This term is used by the right as something to oppose, an acronymed boogyman to rally against.
My proposal is that when they use the term, we insist that they use the actual words, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and ask them if they actually oppose those three things. Ask them why they oppose diversity, why they are against equity, and have them explain why inclusion is wrong. To the best of your ability do not let them hide behind those initials-make them use the actual words those initials mean, whenever possible.
Off-topic hijack
How do you feel about the DPRK? What do you have against Democracy, people or Republics?
They have already made it clear that they’re against equity (which they see as equality of outcomes), but want equality (equality of opportunity). And, they say that specifically looking for diversity is racist as it disadvantages white people. They know what the abbreviation stands for and they’re against it.
So, good luck with that, I guess.
reply to off-topic post
I feel that the topic I posted is the topic I wish to discuss.
They won’t care. The left has been through this cycle before. Once the right name-shames something just about all you can do is rename the program something else.
They did it with Political Correctness, they did it with Affirmative Action, they did it with CRT, and now they are doing it with DEI.
So you either push back on the term itself (which I think that ship has already sailed with many large companies abandoning it) or you come up with some other name for the process of addressing systemic racism and inequality.
You could call it “racism is bad” and they would still turn it into RIB and attack it.
Hell, the Super Bowl just replaced the words “End Racism” in the endzone because Trump didn’t want to see it. If the phrase “End Racism” is shibboleth there is no hope for DEI.
I am proposing that we do not just roll over and accept the convenient acronym like trained dogs.
We can’t even convince them to get the name of the Democratic Party correct. No one is going to care what we “insist” they call it.
I guess I don’t know what that means. The acronymization, in my experience, was done by those promoting the programs. I know our PTO has been considering adding a “DEI Chair” to our Executive Board. The acronym was not used by those against the proposal, but by those in favor of it.
And, honestly, there are at least two parts of it (Diversity and Equity) that many on the right do oppose. They do not believe that there is anything inherently valuable about diversity; that if you pick the best candidates for the job and they just all happen to be white men, well so be it. And they really hate the idea of “equity” in the sense of everybody having the same access to resources, jobs, education, etc. The system in which they have advantages in these areas is precisely the one they want to conserve.
“Inclusion” they tend to be OK with, IME. I’ve had pretty good luck pointing out where some of our activities and programs are exclusive, and getting those changed.
It might just be better to call them anti-racism policies. Call them what they are, and make the other side argue that they would rather keep the racist policies in place.
Or we just ignore the crying of snowflakes and wait for them to pick another term they use instead of the n-word.
Yeah, ignoring them works great, doesn’t it?
Yes, we should make Trumpists explain why they’re against diversity, why they’re against equity, and why they’re against inclusion. Let them cover themselves with their own stench, so that decent people can have no doubts about their vileness.
We should also be ready to move on to other terms. My company simply renamed all its “DEI” to “values”. Who can be against values?
Remember, anyone who works against Trump is also against Trump. Someone can make a Trumpist explain their shittiness, while someone else can promote decency elsewhere.
I mean, all the options that have actually been TRIED have been doing wonderfully, haven’t they? When non-idiots figure out what they’re doing, they just move to a new term. It’s literally Sartre’s anti-Semites translated to black people.
I suspect that they will just reply with we believe in these terms if they only apply to white, male Christians. At this point they can just come out and be outright racist about it and tell you to Fuck Off if you don’t like it. I’ve given up on convincing these people to be reasonable, logical, or civil.
Moderating:
Trying to hijack the thread as the first response. It looks like this is your first warning. Don’t threadshit and don’t hijack, especially this early in a thread.
I’ll hide your post and the reply.
I’m a bit confused, are you saying that equality of opportunity isn’t what we’re striving for?
I think this is the biggest single issue that they are against equity about; the idea that businesses/government could be compelled to hire a lesser candidate simply because of the color of their skin, sexuality, or whatever else that’s not job performance related rankles them, because it’s essentially against everything they’ve ever been taught to expect. Which is that the best candidate will be chosen, and if you lose out on the slot/position/award, it’s because someone else was better than you, not merely something else. There isn’t any awareness of historical/structural racism, the difference between equity and equality, etc… Or even if there is awareness, they disagree that POC or whoever should get preferential treatment above and beyond more qualified candidates.
And that’s part of the bugaboo here. It is a disagreement, not some fundamental moral failing on their part if they don’t agree with preferential choice of less qualified POC. But too many on the other side of the spectrum have no nuance with that, and view it as unabashed racism, when it’s something else.
But there is strength in longevity. Forcing them to abandon terms over and over again by making them explain those terms is good in my opinion. Besides, while a few of the previous abandoned terms were deliberately vague, this one is made up of three very real terms that do not mean whatever they want them to mean.
I’ve seen this!
The response was that they’re in favor of merit. That was the repeated go-to word: merit. They didn’t turn it around with a quick “okay, and now you explain why you’re against merit” — but the reply was, oh, hey, merit is what matters; if that happens to result in diversity, I’m not against that; if it doesn’t, well, I’m not against that either. Just pick the best person for each job; if it turns out that they’re all black, that’s fine; if it turns out that they’re all white, that’s also fine; and so on.
You’re talking about a group of people that stigmatized CRT (Critical Race Theory) that had absolutely no clue what it was.
When I was in the military there was an ongoing attempt at what was called “race relations”. Troops were required to attend seminars that were aimed at eliminating racist activity and educating people as to their ignorance. They had the opposite effect, unfortunately. Personally, I’ve found that attempts to correct people as the OP would have us all do only sparks more resentment, and often outright hostility. I don’t know that there is an answer to that other than long-term exposure to truth and the ongoing attrition of bigots.
There’s the problem. It’s not enough for POC to be it the top 10% of POC, they have to be in the top 10% of the top 10% of everyone to even have a chance to not get passed over for a ‘’‘better qualified’‘’ candidate for the job.