Summary
The term “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has become a coded way for Republicans to conceal their anti-Black racism, echoing past racist dog whistles.
This parallels with Lee Atwater’s 1981 admission that conservatives used abstract terms like “states’ rights” to mask racism.
Today, figures like Alina Habba, Tim Burchett, and far-right influencers use “DEI hire” to discredit qualified Black figures.
The media’s failure to challenge this rhetoric allows racism to persist, making “DEI” a modern substitute for explicit racial slurs.
The insinuation that if you see any woman or person of color in a position of power, prestige, or even competence, they got there because of identity politics and not their own merit, is directly bigoted, not even concealed by the first or second degree. The corollary, of course, is that you can only trust white men to do these important jobs correctly.
This idea is so gross that I don’t even want to entertain it mentally.
Thank you for your lucid and crystalline explanation though, internet stranger.
Someone (I think at Do) literally said the “we need white men in charge” line out loud in those words.
So, white men got there only based on their skin and gender? So therefore they are incompetent?
Isn’t this why DEI needs to be pulled back though?
People of color and women do get their status on their own but the policy of DEI implies that they got additional assistance even if they didn’t. This policy robs them of their achievements and it generates as much resentment towards protected groups as it provides protection. You can’t just tell the people not to feel resentment, or you’ll get republicans in office forever. We should start advocating for class based workplace assistance rather than dividing ourselves up by race and sex. You’ll help out basically the same people, but you’ll get class solidarity.
DEI isn’t a hiring quota or mandate to prefer a minority candidate over a non-minority candidate. It is the mindset that different experiences, backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints provide more variety and richer ideas than a single homogenous set, and as such, those differences should be considered as a positive along with other qualifiers as part of the hiring process. A company that values DEI still hires straight white men (speaking as one who works for such a company), as ours is still a viewpoint that should be represented and adds value. But they may also choose a minority candidate over a white male candidate with comparable qualifications if they fill a gap in experiences or culture that the company/team is missing. However, in fact, the reverse is true. If a team is oversaturated with, say, Indians, women, LGBT, etc., a straight American male candidate may be the preferred hire in that case. Should that white guy feel like he needs to justify his position?
Um no. No one should have to justify the spot in an organization based on their culture, race, sexual orientation or gender. I think your scenario illustrates how ridiculous caring intensely about cultural background is for hiring situations. Wouldn’t diversity of hobbies, or college education backgrounds be just as valid? Business should be about business, not crafting the perfect society. If you’re a good person and a good fit for the role then you’re a good fit.
I believe diversity is a admiral goal for an organization. I just don’t think DEI policies give enough benefits to the groups they want to protect to be worth the negative second order effects.
Wouldn’t diversity of hobbies, or college education backgrounds be just as valid?
They are. I’ve been asked about hobbies and such before in interviews (my boss even brings somw of them up when we are doing introductions to new hires/interns) and my boss remarked in my interview that he had never interviewed someone that went to my college. Those things are factors.
believe diversity is a admiral goal for an organization.
Well, at least a general objective.
The practice you describe is explicitly illegal in almost all employment circumstances in the United States.
deleted by creator
I won’t say if I agree or disagree with you, but the argument you make is absolutely a legitimate one that we as a society should be considering in an ongoing process. Some level of forced integration was absolutely necessary after the end of slavery, but we all should want to live in a future where it’s not necessary at all. How far along that scale we are, and how we push further in that direction are questions that current policy discussions largely ignore.
However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn’t want a reasonable national conversation on the topic. The noise coming from the right makes it next to impossible for these conversations to occur. Sadly, that’s why the politicians who rely on bigotry embrace that rhetoric, whether they are personally racist or not.
However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn’t want a reasonable national conversation on the topic.
Aye, there’s the rub
Getting rid of a DEI initiative doesnt fix any of that though. We’d simply go back to the times of, “oh who’d she sleep with to get this job?”
Inefficient and poorly managed companies might. I think it’s obvious that women are often more competent then their peers, and their workplace value is obvious to anyone in leadership positions.
DEI, Woke, Left, Commie, etc are all the same word to them. There will be a new one too don’t worry. It always means “stuff I don’t personally like for either a religious or hateful reason and you can’t convince me otherwise” and it’s just a boogeyman of stories and ideas that never actually happen irl but somehow get quoted and shared around as if it were a real thing and then uninformed people get scared and vote for strong daddy man.
It’s so dumb and telegraphed, make it stop already.
Meanwhile, people on the Left will spend weeks arguing the difference between Socialist and Social Democrat.
Yeah… the nitpicking in-fighting from people that spend waaaaay too much time delineating groups rather than working for a common cause was particularly fun in the last election. “We’re not the Judean People’s Front! We’re the People’s Front of Judea!”
There’s a tradeshow a client of mine is attending where the DEI talk has been rebranded “Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” — JEDI.
Thought that was kinda clever actually.
They ALWAYS think DEI means hiring an inferior, less qualified person instead of the superior, more qualified white man.
That is because they cannot and will not believe any other race or sex could ever be equal to or better than the lowest white man.
They are certainly racist, they always have been and always will be. As far as I am concerned, every Republican is racist, and if they ever hire or appoint a POC or a woman, it’s tokenism, not because they truly believe the hire is the best person for the job.
They mean civil rights. Our rights are being taken away.
“DEI” is GOP’s hard ‘r’.
Remember my friends, when Nazis started to control the Jewish population of Germany, the first restrictions inacted were limits to where the Jewish people could work, specifically it limited a Jewish person’s ability to be hired for a government position based on the bullshit notion that Jewish people weren’t as reliable as a German person. This was known as, “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" of April 7, 1933.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/anti-jewish-legislation-in-prewar-germany
The R in republican stands for racist
When they say “DEI,” they mean no more affirmative action for the dimwit sons of rich and well-connected white people.
deleted by creator
That’s why I keep saying banning a word or making a world “not professional” doesn’t do anything as long as people’s though doesn’t change. Like saying “don’t say black, say african American” doesn’t make them suddenly like them, they’ll still be racist. Changing words will just make them use a new word to mean the same thing.
Yeah there might be emotional things about certain words and not wanting people to use it can be understandable. It might be a step is a direction if it’s to be less humiliating or be inclusive. But just saying “don’t use this word, use this word instead” will make the new word mean the same thing with same derogatory meaning if people use the new word derogatorily. Now DEI has become that new word, and instead of claiming the word back, owning it, people might go “don’t say DEI” and come up with a completely new acronym while trying to “heal” from the past administration.
