It is very doubtful that Trumpists came up with that acronym. Perhaps someone can do a search to find out where it originated–but in general these types of acronyms originate from the Federal government or big business.
And, that is why old fashion meritocracy is not really the solution.
In reality DEI does include merit. DEI is there to help avoid the problems merit alone has.
That is why I descrive what Trump and henchmen are doing as fighting for:
Untruth, Injustice, and the Nazi cosplayer way…
(Tip to the hat to the Saturday Night live “Uberman” sketch.)
Exactly.
I believe that’s wrong on several counts. First of all DEI is a fairly open-ended set of principles, so what it “actually” means is defined by the organization that chooses to implement those principles. Secondly, if DEI meant only hiring (or promoting) based only on a person’s actual qualifications, that idea was encapsulated many years ago in the slogan that for a long time was a standard part of most job ads, “An Equal Opportunity Employer”. DEI came about because many felt that wasn’t doing enough, and specifically that “equal opportunity” alone wasn’t sufficient to overcome systemic racism.
The OP’s suggestion isn’t going to work because many on the right who object to DEI know exactly what the words mean and they’re against some or all of the principles they represent. I don’t mean Trump and the rest of his gang of racist imbeciles, many of whom are even worse – Musk is pretty much a full-bore Nazi. I mean that it’s logically possible to make some reasonable arguments against the most zealous implementations of DEI. Actual racists of course take the position that all implementations are over-zealous.
For instance, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, one could argue that “equity” means essentially the opposite of “equality”. Equality means that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Equity means that an organizational system is tweaked (they might prefer the word “rigged”) to try to create equal outcomes, compensating for those who are less skilled, less educated, or otherwise less qualified. The well-known illustration of kids of different heights trying to watch a baseball game over a wooden fence and some are too short to see over the fence is arguably deceptive, because IRL the “boxes” used to elevate everyone to the same level often represent measures, like lowering of standards, that can disadvantage the more qualified. This is especially true if an organization chooses to interpret that trick first word, “diversity”, as implying a quota, and the natural tendency of most bureaucracies is to put qualitative metrics on things so that change can be measured, so the temptation to establish quotas is strong.
This is exactly what happened to affirmative action. The term was first used by JFK when he signed an executive order that required contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed … without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.” This reflected the same principle as “equal opportunity employer” and no one but white supremacists had a problem with it. It was then appropriated in Nixon’s Philadelphia Plan to mean quotas. The Philadelphia Plan is frequently regarded as the turning point when “equal opportunity” began to transform into what is now the “equity” part of DEI.
That would make sense… if this was taken place in a vacuum, the current devil that one is advocating here is removing people that clearly had merit being in the jobs they had and notice that they were leaders at the Equal Opportunity Employer’s office and Labor. It was not being against DEI the reason; it was bigotry all along.
I completely agree. These people are not just racist lunatics, many are openly neo-Nazis.
I’m in HR, so DEI has been a pretty popular topic for us these last few years. I have never heard nor seen put into practice any DEI initiative designed to elevate lesser qualified candidates over those more qualified when it comes to hiring new employees or promoting from within. Part of my company’s attempt at equity was to make the promotion process a bit more transparent. i.e. They have a better understanding of what it takes to get a promotion and don’t have to make up their own stories about why Jane got promoted instead of them.
DEI is meritocracy.
Look at the Presidency as an easy yardstick. It’s obviously a high prestige position.
Forty-five people have been President. All forty-five have been men. Forty-four of the forty-five have been white. No Latino or Asian-American has been President. Forty-three Protestants have been President. Two Catholics have been President. No Jew or Muslim has been President.
These numbers do not reflect the population of the United States. Just over fifty percent of the population are women (that would be twenty-three women Presidents). Fourteen percent are black (six Presidents). Nineteen percent are hispanic (nine Presidents). Seven percent are Asian American (three Presidents). Twenty-two percent are Catholic (ten Presidents). About two percent each are Jews and Muslims (one President each).
Where are all those missing Presidents? One explanation is that barriers have been placed in the way of these groups. DEI is about removing those barriers and allowing everyone to have the opportunity to advance as far as they are able.
The other explanation is that the reason white male Protestants have dominated the Presidency is because white male Protestants are naturally better than everyone else so they rise to the top based on their merit. This explanation is based on bigotry.
Look, you don’t have to convince me. I’m just paraphrasing what I’ve been told by others who are agitated about this sort of thing.
But that’s the thing- there’s an understanding gap here, and one of the problems of the Left is that they tend towards shouting down people who don’t agree and/or take a more moralistic tone than is really necessary about these issues.
I mean, if someone does think that it’s about preferential treatment and/or anti-meritocratic, then telling them they’re wrong and bad for thinking differently isn’t going to win any hearts and minds. What it will do is confirm that the people pushing this stuff aren’t acting reasonably.
What if they are wrong and bad because they are wrong and bad…or is just about everything a matter of politics, with those in power automatically “right”?
What I’m saying is that in some of these things, they’re neither wrong nor bad, just holding a different opinion.
In my experience, that’s a lot of the woke backlash; there’s ONE way that’s “right”, and you have to be all-in, or you get told about it. You can’t be merely tolerant, you have to be celebratory.
People don’t like that- for some, it’s major personal growth to just not be hateful, and they’ve still got assholes telling them they’re wrong. How do you suppose that makes them feel? Valued and wanted by that side of things? Or do you suppose they’ll go to the side that says “Fuck those people”?
Maybe I’m hoping for some reconciliation too early, but I don’t think pulling to the extremes is the way to remedy what’s going on in the country.
I don’t know how to close an understanding gap with a group of people who have little to know interest learning anything.
There is that. The first time I heard the term anti-racist I rolled my eyes. “Oh, I’m not just not racist, I’m *anti-*racist!”
It’s the old, “heads: it’s Democrats’ fault for letting Republicans get away with lies” or “tails: it’s the Democrats’ fault for telling uncomfortable truths”.
Thank the gods that that could never be said about any group on the right!
Thank ghod the hoops they set out for us to jump through to please them are set on fire, otherwise they would be completely invisible.
Hitler wants to kill ten million Jews. I don’t want to kill any Jews. Let’s just compromise and kill five million Jews.
I said that earlier. I have a neighbor who flies a Confederate battle flag to celebrate Juneteenth. You think he’s going to shy away from admitting he’s anti-diversity, anti-equality and anti-inclusion? He’s proud of it. MAGA!
I agree with this. Lecturing some racist fuckstick or just your non-confrontational conservative neighbor that they’re not using the preferred nomenclature isn’t going to change their mind and wont make the point the OP is hoping for, even if it makes one feel better and morally superior in providing the lecture.