News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Can someone smarter than me (I know, it’s a low bar) explain how DEI is unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private enterprises like Apple and Costco?
Edit: okay, I found a decent article that lays it out. While I agree with the basic premise, I know its effect won’t be more equality.
DEI is basically "you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let's hold off on that."
Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They're still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.
Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you've heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.
It's usually more than just "not only hiring old white dudes" but a conscious effort to make the place more representative of society by intentionally hiring people of diverse gender/ethnicity/handicap instead, sometimes leading to processes being closed to people who aren't part of certain groups, which might in theory go against some laws depending on where you live, but the same thing can be achieved by just wasting time filtering out white men's CV or just not calling them back after interviews, so I personally don't mind just being excluded and giving others a chance, if they don't have non white dude applicants then I'll get called and otherwise I've got plenty of doors open to me, more than most in fact and that's not ok.
My understanding is it's basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it's anti-white behaviour.
"I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one" type stuff
I'm not American so no idea what your constitution says.
The constitution say very little, yet people love to interpret it.
"People"
We
More perfect
Welfare
Edit: Idk how many people realize, but “promote the general Welfare” is literally in the preamble; so when conservatives criticize welfare, they’re opposing the constitution.
the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)
Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:
as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.
basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.
personally, i think most of it is hubabaloo, and most companies know(or should know) the minimum requirement they are looking for out of an employee since most of them already want the cheapest person in the building regardless of race. I just think the argument that they wont hire the best person suited for the job a fallacy, as if they were THAT good, then they would never get passed up to fill some racial quota. No one is going around for example passing up on Jim Keller (cpu architecture guru) over a minority designer who has little experience. for the jobs that require the best, a company will look for it regardless.
Republicans have gotten away with breaking this so many times...
Well y’see there’s this one weird trick where you can declare people not people anymore
Correct, unless it's for work that doesn't require special qualifications then it's usually a question of "out of those employees with very similar qualifications, is one of them part of an ethnic minority/a woman/someone with a handicap?"
I like your definition, but I would argue the question is less "are they an ethnic minority or woman?" And more "do they have likely have experiences and perspectives different from our existing team based on their demographic?" A homogenous team is more likely to share a blind spot or weakness. It's why varied backgrounds, ages, and gender identities are helpful.
Right, a white person joining a team that's 100% non white would be considered an ethnic minority in this case.
I understand your point but HR won't do a background check to figure out if an Indian candidate comes from a socio-economic background that makes them closer to the rest of the well off engineers team already in place vs a white guy that might have been raised in a very poor household. That's why it's usually ethnic origin, gender, handicap and surface stuff like that.
Thank you. That was easy to understand.
I want to add that while I agree that in most companies "most of it is hubabaloo" and the companies just hire qualified people, there are some loud and visible examples of blatantly unqualified people getting a position with only apparent qualification being pronouns in their bio. For example a game developers spokesperson not realizing calling all gamers "insufferable bigoted incels" on social media is not a reasonable way to market a videogame.
So while most companies just call countering biases in hiring DEI, the term DEI for many people is now associated with hiring unqualified people, largely because those rare examples I mentioned being amplified and presented as the norm by right-wingers.
If you ask me, companies should drop the term DEI from their hiring policies and just write them neutrally. Sure, most of the perception of unfairness is probably unfounded, but not all of it. And whether true or not, the perception that the hiring process was not fair by people rejected by the hiring process just builds resentment and builds support for morons like Trump that speak against such policies.
Hiring unqualified people also happens without DEI though and looking at studies on DEI's impact on productivity it might actually happen more without it in place considering that output usually increases when implementing DEI measures...
A bunch of candidates from diverse backgrounds, the unqualified white dude gets hired out of unconscious systemic racism or out of fear of being flagged as a company with DEI measures in place. Nepotism as well, hire the son of a good employee even though better candidates exist...
Absolutely it does.
Maybe, but I am sceptical in trusting studies like this, since they are rarely unbiased.
But even assuming it is true, making these policies obvious and giving them a name (DEI) creates an easy target to point at when assholes rouse hate against minorities. So as I said, I don't think it is worth it in the long term. Plus, it probably also helps create/reinforce the subconscious notion that minorities need help to qualify for jobs, rather than being equal. Appearances matter when trying to win people over.
Because of subconscious notions they do need help to get jobs they're qualified for. Hell, being bald is a deterrent, being called Kevin is a deterrent, being short is a deterrent to get hired with similar qualifications!
According to AI, not having a bookshelf in the background of a video call is a deterrent.
But why not do blind remote interviews or similar neutral policy? DEI doesn't help any of the people you mentioned.
"Our new fairness in hiring program ensures we hire strictly on merit by eliminating human biases using cutting edge technology."
You can't argue against that. Compare that with random DEI selling pitch and tell me you don't see how DEI is unnecessarily divisive.
Hiring on merit means only hiring white men because from birth they have an advantage. Unless you ignore all socio-economic issues people need to deal with throughout their whole lives, hiring based on merit only makes no sense, sometimes you have to give a chance to people you wouldn't naturally give a chance to in order to break centuries old practices. Maybe in a thousand year a black kid will have exactly the same opportunities as a white kid, but it's not the case now.
I'm not familiar with the example you're referencing. Was it stated this person was only hired for their pronouns or just due to a diversity initiative?
There are people who reveal themselves to be unqualified and incompetent through all types of hiring practices all the time. That does not invalidate the methodology entirely because none is perfect. If it was doing so consistently in a way that can be documented, that'd be different. But if that were the case, for profit companies would drop it on their own without external pressure.
The problem is it doesn't matter what you call it. Affirmative action, DEI, whatever. The people who complain about DEI will complain about that new term. I'm not sure there's a neutral way to describe that if two candidates are about equal, you'll pick the one from a disadvantaged/underrepresented background. Even if you said you're looking for unique perspectives, if it's not a white man who ends up making the mistake, some people will complain that unique perspectives are anti white and racist and hurting the country.
So is having that policy even worth it? I would argue doing blind remote interviews without knowing the persons race and background would be almost as effective without giving ammunition to hate-mongers.
It's not like you have roughly equal candidates for a position often in the first place. And it could also help against nepotism and other unfair practices.
I fully agree with your second point, it's so easy to blame minorities (be it racial or gender or sexual identity) that those situations are what gets talked abkut. The number of unqualified people who are hired/have been hired based on who they know vs what they know probably far outweighs mishandled DEI policies.
I agree, but as I said, making it obvious and giving it a name (DEI) creates an easy target to point at when assholes rouse hate against minorities. So as I said, I don't think it is worth it in the long term.
Plus, it probably also helps create/reinforce the subconscious notion that minorities need help to qualify for jobs, rather than being equal.
And why are we comparing Apple to Costco?
Because they're both standing behind their DEI programs when much of Corporate America is rushing to dismantle theirs.
Because both companies are doing the same thing at the moment regarding a certain subject...