Which is why discussing what the words mean individually makes much more sense that using “DEI” as a vague term to mean “any and/or all attempts to bring fairness and equality into the equation.”
Do you consider the affirmative action policies discussed in this quote to count as DEI? They long predate the use of the acronym, but they would seem to fit within the definitions usually used, and AFAIK are the kind of policies usually included in DEI efforts.
Would you mind sourcing that quote?
As DEI is different, and that the framework was not there when the pointed scandals took place, you still have to show that the DEI groups and trainers where there to organize what they are accused of doing.
It’s sourced in this earlier post:
As posted, it comes from eCFR :: 41 CFR 60-2.10 -- General purpose and contents of affirmative action programs. (FMR 60-2.10)
What is interesting is that a subsection points that indeed, the law does refer about hiring qualified minorities.
As the quote I made showed, in general AA has a mandate component, AA looks for minorities or women who are qualified and the law says that one should then hire them when found. DEI is about increasing the pool of workers, having them apply as usual and the goals are voluntary.
As pointed before, another difference from AA is that DEI is about training the staff about recommended ways for workers and management to deal with the minorities and women after the hire.
Again, mostly a voluntary thing with DEI.
To the Right, they mean anything other than the systematic persecution of anyone who isn’t a cishet white Christian male. The meaning of the words doesn’t matter to them, they are just indulging their bigotry. The OP was just being overoptimistic about shaming them about it.
No, they’re not cherry-picked, they’re readily available. They’re the example that’s been in the news recently and the (multiple) examples that took place at a company I worked at.
That’s far from settled.
Some people in this thread have certainly claimed those examples aren’t DEI… on the grounds that, as they see it, No True Scotsman DEI is illegal, so anything that’s against the law must not be DEI.
I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense to say that programs which are aimed at achieving diversity goals, sold to stakeholders as helping diversity, developed in response to criticism about diversity, etc.—in other words, diversity programs—obviously fall under the heading of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), even if they violate the law.
I’d love to know exactly what conclusion you think I’ve come to, because it doesn’t sound very much like what I thought I was saying.
You started out saying “no one is trying to put words in your mouth”, but here, three sentences later, you’ve done exactly that. You’re still putting words in my mouth. Please stop.
There was no handwaving. I never said women weren’t discriminated against. You’ve seized upon something that I mentioned in two sentences, as an aside in a much larger post, and concocted some kind of boogeyman mythos around it in which I… did what, exactly? Did I say men were the real victims? No. Did I say DEI is bad because Google once discriminated against men? No. Then what?
All I can figure is you’re objecting to the fact that I acknowledged, even in passing, that this issue is more nuanced than “cishet white men are the oppressors.”
Again, you seem to be under the impression that I was trying to argue some point about whether men or women are the bigger victims. I was not.
Please focus on what I’ve actually said here, not on what you think someone who says those things might also secretly believe. I understand that some of what I’ve said here might remind you of things you’ve heard other people say, but please understand that I’m not those people. I don’t share their other beliefs.
First, and least importantly: nearly all of the examples you gave were settled out of court, with no fault found by the court or admitted by the company. I’m not familiar with the details of those cases, what exactly they alleged, or what evidence they presented, but that was obvious just from clicking on them.
More importantly: it doesn’t matter. Again, I’m not arguing the point you seem to think I am.
Hidden by Mod
It’s “widespread” and they’re not cherry picked (a phrase I fear we’re gonna need to unpack) and yet I’m still waiting for those 25 examples that are not the FAA or Google.
Moderating:
Drop the semantics sidebar/hijacks. Already noted earlier. I’ll hide your post.
This thread is verging on being closed for good. Everyone, try to stay focused and try not to attack other posters.
The talking points from the right are also willfully ignoring timelines, don’t fall for it.
Now as for this, you then have to show that DEI was an illegal thing and… that experts on it where present in those few incidents like the FAA one. Really, so far, the evidence points to misguided Affirmative Action being there, not DEI groups or trainers.
That is not what “cherry-picked” means at all.
“singled out from a number or group as more to one’s liking”
None of those describe the examples I gave. I didn’t choose those examples selectively in order to single out the best ones; they were the first ones that came to mind. Other than Google’s, Meta’s, and the FAA’s, I’m not sure I could even name another specific DEI program off the top of my head.
That only tells us which ones first come to your mind when it comes to supposedly legit examples of “DEI”.
Okay…? Not sure what point you’re trying to make. I never said those were the only examples, nor that they were representative of DEI programs in general.
Moderating:
OK, enough. As this thread has devolved into semantics with even the OP getting into it now. It shall be closed as I said before.
Way too many flags on this one. At least 12 flags we’ve had to handle for this one.