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.
Nope, I didn’t say anything like that.
Didn’t say anything like that either. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
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.)
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.
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”.
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.
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?
From the second bit I bolded in the quote:
‘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:
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.
So, a non-quota quota. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
Don’t blame me, the US government wrote the law. 
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.
Are you treating non-whites as equals? Are you not persecuting non-Christians? Are you treating women like people? Then you are a target.
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.
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.
From the OP:
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?
If you believe that, why are you still in America?
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?
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.
Moderating:
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.
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.
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?
Sorry.
Please reread the original post.
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.
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.
I did, and the answer is not clear to me. It’s a simple question, surely you can answer it now?
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.