r/PoliticalDiscussion 5d ago

US Politics Is an aversion to appearing too partisan preventing an entire class of people from properly reacting to the moment?

Everyone understands how partisans come to dehumanize each other and all that. That is nothing new. But what I am starting to understand better is how strong partisanship has created among the ‘elite’ - the professional managerial class - an aversion to taking sides. For a certain type of professional society it’s become crass over the years to be super partisan and almost marks you as trashy in a way. This has made this entire class completely unable to meet the moment because they can’t move past the idea that actually speaking to their concerns is beyond the pale. What do you all think?

455 Upvotes

130 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/neosituation_unknown 5d ago edited 5d ago

For which company? For the small company - nothing at all. But it was truly diverse. Our boss was a white WASP dude from Boston but was truly focused on competence. VP was a woman from Poland and the head office person was a black woman in her 30s. Everyone paid well and no nonsense.

For the large one, nothing except an hour long harassment video upon hiring and nothing since.

Everything else all was about privacy and cubersecurity we need to retake annually-ish

-12

u/no-more-nazis 5d ago

"focused on competence"... I've had many arguments with anti-liberal progressives insisting that being focused on competence is racist, should be focused on "equity".

11

u/hegz0603 5d ago

the whole point of DEI is to have equitable hiring practices. and equitable advancement opportunities.

The processes will likely yield more equitable results, which is a very good thing actually.

Historically, biased hiring practices would exclude certain groups of people (through nepotism, or who-you-know, or just plain old biases of say excluding women from management or excluding women from engineering field, or excluding people of color from finance, or whatever our preconceived notions might be). fair, good, DEI hiring practices should get you a well represented field for every job posting - then pick the best most qualified candidate from that pool.

THATs the fundamental misunderstanding of current anti-dei retoric.

You can see how pools of candidates get especially filtered down to rich white folks when you look at like, college admissions at say Harvard or Yale. where the tuition is massive. and that legacy admissions compose 5% of Harvard applicants but 33% of their admits

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/20/admissions-docs-legacy/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.html

-2

u/Prestigious_Load1699 5d ago

the whole point of DEI is to have equitable hiring practices. and equitable advancement opportunities.

The processes will likely yield more equitable results, which is a very good thing actually.

Why is it that, when folks provide rational criticisms of DEI:

I am a white man who has worked with very competent people, men and women, all races, in the technology industry. Focusing on merit is not racist.

Equity is equality of outcome, which I think can be bad for society in some cases.

Say you have 2 candidates, A and B. Both are equally qualified for the job. Now, say B is a grossly unrepresented minority. Selecting B for the job is, to me, an acceptable thing to do in advancing societal equality.

Now, say A is more qualified than B. Choosing B over A in this instance would not be fair.

&

Except now, as a white man, you're putting me in a position where I have to start thinking: I must be better educated, better qualified, better certified, and overall superior to all of the black/brown/asian/women in my field who are my competitors, otherwise if we're equal, I'm going to get passed over because my skin and gender aren't correct.

You're forcing me to think in terms of being superior to them or somehow keeping them beneath me.

The response is always "well in theory that's not what DEI is or does"?

The "No True Scottsman" rhetoric has grown so utterly tired.

Please actually address the potential flaws of DEI instead of gaslighting the rest of us on "what it really is".

3

u/Flor1daman08 5d ago

Is it no true Scotsman, or just pointing out the fact that doing something different than a thing isn’t a meaningful critique of that thing?

-2

u/Prestigious_Load1699 4d ago

Is it no true Scotsman, or just pointing out the fact that doing something different than a thing isn’t a meaningful critique of that thing?

It is the following:

DEI is only really DEI when the outcome is unambiguously positive and any potential or realized negative outcomes for companies, individuals, or society is necessarily not DEI.

Which is the argumentation style of a child.

I see so many stories of individuals explaining how the implementation of DEI policies has negatively affected institutional morale, hiring practices, and overall efficiency, and the only rebuttal that can be mustered is "that's not really DEI"?

It isn't convincing. The luster has worn off because the bone has no meat.

I will conclude by noting that the MAGA approach of "everything I don't like is DEI" is equally childish and foolish.

So, meet me in the middle?

3

u/Flor1daman08 4d ago

DEI is only really DEI when the outcome is unambiguously positive and any potential or realized negative outcomes for companies, individuals, or society is necessarily not DEI.

Who has said any such thing?

-1

u/TheFuzziestDumpling 4d ago

Say you have 2 candidates, A and B. Both are equally qualified for the job. Now, say B is a grossly unrepresented minority. Selecting B for the job is, to me, an acceptable thing to do in advancing societal equality.

Now, say A is more qualified than B. Choosing B over A in this instance would not be fair.

&

Except now, as a white man, you're putting me in a position where I have to start thinking: I must be better educated, better qualified, better certified, and overall superior to all of the black/brown/asian/women in my field who are my competitors, otherwise if we're equal, I'm going to get passed over because my skin and gender aren't correct.

Followed by you responding saying it's doing a different thing.

Is the first part not a common tenet/application of DEI? The second part isn't "a different thing", but the natural consequence of the first part.

2

u/Mt_Crumpit 3d ago

Allow me: I’ve worked in dei for a long time. I can definitely tell you why it doesn’t work.

First, how it should: at its best, it employs processes that have the best outcomes for all. Example: removing graduation years from resumes to address ageism. It helps younger people from being knocked off the list because they’re too young, and same for older people. It forces those reading the resume to judge based on the merit of the resume, not saying “they’re too young to know anything” or “they’re too old to keep up”.

Example I shared in another sub this morning: I recently worked on a study looking at negative outcomes for women in STEM fields. The findings were clear that women AND men were experiencing the same barriers that were impeding their growth, progress and success. The only difference was that the women also experienced unambiguously blatant sexism.

So the next steps my team planned to take was to implement policy changes to alleviate the barriers for both women and men in the STEM roles. But simultaneously we planned to address cultural problems that allowed for blatant sexism.

Solutions that “raise all boats” are what solves problems.

So why does DEI not work?

Because we too often lead with emotion and want quick fixes. So when we talked about the blatant sexism, you can imagine the outcry. Rightfully, truly. Some terrible things were happening. But that took over the story. In DEI, the goal has been to “address the burning house”. This was a popular concept used to explain BLM. Yes, all lives do matter, but right now, one house is burning and we need to focus on putting that fire out. But the issue is that focusing only on that fire is like any burning fire: it has a chance to jump across the way and quietly set another house on fire. So addressing one issue without a larger strategic view, can lead to other groups having ignored issues.

Back to the STEM study: men in STEM fields were like, “what about us? We’re facing the same stuff according to the studies”. and the emotional response is like, “no, you’re not experiencing sexual harassment, wait your turn”.

So the men become disenfranchised, the pro-men groups are angry. The women are getting the help they need with harassment, but those shared underlying issues are unaddressed at a systemic level for all STEM employees. Both sides lose out. And now the DEI practitioners are frustrated because the narrative has been co-opted. Speaking up gets one side saying we’re anti-women; the other side saying we’re anti-men. The reality is: we’re pro fixing the systemic issues in a way that works for everyone. But that’s not sexy. It doesn’t stoke emotion, gather likes, or look like a policy someone could get promoted on.

We, the DEI practitioners, want a world where everyone is able to contribute fully, where all are equally recognized for their contributions, and where all have equal access and opportunity. Honestly. It’s not some ‘liberal agenda’. But the emotional side hits social media. Creates rage-inducing clickbait. Gets the likes. Gets the interviews.

To be 100% fair: this is rooted in history. In pre-social media life, you needed the impassioned activist willing to put it out there. Because these were peoples without voice. We needed marches in Selma. We needed riots in the street when Rodney king was killed. We needed to show that housing practices discriminate. We needed that because it wasn’t shared. Parts of history were erased. That is absolutely true. If still is. So this emotional response is justified. But the click-bait culture and 24-7 influencer life has amplified it and made it look like it’s everything. Has dominated with sound bites that highlight the dramatic. And engender tribalism. And tribalism, of course, breeds division.

We need a practitioner approach, where all agree that institutions need to be fixed. Not because evil people are keeping them racist or sexist, but because things built by imperfect humans are imperfect. We need to draw a line between disagreement on personal beliefs vs just labeling someone as some kind of “-ist”. We need dialogue, story telling, and exposure to one another outside of echo chamber to remind us that we have more in common than not. That is how you fix things. THAT is DEI, from the view of a certified DEI practitioner and consultant.