The far right has finally figured out how to hone its racist attack on Kamala Harris
The far right has finally figured out how to hone its racist attack on Kamala Harris
DEI is specifically there to undo hiring biases (currently favouring white men in politics). Neither the status quo nor DEI are merit-based, but in breaking down the barriers to entry, DEI is the path towards merit-based hiring.
That said, the reason DEI sticks in their craw so hard is that it's the mirror image of what their privilege has done for them. And for the privileged, fairness seems very unfair.
Realistically, most DEI initiatives I've seen have been more like, "put a statement acknowledging that women and minorities are less likely to apply for jobs when they don't meet 100% of the requirements and encouraging them to apply anyway, make the work environment not a living nightmare for those candidates/employees, don't throw resumes in the trash because they have a 'black name,' Sharon." If even that much, really. Republicans act like companies are firing all the cishet white dudes instead of just maybe not having a leadership team composed exclusively of those men.
I think a lot of our collective notions around "merit" need to be challenged in general. How is merit really measured? A person's achievements? Who decides what qualifies as an achievement? If a person has the deck stacked against them (e.g. coming from a low income household, not as much access to quality education) and manages to get a college degree then it's easy to say they've "achieved" more than someone who grew up privileged and obtained the same degree with similar grades.
But how should these things be weighed? If someone grew up privileged but is also exceptionally skilled, have they achieved more or less than someone who grew up underprivileged and obtained above average skills? Who has more merit? Who deserves greater recognition? And who decides if one skill or another is even meritous? Is the merit of a skillet ultimately just decided by how much the job market is willing to pay for those skills?
These aren't meant to be leading questions; I genuinely don't think there are any good answers here. When I'm in a position of making hiring decisions for my company, I make a point of not thinking in terms of merit. Instead I think about these factors:
I think when people talk about merit they fixate on qualifications, but I genuinely believe that alignment and perspective are equally important. I would much rather take someone who is highly motivated but less qualified on paper than someone with amazing credentials who won't really care about what our team is trying to do. I would also rather have someone who is going to challenge our team's assumptions and bring insights from other fields and experiences than someone who will very competently agree with our status quo.
I think people who complain about DEI are totally missing the value of diverse perspectives, to say nothing of the moral concern of systematically reinforcing social divisions and the inequity that naturally follows from that.
someone with amazing credentials who won't really care about what our team is trying to do.
That's me. I've been around the block enough times to know that no business is going to give a fraction of a shit about me. My niche is preventing the company from losing money, not bringing in money. I'm a cost center with zero glamor. The people around me may care, but unless those people are directly running the business, it doesn't matter. Likewise, I may care about the people and want to help them. But I will not care one bit about the company, or the shareholders.
I would also rather have someone who is going to challenge our team's assumptions and bring insights from other fields and experiences than someone who will very competently agree with our status quo.
This is also me. "You can't do it that way." Why not? "Because we do it this way." Not a valid answer. Don't just teach me a procedure. Let me understand the goals, the tools, and the requirements. If another way of doing it won't work, then you left out one or more of the above. My first big self-project at my last employer (which I was told over and over again was a waste of time, the suits would never allow it) is still running 24/7 on a big screen in the command center, 12 years later.
In practice, I've found that the people in charge really like boot-licking and really dislike being challenged. That's two strikes against me, and many times they won't need to find a third. I can't feign excitement via worksona anymore.
The repubtards like using DEI - it's like having a new N-bomb that's not limited to just one ethnicity that they hate. They've mostly moved on from 'woke,' probably because it didn't mean enough to really be useful as a racist dog whistle, being more generally hateful towards everyone they hate.
DEI is better for them because it hits two birds with one stone: their hatred of people darker than printer paper in the workplace, and their belief that ‘promoting people beyond their means’ (that is, people of color getting higher positions) destroys the very fabric of society.
The Alt-Right Playbook goes into it in more detail, but basically these numbskulls think that the proper way for we humans to live is in a rigid hierarchical society, with the Great And Wise Leaders at the top, and everyone on each tier of the pyramid ‘sticking to their lane’ and not trying to ‘rise above their station’.
Of course, they’ve decided that old white guys are the ones who should always be on the top of the pyramid, and enjoy all the benefits of society without owing anyone anything.
It’s why they love racist rhetoric; they’re always looking for some justification for them being higher up on the pyramid—which means, by default, more people need to be below them. With the magic of racism, they don’t need accomplishments or even money to achieve higher levels! Skin color alone bumps them up the ranks.
Also people started looking up what "woke" actually meant and getting woke as a result
Not to downplay the utter loathsomeness of the far right, but this is neither new nor important.
They've been banging that "DEI hire" drum for months (years?) now, and yes - there's a segment of the population that responds to it. But those people don't matter in the slightest. They're already Trump voters and they'll never be anything else, so they can and should be entirely ignored.
Somewhere along the way here, the Republicans, and likely Trump himself, are going to hand us some vivid and grotesque and new and juicy example of their deep and abiding and utterly hateful racism and/or sexism, and at that point, we don't want to be the party who cried wolf - the people who have pointed fingers of racist/sexist accusation so many times that it just seems like yet more of the same tired rhetoric when we point to that one.
Just cool your jets, let the old and weak ones slide, and wait. The time for truly effective righteous indignation will come.
Just because they're going to be more horrible in the future doesn't mean we should get used to the horrors of today.
When someone says "DEI hire" I just automatically assume they're a racist 🤷♂️
I like that. I usually just say "Oh, like all those old money assholes out there, like Trump, who were given their positions and fortunes by their parents?"
To quote Robin Williams, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some get it as a graduation gift!"
Rather a DEI hire than a nepo baby.
Some people are DEI hires though, don't overreact.
Someone using it as a slur against the most competent candidate is being racist. But used for anyone elevated for diversity reasons it's perfectly valid.