriminate?  Makes zero sense.  DEI is just a fancy way to discriminate in other ways.

Nailed it.

[Strike 5,538]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The main point of my OP is that there can be a middle ground between overt discrimination and “bending over backwards in the name of DEI.”

We don’t need Chief Diversity Officers, but I think HR departments requiring employees to take a 1 hour online training module can be helpful.

Are you disputing my assertion that it's illegal to discriminate based on the characteristics DEI is supposedly trying to compensate for?

[5-Points 3,526]

There is clearly some benefit to the DEI hires. 

It's a net negative for everybody else and society as a whole. 

[TimHauck 2,866]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Are you disputing my assertion that it's illegal to discriminate based on the characteristics DEI is supposedly trying to compensate for?

No.  But there can also be unconscious biases which doing things like removing names from resumes can counteract.

[jerryskids 6,791]

So what's up with this two minute buffer?  

[Nomad99 742]

41 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

As I said in the OP I would agree that many companies have taken it too far, but the literal definition of DEI is about giving people a fair shot.

The definition is completely different than the practice. 

[TimHauck 2,866]

2 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

The definition is completely different than the practice. 

Agree

[seafoam1 3,017]

negative benefits to dei. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,099]

The solution to racism is not even more racism.  That's what dei is - even MORE racism. 

[Strike 5,538]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

No.  But there can also be unconscious biases which doing things like removing names from resumes can counteract.

Are you disputing my assertion that corporations with a large DEI footprint are probably opposed to discrimination based on the characteristics that DEI is supposedly fighting for?  Regarding your suggestions that are supposedly a "middle ground":

1)  I would not favor making employees take a 1 hour online course.  I have to do multiple ones yearly and I hate them.  They take on the bias of the person designing the course.  Just tell people you don't tolerate discrimination, just like EVERY OTHER POLICY where we just tell people what the policy is and if they are caught violating it we discipline them.  These are adults.

2)  I don't specifically think removing names from resumes is a horrible thing but it would make interviews awkward.  Maybe we have multiple people interviewed at the same time, refer to them as contestant numbers 1, 2, and 3, and I pick one and we go out on a date.  We can call it "The interviewing game."

Those are the only suggestions I recall.  If you had others sorry for not addressing them.  Based on these two I wouldn't call that "middle ground."  These are minor things compared to what is done at large companies in the name of DEI currently.  On a scale of 1-100 where 0 is doing nothing, and 100 is where we currently are, adding your suggestions starting at the nothing end of the scale would move things up to about 3 on that 1-100 scale.  Technically in the middle between 0 and 100 but not really what most would consider "middle ground."

[TimHauck 2,866]

7 hours ago, Strike said:

Are you disputing my assertion that corporations with a large DEI footprint are probably opposed to discrimination based on the characteristics that DEI is supposedly fighting for?  Regarding your suggestions that are supposedly a "middle ground":

1)  I would not favor making employees take a 1 hour online course.  I have to do multiple ones yearly and I hate them.  They take on the bias of the person designing the course.  Just tell people you don't tolerate discrimination, just like EVERY OTHER POLICY where we just tell people what the policy is and if they are caught violating it we discipline them.  These are adults.

2)  I don't specifically think removing names from resumes is a horrible thing but it would make interviews awkward.  Maybe we have multiple people interviewed at the same time, refer to them as contestant numbers 1, 2, and 3, and I pick one and we go out on a date.  We can call it "The interviewing game."

Those are the only suggestions I recall.  If you had others sorry for not addressing them.  Based on these two I wouldn't call that "middle ground."  These are minor things compared to what is done at large companies in the name of DEI currently.  On a scale of 1-100 where 0 is doing nothing, and 100 is where we currently are, adding your suggestions starting at the nothing end of the scale would move things up to about 3 on that 1-100 scale.  Technically in the middle between 0 and 100 but not really what most would consider "middle ground."

So you think the two things I suggested would only be a 3 on a scale of 1-100, but you disagree with one maybe both of them, lol.

One other thing one of my last jobs did was hold a total company conference call I believe during the Holidays where people from different backgrounds shared some of their culture’s traditions, I thought that was pretty cool.

[RLLD 4,230]

I might first respond with a question.....

How do you define "benefit"?

[Strike 5,538]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So you think the two things I suggested would only be a 3 on a scale of 1-100, but you disagree with one maybe both of them, lol.

One other thing one of my last jobs did was hold a total company conference call I believe during the Holidays where people from different backgrounds shared some of their culture’s traditions, I thought that was pretty cool.

I wish this post had a point to respond to but it doesn't.  I'll just take that as you conceding that I destroyed you yet again.  

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

DEI as a concept is fine. Where it runs into issues is how companies, and individual HR departments, employ it. By that I mean- if you are using it to find the best candidates regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, etc you are doing the right thing. If you are using it to eliminate out a subset of people and then finding the best person excluding that group- well you are doing it wrong.

 

[RLLD 4,230]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

DEI as a concept is fine. Where it runs into issues is how companies, and individual HR departments, employ it. By that I mean- if you are using it to find the best candidates regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, etc you are doing the right thing. If you are using it to eliminate out a subset of people and then finding the best person excluding that group- well you are doing it wrong.

 

I see this as an honest and fair assessment.  

[TimHauck 2,866]

20 minutes ago, Strike said:

I wish this post had a point to respond to but it doesn't.  I'll just take that as you conceding that I destroyed you yet again.  

The point is you sound like a hypocrite by saying those 2 things would only be a 3 on a scale of 1-100 while simultaneously disagreeing with them.  So you’re saying there should be nothing other than saying it’s illegal to discriminate.  You are welcome to your opinion of course but I do think it is beneficial to have at least a little more than that.

Also, when people actually get to the interview they know their name, dumbazz.  It’s more about when selecting who’s going to be interviewed.

[Strike 5,538]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The point is you sound like a hypocrite by saying those 2 things would only be a 3 on a scale of 1-100 while simultaneously disagreeing with them.  So you’re saying there should be nothing other than saying it’s illegal to discriminate.  You are welcome to your opinion of course but I do think it is beneficial to have at least a little more than that.

Also, when people actually get to the interview they know their name, dumbazz.  It’s more about when selecting who’s going to be interviewed.

Implicit in the statement that it is ILLEGAL to discriminate is the statement that we should hold accountable any person or entity that violates those laws.

You also ignore my point that corporations with a large DEI footprint now were very likely opposed to discrimination already.  DEI is simply a way to sugarcoat other types of discrimination.  I don't believe in ANY discrimination.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,418]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

DEI as a concept is fine. Where it runs into issues is how companies, and individual HR departments, employ it. By that I mean- if you are using it to find the best candidates regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, etc you are doing the right thing. If you are using it to eliminate out a subset of people and then finding the best person excluding that group- well you are doing it wrong.

 

So they should just hire the best candidate regardless of their race, sex etc. Wow.  You should pitch this idea to corporations. 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

So they should just hire the best candidate regardless of their race, sex etc. Wow.  You should pitch this idea to corporations. 

You are a dummy who doesn't understand anything. Piss off rent-a-cop

[RLLD 4,230]

48 minutes ago, Strike said:

Implicit in the statement that it is ILLEGAL to discriminate is the statement that we should hold accountable any person or entity that violates those laws.

You also ignore my point that corporations with a large DEI footprint now were very likely opposed to discrimination already.  DEI is simply a way to sugarcoat other types of discrimination.  I don't believe in ANY discrimination.

Yes but you see there is still disparity......even though the impediments are removed....so then..... there must be some hidden racism out there, right?

Of course not, but accepting that there is a problem within the AA community is just so wrong.....so we ignore it....pretend its not there, and come up with other sh!t to get around it

[Strike 5,538]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Yes but you see there is still disparity......even though the impediments are removed....so then..... there must be some hidden racism out there, right?

Of course not, but accepting that there is a problem within the AA community is just so wrong.....so we ignore it....pretend its not there, and come up with other sh!t to get around it

Eh.  I don't even know the problem exists.  AA's make up 13% of our population. . What percentage of corporate America is AA?  I truly don't know, and I doubt Tim Hack does either.

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Eh.  I don't even know the problem exists.  AA's make up 13% of our population. . What percentage of corporate America is AA?  I truly don't know, and I doubt Tim Hack does either.

DEI is intended to ensure people have equity.....access to areas that liberals insist are being denied due to "racism" that no one can see or point to......

Instead of doing the simple things that other cultures within our society are already doing, and which results in success.   Hell, folks should all be copying our Asian friends, they have sh!t fully figured out....

[Strike 5,538]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

DEI is intended to ensure people have equity.....access to areas that liberals insist are being denied due to "racism" that no one can see or point to......

Instead of doing the simple things that other cultures within our society are already doing, and which results in success.   Hell, folks should all be copying our Asian friends, they have sh!t fully figured out....

No man.  It's bad.  But if we remove names from resumes and all take a one hour online course everything will be just peachy!!!

[Baker Boy 1,699]

Diversity has nothing to do with merit.  Diversity has nothing to do with quality.  Diversity has nothing to do with how well you do your job.  Diversity has nothing to do with anything except surface window dressing.  And, yet, it is a defining, dominant characteristic as far as the Left is concerned.