# 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:** 21
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/403 "2025-02-26T15:42:02Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > 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. Except in this case, it’s a group that has seized national power and is trying to persecute anyone who doesn’t fit their Nazi ideal, _regardless_ of the desires of the organizations they belong to. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/404 "2025-02-26T19:45:00Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > 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? Nope, I didn’t say anything like that. > [@Mijin](#): > > 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! Didn’t say anything like that either. Please don’t put words in my mouth. > [@Mijin](#): > > 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. There was no handwaving. We weren’t even talking about those cases. If you’d rather talk about those cases instead of what we were talking about, you can just say that. It’ll be a pretty short conversation, though. As I’ve said before, discrimination is bad. If Google discriminates against employees, they should get sued, compensate the victims, and change their practices so it doesn’t happen again. And it sounds like that’s what happened, at least the first two parts. I don’t know the details of those cases, but from a quick skim it looks like the discrimination was inferred from a difference in pay: employees said they were being paid less because of their race or gender, and the company said it was because of other factors. I experienced that first hand myself. I was working at Google when employees started sharing their compensation data internally to root out possible discrimination (which I suspect is what eventually led to those lawsuits). When I looked at the data others had shared, I was surprised and disheartened to see that I was being paid substantially less than every other engineer in the same role and office. Was it because of discrimination, or my individual circumstances? There’s no way to know, and that uncertainty sucks for both the employee and the company. So if these lawsuits have the effect of making the company rely more on standard formulas to set comp, well, good. (What makes the case I mentioned different is that Google _knew_ where the pay difference came from: it came from discretionary bonuses given out by managers.) > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Or was this not a policy? Or did it not favor women? I wouldn’t say it favored women. I don’t recall exactly what we were told about that intervention. It’s possible that they just encouraged managers to be more proactive in telling employees when they should apply for promo, and that naturally ended up helping more women than men. But in any case, the effect was just to encourage one group to do something the other was already doing in order to get the same result, which kinda sounds like the definition of fairness to me. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/405 "2025-02-26T22:08:21Z")
> [@Ms2001](#): > > Nope, I didn’t say anything like that. > […] > Didn’t say anything like that either. Please don’t put words in my mouth. No-one is trying to put words in your mouth, we’re trying to figure out your logic. Because, what seems to be happening is you have a couple of cherry-picked examples, which aren’t DEI, and a general anti-DEI conclusion, and it just doesn’t connect together into a coherent point. And it could not be clearer when it comes to google. All the data is suggesting that Google has been biased against women in particular, but other less represented groups too, but you just handwave it and continue with, essentially “So anyway, men are discriminated against”. > [@Ms2001](#): > > There was no handwaving. We weren’t even talking about those cases. If you’d rather talk about those cases instead of what we were talking about, you can just say that. We were talking about Google. Indeed, you brought Google up. But you don’t want to talk about the totality of data because it’s saying the opposite to your belief. > [@Ms2001](#): > > I don’t know the details of those cases, but from a quick skim it looks like the discrimination was inferred from a difference in pay: employees said they were being paid less because of their race or gender, and the company said it was because of other factors. These are settled cases in the courts, with access to internal communications, and probably the best lawyers money can be on google’s side, and they ruled against google. But no worries, you have an ad hoc explanation of how it couldn’t have been discrimination against anyone other that white males. That beats the findings of a court. So what was it, corrupt, woke judges in all these cases? ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/406 "2025-02-26T23:19:58Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Title VII specifically doesn’t require specific targets. The OFCCP doesn’t require specific targets (a.k.a. quotas). Where are you getting the requirement for specific targets from your cite? From the second bit I bolded in the quote: > [@DemonTree](#): > > The regulations thus set forth how contractors were to map the employment of women and minorities in their organization; determine the availability of women and minorities in the contractor’s labor pool; **establish “placement goals” to bring the contractor’s workforce in line, demographically, with the labor pools; and take action to achieve those goals.** ‘Placement goals’ = targets, which are based on the demographics of the labour pool, and the company is required to take action in an effort to reach those goals, without using quotas or even explicit preferences based on protected characteristics. Here’s what it says in the Code of Federal Regulations: > [@](#): > > An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. **If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor’s affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization.** Effective affirmative action programs also include internal auditing and reporting systems as a means of measuring the contractor’s progress toward achieving the workforce that would be expected in the absence of discrimination. [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-B/chapter-60/part-60-2/subpart-B/section-60-2.10](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-B/chapter-60/part-60-2/subpart-B/section-60-2.10) Interestingly, it appears contractors have no such obligation if men or white people (unless in Hawaii maybe?) are underrepresented in their workforce. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2025, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/407 "2025-02-27T00:11:02Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > ‘Placement goals’ = targets So, a non-quota quota. Got it. Makes perfect sense. ---
**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 27, 2025, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/408 "2025-02-27T08:04:40Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > So, a non-quota quota. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Don’t blame me, the US government wrote the law. 🤷‍♀️ ---
**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 27, 2025, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/409 "2025-02-27T14:33:26Z")
Here’s some advice for businesses from a law firm on what sort of DEI programs are most likely to be targeted by the Trump administration. This should give you an idea of the type of (at least until recently) legal schemes the right opposes, along with the kinds of illegal ones mentioned by @Ms2001. > [@](#): > > #### What DEI programs are most prone to lawsuits and investigations? > > Although it is unclear which DEI programs or policies this administration may target, the following DEI programs have been more prone to challenges by anti-DEI activists and should be reviewed carefully for risks, given the current environment: > > - Internships/fellowships/mentoring programs that are exclusive to or targeted towards certain genders, races, or other protected characteristics; > - Employee resource or affinity groups that are only open to certain races, genders, or other protected characteristics; > - DEI aspirational targets or goals based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics; > - Tying director, officer, or manager compensation or performance reviews to achieving certain DEI objectives or goals; > - Diverse slate hiring or promotion practices; > - Requiring a certain number of board members to be of a certain gender or race; > - Supplier diversity programs that use race or other protected characteristics in any manner to select suppliers or give discounts, stipends, or other advantages to certain suppliers based in whole or in part on race or other protected demographics; > - Offering products for free or at discounts to certain individuals based on race or other protected characteristics; and > - Grants, funding, or investments that use race or other protected characteristics. > **[Unpacking the Trump Administration’s DEI Orders and Actions – FAQs and Action...](https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250219-unpacking-the-trump-administration-s-dei-orders)** > > Last updated February 19, 2025Amidst the ongoing flurry of executive actions targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”)... ---
**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 27, 2025, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/410 "2025-02-27T16:57:30Z")
Are you treating non-whites as _equals?_ Are you _not_ persecuting non-Christians? Are you treating women like _people?_ Then you are a target. ---
**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 27, 2025, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/411 "2025-02-27T17:10:16Z")
> Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. **If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor’s affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization** You do know what “relevant” means in this context? It means with experience or qualified. Saying it like if that was a bad thing is what the current talking points from the right are about. And… that was not DEI BTW. ---
**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 27, 2025, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/412 "2025-02-27T17:41:03Z")
In fact, it fits with what I pointed before, it is more likely that the FAA and others mishandled AA efforts in the recent past, then companies look for DEI later… and now Trump and minions find it easy to blame DEI for the past apparent mishandling. ---
**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 27, 2025, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/413 "2025-02-27T17:53:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And… that was not DEI BTW. From the OP: > [@Czarcasm](#): > > My proposal is that when they use the term, we insist that they use the actual words, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion The quoted policy qualifies as diversity and equity at least. Or do you disagree with the OP and think ‘DEI’ refers to something other than the literal meanings of the words? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Are you treating non-whites as _equals?_ Are you _not_ persecuting non-Christians? Are you treating women like _people?_ Then you are a target. If you believe that, why are you still in America? ---
**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 27, 2025, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/414 "2025-02-27T17:56:14Z")
Now I’m really confused. Are your arguments about the official right wing attacks against anything involving perceived DEI programs (real or imagined), or are they about what the words really mean individually? ---
**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 27, 2025, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/415 "2025-02-27T17:59:29Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > The quoted policy qualifies as diversity and equity at least. Or do you disagree with the OP and think ‘DEI’ refers to something other than the literal meanings of the words? And that shows that you miss that the differences and **timelines** show that AA and DEI are not the same, also not the same: when abuse or bad things are done there is no trouble in criticizing them, the trouble comes when the right in the US is trying to use the generalization fallacy to declare that DEI is responsible for bad actions when that framework was not there, it was AA; and even there the accusation of that being responsible for scandals is iffy. ---
**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 27, 2025, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/416 "2025-02-27T17:59:32Z")
Moderating: > [@DemonTree](#): > > If you believe that, why are you still in America? This is much too personal for this thread. Make your arguments without engaging in personal attacks. If you do this again, you will be thread-banned. ---
**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 27, 2025, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/417 "2025-02-27T18:05:03Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > Or do you disagree with the OP and think ‘DEI’ refers to something other than the literal meanings of the words? First, you’re going to have to establish that the OP doesn’t know that DEI means DEI. Second, no, you can’t point to the words diversity, equality, and inclusion as if they mean the same thing as DEI. E.G. Affirmative Action is not DEI. ---
**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 27, 2025, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/418 "2025-02-27T18:19:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Now I’m really confused. Are your arguments about the official right wing attacks against anything involving perceived DEI programs (real or imagined), or are they about what the words really mean individually? You’re the OP, what did you mean by DEI? Does it include any policy aimed at promoting diversity, equity and/or inclusion, or only those specifically branded as DEI? Wouldn’t insisting on using the full phrase tend to imply the former? > [@Aspenglow](#): > > This is much too personal for this thread. Make your arguments without engaging in personal attacks. If you do this again, you will be thread-banned. Sorry. ---
**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 27, 2025, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/419 "2025-02-27T18:23:58Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > You’re the OP, what did you mean by DEI? Does it include any policy aimed at promoting diversity, equity and/or inclusion, or only those specifically branded as DEI? Wouldn’t insisting on using the full phrase tend to imply the former? Please reread the original post. ---
**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 27, 2025, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/420 "2025-02-27T18:26:29Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > The quoted policy qualifies as diversity and equity at least. One more thing, I do admit many times that my grammar is a crime against nature, but I do take care on not falling for illogical things, particularly when one encounters talking points from the right that are very silly. This group of techs that work with DEI, points to the differences between AA, DEI and Equal Opportunity: [Understanding the Difference Between Affirmative Action, EEO, and DEI - Inclusion Geeks](https://www.inclusiongeeks.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-affirmative-action-eeo-and-dei/#:~:text=While%20DEI%2C%20affirmative%20action%2C%20and,and%20equitable%20workplace%20and%20world). > While DEI, affirmative action, and EEO share the overarching goal of promoting fairness and reducing discrimination, their scope, approach, and underlying principles differ. EEO serves as the foundational principle of fairness, emphasizing non-discrimination and a level playing field. Affirmative action, on the other hand, focuses on remedying historical injustices through preferential treatment mandated by law. DEI represents a comprehensive and ongoing commitment to creating an inclusive society where all individuals have equal access to opportunities voluntarily pursued through a variety of strategies. > > Understanding these differences is essential when considering how the SCOTUS ruling may affect your DEI efforts and upholding EEO standards. As long as your DEI work focuses on measures for greater inclusion, belonging, and fairness, it would seem that it differs significantly from the SCOTUS ruling and continues to be crucial for advancing a more fair, just, inclusive, and equitable workplace and world. ---
**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 27, 2025, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/421 "2025-02-27T18:28:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Please reread the original post. I did, and the answer is not clear to me. It’s a simple question, surely you can answer it now? ---
**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 27, 2025, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954/422 "2025-02-27T18:30:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Please reread the original post. I think that some do miss your point. In my case I do think I get it. What is clear to me is that many on the right do discuss a lot while missing the definitions, timelines and the difference between bad actions from some and a framework were many do apply the law properly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-argument-against-dei/1013954.md?page=22)