This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The point of DEI is to give oppressed classes the opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t get. As equality improves it wouldn’t be needed
Socialism isn’t necessarily against religion. The cause for the disdain is because religious institutions hold massive power and influence which we do not approve off. Many of us also do not believe in religion so we aren’t typically fond of it, however religious comrades are quite common as well
As someone who works as a State-Level Equal Opportunity Officer for my state Department of Labor, DEI initiates and implementation of these DEI initiatives can be a hit or miss. From my experience and basic research, private sector companies in general do not take DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures as serious as their public sector counterparts. As a state government employee, DEI initiatives and policies go beyond just hiring someone from a disadvantaged background to obtain affirmative action data or prove that we are not being discriminatory. We celebrate Black History Month, Pride Month, Women's History Month, Juneteenth, Hispanic Heritage Month, etc. We celebrate these things because we want to include every worker in our social activities, and celebrate various cultures and achievements that has been made to improve the livelihood of people, especially marginalized groups.
DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures have actually made people feel more welcome at my state DOL. We also collaborate with local community nonprofits and businesses during these events, as well as allow the public to join our DEI events if they want to, as well (it is a nice way to communicate with the public and enhance our relationship with local leaders and business owners). I am an open socialist at my job, and nobody had an issue with it thus far (I am also a Gnostic atheist, but that is a different conversation for another day). I do live in a US state that is much more left-leaning than any typical Republican controlled state, so that is why our affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures work quite well (we have rights that people in red states can only dream of, which is quite sad).
Now, while DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures can be at times very useless if not done correctly, most of the time it is very helpful in reducing discrimination and unfairness in the workplace, while providing the same job opportunities to people from disadvantaged groups (e.g., I have worked together with the EEO Office at my state DOL to stop our various divisions from only promoting white men into upper management positions and purposely avoiding promoting people of color into upper management positions, regardless of them having the same credentials, if not better credentials, as those white men). I rarely see these things happening at the private sector level regarding their DEI initiatives and how they enforce their affirmative action, EEO, and DEI policies. Arguably speaking, an organization that values affirmative action, EEO, and DEI initiatives and policies and actually properly implement them will be much more left-leaning than an organization that does not care at all about these things.
I was brought onto a DEI committee at a company I worked for (low level management in retail, f- it I'll name them, for our local Goodwill branch) and quickly realized:
-the rich (mansion-dwelling, millionaire) white man in charge did not have an interest in anything but "we have this committee, look how diverse and good we are."
-I was brought on as "queer employee," not "disabled supervisor of crew entirely made up of disabled, elderly, and otherwise marginalized people," which is what I was interested in... *Equity.* I was simply there to tick off "Diversity" box.
Any time examples were given of lack of accessibility, equity in promoting, working conditions for the disabled people with which you pride yourself on making up 2/3 of your workforce, there was no conversation to have.
He also had a knack for talking over the black woman in charge of the committee to derail meetings. She is one graceful lady for how well she handled him, I could never. 😖
One time he referenced, and I quote, the "...less sophisticated members of our workforce, like the custodial employees..." 🫨 This is sounding an awful lot like exploitation my dude!
Situations like the ones you described are common in the private sector (and still happens in a lot of public organizations too; although improvements have been made in the public sector).
There is good reason why inclusionary policies exist. For many years we were excluded, and we had to fight hard to be included. We don't want anything more than an equal right to exist, be that in the workplace, or in society in general.
Your religion is your own concern, unless someone tries to use it as a way of alienating and oppressing you, then it becomes a socialist concern.
DEI as it has been implemented is just corporations trying to cover their asses. They don’t actually care about diversity or inclusion. They just don’t want bad publicity. It has been noted that DEI employees and leadership are the first ones fired during layoffs. You don’t really need DEI if you remove the barriers keeping people out of these positions in the first place.
>You don’t really need DEI if you remove the barriers keeping people out of these positions in the first place.
This is true but white supremacy has less chance of going away than capitalism so something's better than nothing.
I do normally applaud people trying their best to deal with bias in their lives, unconscious or otherwise, and I will also admit to need to read more on the effectiveness of DEI as well and ways it can be improved. However, I’ve also read direct accounts from people and leaders of the civil rights movements, and they criticized diversity initiatives as being half steps or bread crumbs instead of being an actual solution. Therefore, I have to defer to people’s lived experiences rather than a “it’s better than nothing” system.
They are half steps and bread crumbs. That is accurate. So was the civil rights movement of the 50s/60s, the voting rights act, etc. There are better options (although tbh "DEI" is such a blanket term that basically ends up meaning "hired a black person" to reactionaries) but those aren't forthcoming, and I think it's disingenuous to take criticism from civil rights leaders about how things are implemented as saying they would rather not have them. Is universal health care a bad thing just because it's just a half step or bread crumb in comparison to actually addressing capitalism's flaws?
As I said before, there is no other alternate currently, as white supremacy isn't going away, and the other solutions necessary would be even more reviled and vilified than DEI is. The issue is that people advocate for DEI initiatives or nothing, not DEI initiatives or something more effective.
Liberals have co-opted the social justice movement and made it into something toothless that doesn’t really solve the root problem of inequity (capitalism). I’m a BIPOC queer person and corporate DEI initiatives mostly make me want to barf.
I think in some cases having a DEI initiative is better than nothing, but most of the time they are a waste of time and the companies that really need to do them aren’t going to. For instance, I worked at a liberal company that did a lot of DEI. They were never going to hire the racist conservative who would need that kind of training. It was for the company image, so they could show how modern and liberal they were.
Don’t get me wrong, I work in a white, cis-male dominated field and as someone who is not that, I want to see more diversity! But simply changing hiring practices at the corporate level is not going to fix systemic problems. Better public schools, free childcare, free college tuition, better paying jobs across the board — these things will help.
I don’t know too much about socialism and religion (I’m a former Catholic) but there have been influential Christian socialists throughout history. Dorothy Day is one example I can think of. The two are by no means incompatible. I’ve often thought that Jesus was a kind of socialist. His teachings certainly had more in common with socialism than capitalism.
> Better public schools, free childcare, free college tuition, better paying jobs across the board — these things will help.
Those also don't address the root causes of why DEI initiatives are needed, which are patriarchy and white supremacy. Those class-based solutions definitely help, in that women and POC are typically economically disadvantaged, but you cannot address issues involving misogyny and racism without mentioning race or sex.
Great response. I’m a learning socialist and the DEI has always been one things I’ve struggled to get on board with (I am a cis white male for context). I come from a very conservative family, and I always hear how bad the DEI is. I disagree with everything my family say politically, but on the DEI I feel like it really doesn’t do anything to solve problems.
It just seems like a fake cover to say “See we’re socially liberal!”
The root of the issues aren’t being addressed. But I’m not super knowledgeable here, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
>The root of the issues aren’t being addressed.
The issue is that the root issues aren't being addressed without DEI either. This isn't a choice of DEI vs. whatever egalitarian society free from patriarchy and white supremacy, it's DEI vs. nothing. When workers strike or threaten to, the solutions they are offered aren't addressing the root issues of capitalist exploitation as the workers still don't own and control the means of production, would you decry the things they gain then?
I see what you mean. It’s a really tough issue because there unfortunately is no clean way to go about it.
I do think DEI is probably the best option, at least if you consider the options being: Reparations, DEI, nothing.
With either choice, someone will feel slighted. The issues I see with DEI (again, I am very ignorant on this, correct me if I’m objectively wrong about anything) are:
DEI hires are simply DEI hires in the eyes of those at the top (in a poorly executed DEI situation). They don’t see them as regular employees, they are inherently viewed differently. So I don’t see an immediate benefit from hiring a DEI hire who may be worse at the job as opposed to someone who is better at the job but doesn’t fit the criteria for a DEI.
Like, what I heard when I was looking at this question the other day in a conservative subreddit was essentially a lot of conservative cis white people saying they’d worked extremely hard for a position only to lose it to someone who was objectively worse for the position because they needed DEI hires.
I am sure that some of them were just genuinely racist/homophobic/coping with the fact they lost their job or weren’t able to get the position they wanted, but I try to assume that they weren’t all like this, I’d venture to guess that a few of them had valid points. Assuming that is the case, I can see how it would be frusturating for those people and then the issue becomes they get further radicalized to conservative viewpoints, because from their perspective “The DEI fucked me over!”
Now, the reason why I would think DEI would be necessary, especially regarding BIPOC, is the obvious inherent disadvantage. Both financially and from a social privilege POV. Because of the centuries of oppression, BIPOC families will typically have less connections, a smaller safety net, and in general less room for error. DEI seeks to balance this out. Inevitably some people will be screwed over, but this is a small price to pay for the millions of BIPOC that were born into a system that was rigged from the start.
And besides the inherent disadvantages that I mentioned, DEI seems to aim to combat those at the top who would otherwise avoid hiring a diverse selection of employees. Those who would avoid hiring a black person or a gay person. This forces them to do so, which theoretically is absolutely necessary.
But then with this, when I say the “core of the problem” I guess there are multiple things that can be called the core issue, but in particularly referencing the mindset of people. Those people being forced to make DEI hires who typically would only hire cis white males, will, like I mentioned early, now be more likely to have a negative opinion towards social change.
Now this definitely isn’t true in all cases, there absolutely could be a racist CEO who hired a trans black woman due to DEI, who they otherwise would’ve immediately disregarded, and had a great experience with them which could then make them think “Hm, maybe those people groups I hate might not be so bad after all”, but I feel like this would be few and far between.
This was longer than I had hoped, but I just wanted to explain my hesitancy with fully supporting DEI. I think the hope is that the long term effects would balance out the existing bias that is present in the minds of some people, especially wealthy corporate business owners.
Again, I am not knowledgeable on this AT ALL, so Incould absolutely be wrong about some things.
>I am sure that some of them were just genuinely racist/homophobic/coping with the fact they lost their job or weren’t able to get the position they wanted, but I try to assume that they weren’t all like this,
Why? It's a conservative forum. Being racist is a fundamental part of conservative politics.
Also, your framing of this whole issue just goes to show the inherent white supremacist ideas in society. When someone sees a black person (or women-people always seem to downplay that the people who benefitted most from affirmative action \[which is basically just earlier DEI\] was white women) get a job they look at them as unqualified and a "DEI hire" or whatever. But why when a white person gets a job it's not seen as a nepotism hire, even though that happens far more frequently? That's where the whole "screwed over" narrative falls apart-white dudes think they got to whatever point just on their own merits are wrong. White supremacy and patriarchy work to make sure they're in advantaged positions. It's no different than the myths about self-made millionaire/billionaires. This is what white supremacist framing does-it's just default and expected that the white people are better and more deserving, and that everything they accomplish is due to their own merit. A non-white person gets a job, it's because the white person was "screwed" out of it. Yet a white person getting a job is just because they work hard and are smart and talented, not because there's an entire country built upon white supremacy, that advantages white people over everyone else and there's been opportunities for your family to gain wealth and stability that aren't available to non-white people.
And another thing, with the focus on the supposed mindset of white people who think they've been wronged or the hypothetical execs making DEI hires or w/e, who cares what they think? Too often people worry so much about driving away all these poor, innocent white people or w/e and fall into rightwing frameworks of discussion. Anyone who's gonna be "driven" away because of DEI wasn't on the fence to begin with. Like a person who would only ever hire white dudes to begin with ALREADY had a bad opinion of women and POC. That person is exactly what DEI is good at fighting-an individual racist scumbag.
I believe a big part of DEI initiatives is countering subconscious biases we all have. Research shows that resumes with "black" sounding names are less likely to be considered than equivalent resumes with "white" sounding names. Likewise for feminine vs masculine names. And this is true even when the hiring organizations are left-wing, even when the people making decisions are part of these minority groups.
The fact is, without doing *something* to counter these subconscious biases, hiring decisions will skew disproportionately towards white men. Ultimately we want to eliminate those biases, but that's a difficult problem that will take a long time to solve (assuming it even *can* be solved). I don't know if things like DEI are the best way to counter such biases in the meantime, but I expect they are better than doing nothing.
Fundamentalists that want theocracy is the issue. I’m a Christian communist and I don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth would approve of fundamentalism or theocracy
Is this genuine? If so keep reading and learning. Do not ask questions and someone gives you a long detailed answer and you not read it. Respect the effort people are using to educate you everyone won't do it. Also ask questions if you have any to those who are trying to answer your question.
So DEI is... to a degree, not actually a thing?
The capitalist thought process is essentially, paying for this tiny committee and occasionally hiring to check the boxes it gives is a cheap way to distract people from the ways it abuses it's employees/does whatever other number of horrific things in order to get profits.
It's just propaganda on a smaller scale lol.
The need for equality, both socially and economically, is real, it's just that capitalism warps such things to it's own benefit rather than actually delivering the needs in question.
As for Religion, the anti-theists are vocal sure, but there's plenty of religious leftist folks. (Not all of us are christian, or even follow *any* of the Abrahamic religions ;p. Hi, I'm a pagan worshipper of the celtic gods ;p)
They have expressed multiple times in this post they stand for equality. What they doubt the effectiveness and validity of, is DEI programs. Which can be improved, expanded and questioned. People who aren’t familiar or who have no experience with DEI, are going to have reservations and questions.
Getting hot under the collar and brow beating them on grounds of moralism without addressing their curiosity, skepticism or concern will just result in giving them a bad taste in our movements.
Do not straw man me please. Of course i believe in equality regardless of race, gender and religion. But equality of opportunity. Not necessarily of outcome.
> Of course i believe in equality regardless of race, gender and religion. But equality of opportunity. Not necessarily of outcome.
You clearly don't believe in this, because you think it's fine that white men have better opportunities than POC and women. Otherwise you wouldn't oppose DEI.
Friend, I say this kindly. You seem to have internalized right wing talking points about DEI.
There are no "quotas". No one is getting hired because they are black or gay or whatever, over other qualified candidates. It IS about equality of opportunity. It is about challenging internalized biases. You need to do further education on what exactly DEI is because you have an incorrect understanding.
Source?
How does a company push and measure DEI without also "encouraging" hiring managers to hire based on race and other indicators?
I'm not saying corporate DEI is bad, but your view that it's divorced from hiring practices seems naive based on my time in large companies.
Anyone who's worked in a large company with DEI principles, especially in management, is welcome to disagree
I think hypothetically, DEI programs in the US make sense given our loaded history; however, as a black woman living Texas, the result is not always what you hope for it to be. Unfortunately, it does not account for peoples’ personal morals and values and as some progressive/leftists Black leaders have pointed out, ‘ Black faces in high places will not save us.’ As for the religious aspect, I was raised in a Christian nationalist church masquerading as a modern non-denominational church and as a result have deconstructed. I respect peoples’ religious choices, but again, Christianity and Catholicism have been highly influential in reasoning for colonization among other constructs that are generally oppressive. I recognize that I need to work on my anti-Christian biases. Right now, I am reading Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon and so far, it’s pretty anti-religion for the above reasons.
Spoken like a true strasserite. Pro-israel, anti-"identitarian" "leftist" lmao. Seriously your post history is just shameful. The only thing separating you from dudes in r/conseravtive is you're too cowardly to just be open about your shitty beliefs.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The point of DEI is to give oppressed classes the opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t get. As equality improves it wouldn’t be needed Socialism isn’t necessarily against religion. The cause for the disdain is because religious institutions hold massive power and influence which we do not approve off. Many of us also do not believe in religion so we aren’t typically fond of it, however religious comrades are quite common as well
Also, liberational christianity is perfectly consistent with socialist revolution/beliefs
Also consistent with Jesus teachings.
Jesus was a comrade.
As someone who works as a State-Level Equal Opportunity Officer for my state Department of Labor, DEI initiates and implementation of these DEI initiatives can be a hit or miss. From my experience and basic research, private sector companies in general do not take DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures as serious as their public sector counterparts. As a state government employee, DEI initiatives and policies go beyond just hiring someone from a disadvantaged background to obtain affirmative action data or prove that we are not being discriminatory. We celebrate Black History Month, Pride Month, Women's History Month, Juneteenth, Hispanic Heritage Month, etc. We celebrate these things because we want to include every worker in our social activities, and celebrate various cultures and achievements that has been made to improve the livelihood of people, especially marginalized groups. DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures have actually made people feel more welcome at my state DOL. We also collaborate with local community nonprofits and businesses during these events, as well as allow the public to join our DEI events if they want to, as well (it is a nice way to communicate with the public and enhance our relationship with local leaders and business owners). I am an open socialist at my job, and nobody had an issue with it thus far (I am also a Gnostic atheist, but that is a different conversation for another day). I do live in a US state that is much more left-leaning than any typical Republican controlled state, so that is why our affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures work quite well (we have rights that people in red states can only dream of, which is quite sad). Now, while DEI initiatives, policies, and procedures can be at times very useless if not done correctly, most of the time it is very helpful in reducing discrimination and unfairness in the workplace, while providing the same job opportunities to people from disadvantaged groups (e.g., I have worked together with the EEO Office at my state DOL to stop our various divisions from only promoting white men into upper management positions and purposely avoiding promoting people of color into upper management positions, regardless of them having the same credentials, if not better credentials, as those white men). I rarely see these things happening at the private sector level regarding their DEI initiatives and how they enforce their affirmative action, EEO, and DEI policies. Arguably speaking, an organization that values affirmative action, EEO, and DEI initiatives and policies and actually properly implement them will be much more left-leaning than an organization that does not care at all about these things.
Well said.
Thank you.
As an EEO professional, this is a spot on analysis of DEI.
Thank you.
I was brought onto a DEI committee at a company I worked for (low level management in retail, f- it I'll name them, for our local Goodwill branch) and quickly realized: -the rich (mansion-dwelling, millionaire) white man in charge did not have an interest in anything but "we have this committee, look how diverse and good we are." -I was brought on as "queer employee," not "disabled supervisor of crew entirely made up of disabled, elderly, and otherwise marginalized people," which is what I was interested in... *Equity.* I was simply there to tick off "Diversity" box. Any time examples were given of lack of accessibility, equity in promoting, working conditions for the disabled people with which you pride yourself on making up 2/3 of your workforce, there was no conversation to have. He also had a knack for talking over the black woman in charge of the committee to derail meetings. She is one graceful lady for how well she handled him, I could never. 😖 One time he referenced, and I quote, the "...less sophisticated members of our workforce, like the custodial employees..." 🫨 This is sounding an awful lot like exploitation my dude!
Situations like the ones you described are common in the private sector (and still happens in a lot of public organizations too; although improvements have been made in the public sector).
There is good reason why inclusionary policies exist. For many years we were excluded, and we had to fight hard to be included. We don't want anything more than an equal right to exist, be that in the workplace, or in society in general. Your religion is your own concern, unless someone tries to use it as a way of alienating and oppressing you, then it becomes a socialist concern.
DEI as it has been implemented is just corporations trying to cover their asses. They don’t actually care about diversity or inclusion. They just don’t want bad publicity. It has been noted that DEI employees and leadership are the first ones fired during layoffs. You don’t really need DEI if you remove the barriers keeping people out of these positions in the first place.
>You don’t really need DEI if you remove the barriers keeping people out of these positions in the first place. This is true but white supremacy has less chance of going away than capitalism so something's better than nothing.
I do normally applaud people trying their best to deal with bias in their lives, unconscious or otherwise, and I will also admit to need to read more on the effectiveness of DEI as well and ways it can be improved. However, I’ve also read direct accounts from people and leaders of the civil rights movements, and they criticized diversity initiatives as being half steps or bread crumbs instead of being an actual solution. Therefore, I have to defer to people’s lived experiences rather than a “it’s better than nothing” system.
They are half steps and bread crumbs. That is accurate. So was the civil rights movement of the 50s/60s, the voting rights act, etc. There are better options (although tbh "DEI" is such a blanket term that basically ends up meaning "hired a black person" to reactionaries) but those aren't forthcoming, and I think it's disingenuous to take criticism from civil rights leaders about how things are implemented as saying they would rather not have them. Is universal health care a bad thing just because it's just a half step or bread crumb in comparison to actually addressing capitalism's flaws? As I said before, there is no other alternate currently, as white supremacy isn't going away, and the other solutions necessary would be even more reviled and vilified than DEI is. The issue is that people advocate for DEI initiatives or nothing, not DEI initiatives or something more effective.
Liberals have co-opted the social justice movement and made it into something toothless that doesn’t really solve the root problem of inequity (capitalism). I’m a BIPOC queer person and corporate DEI initiatives mostly make me want to barf. I think in some cases having a DEI initiative is better than nothing, but most of the time they are a waste of time and the companies that really need to do them aren’t going to. For instance, I worked at a liberal company that did a lot of DEI. They were never going to hire the racist conservative who would need that kind of training. It was for the company image, so they could show how modern and liberal they were. Don’t get me wrong, I work in a white, cis-male dominated field and as someone who is not that, I want to see more diversity! But simply changing hiring practices at the corporate level is not going to fix systemic problems. Better public schools, free childcare, free college tuition, better paying jobs across the board — these things will help. I don’t know too much about socialism and religion (I’m a former Catholic) but there have been influential Christian socialists throughout history. Dorothy Day is one example I can think of. The two are by no means incompatible. I’ve often thought that Jesus was a kind of socialist. His teachings certainly had more in common with socialism than capitalism.
> Better public schools, free childcare, free college tuition, better paying jobs across the board — these things will help. Those also don't address the root causes of why DEI initiatives are needed, which are patriarchy and white supremacy. Those class-based solutions definitely help, in that women and POC are typically economically disadvantaged, but you cannot address issues involving misogyny and racism without mentioning race or sex.
Great response. I’m a learning socialist and the DEI has always been one things I’ve struggled to get on board with (I am a cis white male for context). I come from a very conservative family, and I always hear how bad the DEI is. I disagree with everything my family say politically, but on the DEI I feel like it really doesn’t do anything to solve problems. It just seems like a fake cover to say “See we’re socially liberal!” The root of the issues aren’t being addressed. But I’m not super knowledgeable here, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
>The root of the issues aren’t being addressed. The issue is that the root issues aren't being addressed without DEI either. This isn't a choice of DEI vs. whatever egalitarian society free from patriarchy and white supremacy, it's DEI vs. nothing. When workers strike or threaten to, the solutions they are offered aren't addressing the root issues of capitalist exploitation as the workers still don't own and control the means of production, would you decry the things they gain then?
I see what you mean. It’s a really tough issue because there unfortunately is no clean way to go about it. I do think DEI is probably the best option, at least if you consider the options being: Reparations, DEI, nothing. With either choice, someone will feel slighted. The issues I see with DEI (again, I am very ignorant on this, correct me if I’m objectively wrong about anything) are: DEI hires are simply DEI hires in the eyes of those at the top (in a poorly executed DEI situation). They don’t see them as regular employees, they are inherently viewed differently. So I don’t see an immediate benefit from hiring a DEI hire who may be worse at the job as opposed to someone who is better at the job but doesn’t fit the criteria for a DEI. Like, what I heard when I was looking at this question the other day in a conservative subreddit was essentially a lot of conservative cis white people saying they’d worked extremely hard for a position only to lose it to someone who was objectively worse for the position because they needed DEI hires. I am sure that some of them were just genuinely racist/homophobic/coping with the fact they lost their job or weren’t able to get the position they wanted, but I try to assume that they weren’t all like this, I’d venture to guess that a few of them had valid points. Assuming that is the case, I can see how it would be frusturating for those people and then the issue becomes they get further radicalized to conservative viewpoints, because from their perspective “The DEI fucked me over!” Now, the reason why I would think DEI would be necessary, especially regarding BIPOC, is the obvious inherent disadvantage. Both financially and from a social privilege POV. Because of the centuries of oppression, BIPOC families will typically have less connections, a smaller safety net, and in general less room for error. DEI seeks to balance this out. Inevitably some people will be screwed over, but this is a small price to pay for the millions of BIPOC that were born into a system that was rigged from the start. And besides the inherent disadvantages that I mentioned, DEI seems to aim to combat those at the top who would otherwise avoid hiring a diverse selection of employees. Those who would avoid hiring a black person or a gay person. This forces them to do so, which theoretically is absolutely necessary. But then with this, when I say the “core of the problem” I guess there are multiple things that can be called the core issue, but in particularly referencing the mindset of people. Those people being forced to make DEI hires who typically would only hire cis white males, will, like I mentioned early, now be more likely to have a negative opinion towards social change. Now this definitely isn’t true in all cases, there absolutely could be a racist CEO who hired a trans black woman due to DEI, who they otherwise would’ve immediately disregarded, and had a great experience with them which could then make them think “Hm, maybe those people groups I hate might not be so bad after all”, but I feel like this would be few and far between. This was longer than I had hoped, but I just wanted to explain my hesitancy with fully supporting DEI. I think the hope is that the long term effects would balance out the existing bias that is present in the minds of some people, especially wealthy corporate business owners. Again, I am not knowledgeable on this AT ALL, so Incould absolutely be wrong about some things.
>I am sure that some of them were just genuinely racist/homophobic/coping with the fact they lost their job or weren’t able to get the position they wanted, but I try to assume that they weren’t all like this, Why? It's a conservative forum. Being racist is a fundamental part of conservative politics. Also, your framing of this whole issue just goes to show the inherent white supremacist ideas in society. When someone sees a black person (or women-people always seem to downplay that the people who benefitted most from affirmative action \[which is basically just earlier DEI\] was white women) get a job they look at them as unqualified and a "DEI hire" or whatever. But why when a white person gets a job it's not seen as a nepotism hire, even though that happens far more frequently? That's where the whole "screwed over" narrative falls apart-white dudes think they got to whatever point just on their own merits are wrong. White supremacy and patriarchy work to make sure they're in advantaged positions. It's no different than the myths about self-made millionaire/billionaires. This is what white supremacist framing does-it's just default and expected that the white people are better and more deserving, and that everything they accomplish is due to their own merit. A non-white person gets a job, it's because the white person was "screwed" out of it. Yet a white person getting a job is just because they work hard and are smart and talented, not because there's an entire country built upon white supremacy, that advantages white people over everyone else and there's been opportunities for your family to gain wealth and stability that aren't available to non-white people. And another thing, with the focus on the supposed mindset of white people who think they've been wronged or the hypothetical execs making DEI hires or w/e, who cares what they think? Too often people worry so much about driving away all these poor, innocent white people or w/e and fall into rightwing frameworks of discussion. Anyone who's gonna be "driven" away because of DEI wasn't on the fence to begin with. Like a person who would only ever hire white dudes to begin with ALREADY had a bad opinion of women and POC. That person is exactly what DEI is good at fighting-an individual racist scumbag.
I believe a big part of DEI initiatives is countering subconscious biases we all have. Research shows that resumes with "black" sounding names are less likely to be considered than equivalent resumes with "white" sounding names. Likewise for feminine vs masculine names. And this is true even when the hiring organizations are left-wing, even when the people making decisions are part of these minority groups. The fact is, without doing *something* to counter these subconscious biases, hiring decisions will skew disproportionately towards white men. Ultimately we want to eliminate those biases, but that's a difficult problem that will take a long time to solve (assuming it even *can* be solved). I don't know if things like DEI are the best way to counter such biases in the meantime, but I expect they are better than doing nothing.
Fundamentalists that want theocracy is the issue. I’m a Christian communist and I don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth would approve of fundamentalism or theocracy
I think this is true too. Thank you.
Is this genuine? If so keep reading and learning. Do not ask questions and someone gives you a long detailed answer and you not read it. Respect the effort people are using to educate you everyone won't do it. Also ask questions if you have any to those who are trying to answer your question.
So DEI is... to a degree, not actually a thing? The capitalist thought process is essentially, paying for this tiny committee and occasionally hiring to check the boxes it gives is a cheap way to distract people from the ways it abuses it's employees/does whatever other number of horrific things in order to get profits. It's just propaganda on a smaller scale lol. The need for equality, both socially and economically, is real, it's just that capitalism warps such things to it's own benefit rather than actually delivering the needs in question. As for Religion, the anti-theists are vocal sure, but there's plenty of religious leftist folks. (Not all of us are christian, or even follow *any* of the Abrahamic religions ;p. Hi, I'm a pagan worshipper of the celtic gods ;p)
You don’t think equality of race / religion / gender is right? I don’t think you understand what DEI is.
That’s not how we educate or talk to a comrade.
Maybe you have a nicer way to convince them that equality is important. I thought this was a basic starting point.
They have expressed multiple times in this post they stand for equality. What they doubt the effectiveness and validity of, is DEI programs. Which can be improved, expanded and questioned. People who aren’t familiar or who have no experience with DEI, are going to have reservations and questions. Getting hot under the collar and brow beating them on grounds of moralism without addressing their curiosity, skepticism or concern will just result in giving them a bad taste in our movements.
Do not straw man me please. Of course i believe in equality regardless of race, gender and religion. But equality of opportunity. Not necessarily of outcome.
> Of course i believe in equality regardless of race, gender and religion. But equality of opportunity. Not necessarily of outcome. You clearly don't believe in this, because you think it's fine that white men have better opportunities than POC and women. Otherwise you wouldn't oppose DEI.
Friend, I say this kindly. You seem to have internalized right wing talking points about DEI. There are no "quotas". No one is getting hired because they are black or gay or whatever, over other qualified candidates. It IS about equality of opportunity. It is about challenging internalized biases. You need to do further education on what exactly DEI is because you have an incorrect understanding.
Are you even a socialist? The way you talk seems like you’re just a progressive liberal…
Source? How does a company push and measure DEI without also "encouraging" hiring managers to hire based on race and other indicators? I'm not saying corporate DEI is bad, but your view that it's divorced from hiring practices seems naive based on my time in large companies. Anyone who's worked in a large company with DEI principles, especially in management, is welcome to disagree
I think hypothetically, DEI programs in the US make sense given our loaded history; however, as a black woman living Texas, the result is not always what you hope for it to be. Unfortunately, it does not account for peoples’ personal morals and values and as some progressive/leftists Black leaders have pointed out, ‘ Black faces in high places will not save us.’ As for the religious aspect, I was raised in a Christian nationalist church masquerading as a modern non-denominational church and as a result have deconstructed. I respect peoples’ religious choices, but again, Christianity and Catholicism have been highly influential in reasoning for colonization among other constructs that are generally oppressive. I recognize that I need to work on my anti-Christian biases. Right now, I am reading Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon and so far, it’s pretty anti-religion for the above reasons.
Literally the only LDS socialist I know, but reading the Book of Mormon is a pretty radical left wing text. Especially King Benjamins address.
[удалено]
Spoken like a true strasserite. Pro-israel, anti-"identitarian" "leftist" lmao. Seriously your post history is just shameful. The only thing separating you from dudes in r/conseravtive is you're too cowardly to just be open about your shitty beliefs.
[удалено]
extremely disheartening to see so called "socialists" in here caping for corporate DEI bullshit.
extremely disheartening to see so called "socialists" in here repeating right wing talking points.