# An argument against DEI **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2025, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954 "2025-02-06T15:42:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/383 "2025-02-25T21:23:12Z")
Well, there _is_ another interpretation… but I like yours better. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/384 "2025-02-25T21:27:00Z")
Nice try, but I was referring to your use of the term. Over time, it has become the equivalent of “Bless your heart”, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/385 "2025-02-25T21:31:58Z")
That is interesting, isn’t it? Probably has something to do with the fact that people feel especially obligated to phrase things gently when there’s a risk that they’ll be taken as harsh. The bread of the compliment sandwich is meant to mask the taste of the filling, but instead the filling taints the bread. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/386 "2025-02-25T23:24:38Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > If it’s occurring with a low frequency then it can’t be widespread by the most common understanding of the fucking word. It is worse than that, the examples mentioned so far are weak sauce. The info I checked mentions that the reason for the banning of the FAA test was because of alleged discrimination, congress (who did the ban of the test in 2018) did not mention DEI trainers or DEI testers at all, As for Google, [there was no proper DEI Advisory Council until 2020,](https://www.hrkatha.com/news/google-to-set-up-dei-advisory-council-will-strengthen-di-agenda/#:~:text=Taking%20forward%20its%20commitment%20to,grow%20in%20the%20digital%20economy.) for sure there was something about Diversity before that, but a lot of the efforts from Google came as a result of very bad scandals caused by people in high end positions that abused and discriminated against minorities. > **[Google walkout shows money doesn’t always solve diversity problems](https://diversityq.com/as-the-google-walkout-shows-money-doesnt-always-solve-diversity-problems/)** > > For once, you checked Google, and there was nothing there. As the Google walkout shows, money doesn’t always make diversity problems go away ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/387 "2025-02-25T23:28:25Z")
Moderating: > [@Ms2001](#): > > I’m sorry that the concept of words being used to indicate a degree of something, without commenting on where that degree falls on an absolute scale, is so confusing for you. That must have been quite a hindrance in school. > > Science teacher: “Who knows how big an atom is? crowmanyclouds, how about you?” > > crowmanyclouds: “An atom **isn’t** big by the most common understanding of the fucking word! Stop equivocating!” This is a Warning for continuing to make personal attacks against other posters. You were mod noted for this not long ago in this same thread. If you can’t make your points in the discussion in a civil manner, I will thread ban you. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/388 "2025-02-25T23:33:58Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > What is the total number of companies in the US that Google is one of? \< ETA: Ninja’d by [GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster) (and a mod note) \> Right, and more importantly, this was not all of Google. With any company as humungous as Google it is possible to find various instances of bad behavior. By Ms2001’s logic I can look down the long list of lawsuits against google and claim all of the acts there are widespread problems because, hey, _they happened at the fifth biggest company in the world_. Interestingly, looking at the cases on hiring, it’s a mixed bag. They’ve had multiple lawsuits for discriminating against women and minorities. Most still seem to be open, but they have lost a couple of the cases on women being paid less or discriminated against in hiring. If only there were some kind of initiative aimed at improving fairness and encouraging recruiters to consider groups that are traditionally underrepresented for particular roles. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/389 "2025-02-25T23:44:48Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > By Ms2001’s logic I can look down the long list of lawsuits against google and claim all of the acts there are widespread problems No, that wouldn’t be by my logic, because I haven’t claimed it’s a widespread problem. Evidently we disagree on how to interpret the common English construction “equally [adjective]”—fine. Had I known what a distraction it’d eventually lead to, I would’ve used different phrasing. But I’ve explained at length what I actually meant, and at this point, it’s disingenuous to continue responding as if I meant something that you now know I didn’t mean. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2025, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/390 "2025-02-25T23:49:47Z")
**You** are being disingenuous. You said that if the issues with high schools were as widespread as the issues with DEI… So yes, while the term “widespread” can be used in a sentence in an open way, that’s not how you used it. The clear implication of what you wrote is that there are a significant number of cases of DEI with illegal behaviour otherwise _why set it as a threshold_? And if you mean even one case is too many then you could have just said that, no compare / contrast required. Of course, this would be a crazy position to take though, as we’d need to start thousands of new investigations and rescind just about every policy or activity in modern society. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/391 "2025-02-26T00:07:05Z")
Moderating: > [@Ms2001](#): > > No, that wouldn’t be by my logic, because I haven’t claimed it’s a widespread problem. > > Evidently we disagree on how to interpret the common English construction “equally [adjective]”—fine. Had I known what a distraction it’d eventually lead to, I would’ve used different phrasing. But I’ve explained at length what I actually meant, and at this point, it’s disingenuous to continue responding as if I meant something that you now know I didn’t mean. > [@Mijin](#): > > **You** are being disingenuous. > > You said that if the issues with high schools were as widespread as the issues with DEI… > > So yes, while the term “widespread” can be used in a sentence in an open way, that’s not how you used it. The clear implication of what you wrote is that there are a significant number of cases of DEI with illegal behaviour otherwise _why set it as a threshold_? > > And if you mean even one case is too many then you could have just said that, no compare / contrast required. Of course, this would be a crazy position to take though, as we’d need to start thousands of new investigations and rescind just about every policy or activity in modern society. Both, please drop the side discussion about the meaning of the term, “widespread.” It’s clear you will reach no agreement on this point and it’s become a hijack to the main topic of discussion. Let’s return to that, please. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/392 "2025-02-26T00:43:02Z")
Sorry got a bit carried away there ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/393 "2025-02-26T01:44:34Z")
Moving on… > [@Mijin](#): > > Right, and more importantly, this was not all of Google. With any company as humungous as Google it is possible to find various instances of bad behavior. Indeed. There have even been times when it turned out they were [underpaying men](https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs). There’s always been some contention about just how much of any of these imbalances are caused by discrimination rather than other factors. It’s true that in the case we’ve been discussing, the subject of the lawsuit was only YouTube’s recruiting org. But the incentives and goals those recruiters were responding to weren’t limited to YouTube: diversity numbers are reported for the company as a whole (broken down very coarsely by job function, but not by organization), internal and external criticism is directed at the company as a whole, and internal mobility is such that employees hired in one org often end up working in other orgs anyway. We only know about what happened at YouTube because a recruiter was fired for objecting to the illegal request and decided to sue over it. We’d only know about it happening in another org if recruiters there also objected, were also fired for it, and then also decided to sue. Personally, I witnessed 3-4 hiring managers outside of YouTube proposing flagrantly illegal hiring practices, as a way to meet diversity goals. That’s not to say they implemented those proposals (I have no idea if they did), but it illustrates that the incentives and the dismissive attitude toward labor law weren’t limited to YT, so I’d be surprised if YT were the only org that decided to cross a line. > [@Mijin](#): > > If only there were some kind of initiative aimed at improving fairness and encouraging recruiters to consider groups that are traditionally underrepresented for particular roles. That’s what each of those managers thought they were doing, even as they proposed and/or implemented unfair, illegal hiring practices. One of the big problems with that approach is that since the people implementing it don’t coordinate with each other, they have no way to know when they’re overcorrecting. That seems to be what happened in the pay imbalance story linked above: managers across the company used discretionary bonuses to counteract a perceived pay gap, one employee at a time, and ended up creating a $10 million pay gap in the opposite direction instead. Of course, there were also initiatives that aimed at improving fairness and succeeded with a less ham-fisted, outcome-forcing approach. The head of HR described a time when there was a perceived imbalance in men vs. women getting promoted. They investigated and found that there was indeed an imbalance, but not because of bias in evaluating promotions: women who applied for a promotion were no less likely to get promoted than men. But women were less likely to apply for promotion in the first place. They started encouraging women to be less hesitant to apply for promotion, and the imbalance cleared up. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/394 "2025-02-26T01:54:34Z")
Can we compare the few times men have been underpaid to the times women have been underpaid? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/395 "2025-02-26T07:49:17Z")
> [@Ms2001](#): > > The head of HR described a time when there was a perceived imbalance in men vs. women getting promoted. They investigated and found that there was indeed an imbalance, but not because of bias in evaluating promotions: women who applied for a promotion were no less likely to get promoted than men. But women were less likely to apply for promotion in the first place. They started encouraging women to be less hesitant to apply for promotion, and the imbalance cleared up. Gee, you mean they solved an inequity problem by considering the identity-group characteristics of the people involved, and giving some extra support to members of the underperforming identity-group population? I thought that that was just the sort of thing that all the anti-DEI people keep whining about as “unfair” “special treatment”. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/396 "2025-02-26T10:01:45Z")
If one were to be very cynical about these things, it’s almost as if policies that target White women are not objectionable but policies that target any other group are by definition always objectionable, if one were to be very cynical about these things. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/397 "2025-02-26T12:23:36Z")
> [@Ms2001](#): > > There have even been times when it turned out they were [underpaying men](https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs). There’s always been some contention about just how much of any of these imbalances are caused by discrimination rather than other factors. So google’s own report is indicitive of a problem with DEI that means we should be reconsidering the incentives nationwide (incentives that I’m not sure are all that tangible in the first place), but all the lawsuits against minorities, women etc that paint the opposite picture can just be ignored? > [@Ms2001](#): > > That’s what each of those managers thought they were doing, even as they proposed and/or implemented unfair, illegal hiring practices. _Underpaying_ women was DEI? > [@Ms2001](#): > > That seems to be what happened in the pay imbalance story linked above: managers across the company used discretionary bonuses to counteract a perceived pay gap, one employee at a time, and ended up creating a $10 million pay gap in the opposite direction instead. One of the biggest cases that Google has settled was [$118 million for discriminating against women](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/business/google-discrimination-settlement-women.html). We also have an [individual case](https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/google-sex-discrimination-case#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20Google%20paid%20%24118,September%202013%20to%20September%202017.) discriminating against a woman, discriminating against both [women and asians](https://www.businessinsider.com/google-hiring-bias-settlement-2-million-racial-gender-discrimination-dol-2021-2), google engaging in [ageism](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/google-settles-age-discrimination-suit-with-ex-cloud-director). There’s [a case still pending](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/18/google-black-employees-lawsuit-racial-bias#:~:text=Google%20gives%20Black%20workers%20lower,suit%20claims%20%7C%20Google%20%7C%20The%20Guardian) for discriminating against minorities. Every time these are handwaved. Because they aren’t useful to a “DEI is bad” narrative. Instead what we should hyper focus on is google themselves claiming that really men are underpaid. We need an “anti-DEI” initiative to boost white cis males’ pay! ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/398 "2025-02-26T13:06:47Z")
> [@Ms2001](#): > > Of course, there were also initiatives that aimed at improving fairness and succeeded with a less ham-fisted, outcome-forcing approach. The head of HR described a time when there was a perceived imbalance in men vs. women getting promoted. They investigated and found that there was indeed an imbalance, but not because of bias in evaluating promotions: women who applied for a promotion were no less likely to get promoted than men. But women were less likely to apply for promotion in the first place. They started encouraging women to be less hesitant to apply for promotion, and the imbalance cleared up. That’s a good use of DEI, since it identified a problem and fixed it without lowering standards or favouring some candidates over others. Though there might be some men who are similarly hesitant to put themselves forward, and would also benefit from encouragement if for example their current manager thinks they’d be good at the job. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > If one were to be very cynical about these things, it’s almost as if policies that target White women are not objectionable but policies that target any other group are by definition always objectionable, if one were to be very cynical about these things. That’s not cynicism, it’s simply false. Almost everyone who opposes discriminatory DEI opposes it for women as well as minorities, Trump’s EO does not distinguish between the two, and the only people who have objected to DEI policies in this thread have specifically objected to policies that favour women. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/399 "2025-02-26T13:33:26Z")
So, overall, one has to point out that critics of DEI do want the current situation of tossing the baby with the bath water. Really guys, the right in the US is trying to go for that narrative of the few (and very likely unrelated to DEI) problems. That is extra silly when in the past the critics demonized **any** efforts at inclusion. As far as I can see, DEI was found to be, besides being legal, a tool to improve the situation, **AFTER** other solutions were found to be iffy. It is essential for the current talking points from the right to ignore that a better solution was being used, when recent solutions (more related to misguided Affirmative Action) were found to have issues. OK. But the current situation has a narrative that actively removes even more recent, capable solutions. Then there is the issue that the “merit” they propose as a solution is to currently prop up white Christian guys that have very little credit into positions of power. And then the right in the US pretend that that solution is the best. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/400 "2025-02-26T14:05:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, overall, one has to point out that critics of DEI do want the current situation of tossing the baby with the bath water. Yes, this. There’s no point in trying for some “reasonable compromise”, since driving out and punishing _everyone_ who isn’t white, Christian, male and right wing _is_ the entire point. I’ll also point out that another goal is to encourage the Democrats to screw over their own supporters yet again in a futile attempt to please the Right. Every time they do that it weakens what support they have left, in return for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/401 "2025-02-26T14:10:34Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > That’s not cynicism, it’s simply false. Almost everyone who opposes discriminatory DEI opposes it for women as well as minorities, Trump’s EO does not distinguish between the two, and the only people who have objected to DEI policies in this thread have specifically objected to policies that favour women. Can you point me to where in this paragraph this policy is being objected to? > [@Ms2001](#): > > The head of HR described a time when there was a perceived imbalance in men vs. women getting promoted. They investigated and found that there was indeed an imbalance, but not because of bias in evaluating promotions: women who applied for a promotion were no less likely to get promoted than men. But women were less likely to apply for promotion in the first place. They started encouraging women to be less hesitant to apply for promotion, and the imbalance cleared up. Or was this not a policy? Or did it not favor women? Help a brother out. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2025, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/402 "2025-02-26T15:31:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes, this. There’s no point in trying for some “reasonable compromise”, since driving out and punishing _everyone_ who isn’t white, Christian, male and right wing _is_ the entire point. This is a bit pedantic, but it’s probably more correct to say that it’s the established group that is generally opposed to diversity. For instance, if a company is all young people, the existing employees may oppose outreach programs to older candidates. Or if the company is all {insert\_race\_group\_here}, then existing employees may oppose hiring people not of that race. Since white males are often the most common dominate group, it’s easy to say that they are the ones to oppose diversity. But the reality is that any dominate group may oppose diversity programs which may mean their dominance may be lessened. For instance, consider this article about working at Kendra Scott (a jewelry company): > **[The Muse brings you inside the Home Office team of Kendra Scott](https://www.themuse.com/profiles/kendrascott/team/homeoffice)** > > Meet the Home Office employees at Kendra Scott, learn about their career paths, and see what it’s like to work there. Search for open jobs at Kendra Scott There are many pictures of people working together. Of the 13 people shown, 10 are women and 3 are men. If this company wanted to increase gender diversity by ensuring the number of men and women were more balanced, I imagine the women in the company would be opposed. The women may feel that that the company is more successful by having mostly women as employees rather than men. And if the company could not afford to hire an additional 7 men to ensure there were also 10, then it would mean that some women would need to be let go so that there are about 6 or 7 women and men each. I’m sure Kenda Scott supports diversity, but likely just in some areas and not others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954.md?page=21)