anti-DEI is basically just a work program for Christian MAGA white men. A lot of the people running the country now really do believe that things were better before women and minorities got rights.
The head of my org (SWE) at Apple gave a speech at an all hands last year. To quote him:
“At the top of an offer form are 2 boxes, one that says a woman was interviewed for the role, and one that says a person of color was interviewed. I have said that I will not sign off on an offer unless there’s a check next to those boxes.”
This is textbook racial discrimination and literally against the letter and spirit of the civil rights act.
DEI is truly just repackaged institutional racism, and opposing it is the right side of history.
That sounds simplistic and worthy of criticism in some ways, but how is it "textbook racial discrimination"? You're jumping from "they were required to interview a person of color" to "they discriminated against white people" without demonstrating the latter, and judging by the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles it doesn't hold water. All this does is force the hiring manager to interview a more diverse set of candidates; the expectation is still that the most qualified will ultimately be hired.
Edit: Actually, it does deserve criticism for assuming that there are white people and men in the interview pool, regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly true; a better approach (similar to what my own employer does) would be to require that the interview pool included candidates of at least two races and of both genders (or "at least two gender identities," if you prefer). Statistically, though, I'm not sure it makes a significant difference. Nevertheless, fair point.
1. Apple posts a job, interviews a white guy and wants to make an offer
2. Diversity quota not met, interview a person of color
3. At this point if you hire the person of color the white person didn't get the job purely because of their race. This is textbook racial discrimination.
4. If you decide to hire the white person anyway, then you interviewed the black person purely for performative reasons.
The only possible outcomes to this system are discrimination based on immutable characteristics or purely performative interviews that waste everyone's time.
>the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles
White people are actually UNDER represented because there is so much discrimination against them now.
This over-representation thing is a myth which never made sense in the first place.
In 1992 the USA was 76% white (not evenly distributed, many states were actually 90+%), and every year since then we have dramatically increased diversity, but the diversity has not come with a uniform distribution. Much of it has been illegal border crossings or people imported for very specific types of work visas. Expecting companies' racial distributions to perfectly match these huge changes in demographics was a completely impossible task that can only be accomplished with outright discrimination. For example from 1992 -> 1999 the Hispanic population increased by 40%, but many Hispanics who came to the US were not educated in Computer Science and ended up working in industries like construction. If that's true then why is it reasonable to expect that Apple's (or any other company/institution) representation of Hispanics should automatically increase to match their new share of the population?
Also an interesting aside: Apple has since scrubbed ESG reports from their site and no longer publish nearly as much diversity information, likely because they have discriminated so heavily and much of what they are doing would not hold up in court.
> is because DEI is fundamentally a discriminatory movement that resulted in systemic racism and sexism at many companies, universities, and governments
Utter horseshit. “DEI” is just the latest boogeyman (it was CRT last election cycle and it’ll be something else equally fucking stupid in the next one), used to convince mediocre dudes that they weren’t hired not because they’re eminently mediocre and talentless, but because someone, somewhere, had some make believe quota.
The problem with this fiction is it's easily testable: Trump has repeatedly fired eminently qualified individuals who happen to be women or people of color in favor of idiots who are white men that run podcasts or he watched on TV.
America, in fact, chose a senile real estate developer with no political qualifications who is a rapist and pedophile over an insanely overqualified Black woman who has worked her entire career in government, having worked in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the federal, state, and local levels.
You really can't prove systemic racism and sexism any more clearly than that.
The "anti-DEI camp" is basically entirely MAGA and MAGA-adjacent bigots.
It would be one thing if they were actually arguing for actual equality in hiring (which wouldn't bias for or against any race or gender - under the naive belief that no implicit bias exists to begin with) but one can very easily tell by their dialogue that they believe all people of color and all women are fundamentally unqualified by default and that a "fair" playing field would, in their view, reflect white supremacist and patriarchal ideals.
There is no "anti-DEI" movement to speak of otherwise. As with so many other "anti-woke" movements, it's bigots all the way down.
anti-DEI is basically just a work program for Christian MAGA white men. A lot of the people running the country now really do believe that things were better before women and minorities got rights.
The head of my org (SWE) at Apple gave a speech at an all hands last year. To quote him:
“At the top of an offer form are 2 boxes, one that says a woman was interviewed for the role, and one that says a person of color was interviewed. I have said that I will not sign off on an offer unless there’s a check next to those boxes.”
This is textbook racial discrimination and literally against the letter and spirit of the civil rights act.
DEI is truly just repackaged institutional racism, and opposing it is the right side of history.
That sounds simplistic and worthy of criticism in some ways, but how is it "textbook racial discrimination"? You're jumping from "they were required to interview a person of color" to "they discriminated against white people" without demonstrating the latter, and judging by the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles it doesn't hold water. All this does is force the hiring manager to interview a more diverse set of candidates; the expectation is still that the most qualified will ultimately be hired.
Edit: Actually, it does deserve criticism for assuming that there are white people and men in the interview pool, regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly true; a better approach (similar to what my own employer does) would be to require that the interview pool included candidates of at least two races and of both genders (or "at least two gender identities," if you prefer). Statistically, though, I'm not sure it makes a significant difference. Nevertheless, fair point.
Just think it through logically for a sec:
1. Apple posts a job, interviews a white guy and wants to make an offer
2. Diversity quota not met, interview a person of color
3. At this point if you hire the person of color the white person didn't get the job purely because of their race. This is textbook racial discrimination.
4. If you decide to hire the white person anyway, then you interviewed the black person purely for performative reasons.
The only possible outcomes to this system are discrimination based on immutable characteristics or purely performative interviews that waste everyone's time.
>the statistical overrepresentation of white people in powerful roles
This is also completely wrong:
https://www.apple.com/diversity/
White people are actually UNDER represented because there is so much discrimination against them now.
This over-representation thing is a myth which never made sense in the first place.
In 1992 the USA was 76% white (not evenly distributed, many states were actually 90+%), and every year since then we have dramatically increased diversity, but the diversity has not come with a uniform distribution. Much of it has been illegal border crossings or people imported for very specific types of work visas. Expecting companies' racial distributions to perfectly match these huge changes in demographics was a completely impossible task that can only be accomplished with outright discrimination. For example from 1992 -> 1999 the Hispanic population increased by 40%, but many Hispanics who came to the US were not educated in Computer Science and ended up working in industries like construction. If that's true then why is it reasonable to expect that Apple's (or any other company/institution) representation of Hispanics should automatically increase to match their new share of the population?
Also an interesting aside: Apple has since scrubbed ESG reports from their site and no longer publish nearly as much diversity information, likely because they have discriminated so heavily and much of what they are doing would not hold up in court.
[dead]
[flagged]
> is because DEI is fundamentally a discriminatory movement that resulted in systemic racism and sexism at many companies, universities, and governments
Utter horseshit. “DEI” is just the latest boogeyman (it was CRT last election cycle and it’ll be something else equally fucking stupid in the next one), used to convince mediocre dudes that they weren’t hired not because they’re eminently mediocre and talentless, but because someone, somewhere, had some make believe quota.
The problem with this fiction is it's easily testable: Trump has repeatedly fired eminently qualified individuals who happen to be women or people of color in favor of idiots who are white men that run podcasts or he watched on TV.
America, in fact, chose a senile real estate developer with no political qualifications who is a rapist and pedophile over an insanely overqualified Black woman who has worked her entire career in government, having worked in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the federal, state, and local levels.
You really can't prove systemic racism and sexism any more clearly than that.
The "anti-DEI camp" is basically entirely MAGA and MAGA-adjacent bigots.
It would be one thing if they were actually arguing for actual equality in hiring (which wouldn't bias for or against any race or gender - under the naive belief that no implicit bias exists to begin with) but one can very easily tell by their dialogue that they believe all people of color and all women are fundamentally unqualified by default and that a "fair" playing field would, in their view, reflect white supremacist and patriarchal ideals.
There is no "anti-DEI" movement to speak of otherwise. As with so many other "anti-woke" movements, it's bigots all the way down.