There has been and will be on-going a good deal of talk and criticism of the very basic human rights notion of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Many of the newly empowered Right are demonizing it and wanting to remove efforts to be more diverse, more equitable and more inclusive. It makes me wonder if they know what DEI stands for... because what reasonable, moral person is against those things?
I also think that some think of DEI as a way to be condescendingly kind to the "poor and needy." It's not.
DEI is based upon well-researched data that supports the very common sense notion that we all do better when all are included. And it's not just a catchy slogan, data supports it. I'll not cite the data here but I can if anyone wants the data/research.
When there are more people from more backgrounds, businesses and agencies (churches, community groups, gatherings, etc) do better. We're more productive and more intelligent collectively than we are individually. Think about it... of course, that's just common sense.
The reality is that...
We don't know what we don't know
We can't see what we can't see
And that's OK.
What's not OK is not beginning with the humility
To acknowledge that there are some things
We don't know and can't see
I work for an agency that helps fellow citizens with disabilities to be more included in the public sphere, including in housing and employment. We have more than one time heard the story that goes something like this...
"Hi, we're trying to get Mary in for a job interview but we can't find an accessible entrance."
"Oh, no problem, there are no steps if you go around back..."
Fine, we go around back, where there is no stairway, but there is ONE step. Mary is in a big heavy powerchair and it can't make it up that one step. We go back to the front office and report this.
"Oh, no problem. You can also get in back by the dumpster, just go around it and there's a door."
Great. The dumpster entrance. We try it, but the dumpster is blocking it. We return to the front office.
"Can't get in. Dumpster is blocking it."
"Funny, we've never had any people come in in wheelchairs reporting a problem."
Pause.
"Think about it. Have you EVER had people come in in wheelchairs? Is it possible you haven't recognized the problem/difficulty because you haven't lived that life?"
More than once, we've heard that kind of story. The details may change, but the end result doesn't.
But the thing is, our fellow citizens with disabilities can and do bring value to employers and agencies. People of color can and do bring value... immigrants, women, LGBTQ folks... we ALL bring something of value and when we're not working for diversity, equity and inclusion... yes, those left out are hurt, but the thing is, we're ALL hurt by that. Businesses suffer from not having a well-rounded work force. Schools suffer from not having a spectrum of students and employees.
We're all better when everyone is included. It's not for "those" people that we include.
It's for all of us.
35 comments:
As Jesus promises, “Behold, I make all things new,” we are continuingly, falteringly, in the face of brutalizing opposition, realizing new, better, more Christlike ways of seeing, caring for, and loving people so that we are fit for community.
Agreed. Especially the "falteringly" part. We do what we can until we know better. Then, we do better. To borrow from Maya Angelou.
Why? Because it's moronic on its face. Only marxists pretend it's a sincere path to improvement. Intelligent people are fed up with leftist nonsense.
I googled "Why oppose DEI?" And had to wade through the typical horde of leftist support in order to find arguments opposed to the corrupt practice. It has the ring of goodness to it, but that's how you leftists operate and if it flows from your mouths, scrutiny is essential. Thus, I found the following links you won't actually read and consider in an honest, Christian manner, because that's not your way. Thus, in no particular order:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-ways-dei-harming-your-company-how-resolve-brian-dapelo
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/exposing-the-lie-that-dei-is-compassionate.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/opposing_dei.html
https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/367513/the-dei-dilemma/
I know it's a tough ask to expect honor and integrity from you, but I remain hopeful. These four offerings indicate a diversity of people and it would be equitable to treat them the same and include them in your considerations. Again, a tall order, I know. Can you muster the willingness and openness to consider the other side that you demand of those like me? (doubtful, but...)
Marshal, if you want to comment here, be respectful. Let me demonstrate what I mean. If you have some rational reason to oppose DEI, then don't begin with "It's Moronic! Only marxists..." That's childish and abusive, not respectful and adult. Instead, if you were trying to engage in respectful dialog, as with a friend, on the topic, you should begin more like, "I get that on the face of it, there are some good ideals in DEI, but nonetheless, I think there are some problems. For instance..."
Respect. Adult.
No one is a moron here. No one is a Marxist here. Words have meanings. Be adult and speak respectfully and on an adult level. Because I believe in decent and reasonable conversations and dialogs, that is what I expect of you. Do this moving forward or there is a high likelihood of your comment being deleted.
Now, some questions first:
DEI is the ideal that we are all better when all types of people are included. That a diversity of ideals and backgrounds bring a wealth of ideas and angles. This is good.
(And before you go there, I'm not talking about "groups of people" as in "rapists and terrorists, let's include them!" I'm talking about categories that people might be included in - race, gender, LGBTQ, the disabled and non-disabled (for now), etc.)
And here, I'm not even talking about policies or specific rules or guidelines, I'm just talking about the notion that it's really cool to work around people who aren't just like you. There are a lot of natural benefits to it, just the ideal.
Do you disagree?
You seem to agree at least on some level, as you wrote, "It has the ring of goodness to it,"
Because of course, it does. It seems good on the very face of it (I guess unless you're racist, sexist or otherwise afraid of or don't like different types of people - and I get that to some degree. Many people find it most comfortable being around people who are like them.) But yes, it does seem good on the face of it. (And set aside your grade school, "But those dirty leftists just use it..." blah, blah, blah. Again, respectful adult dialog or go away.)
You agree?
Additionally, there is research that shows that having a diverse (race, lgbtq, women, disabled, etc) workforce and workplace has benefits.
Do you acknowledge that that research exists? I know we've talked about it before and I've provided several studies, so you should be able to easily say, "Yes, I'm aware of the research."
Okay. I read your second link, the Christian Post article that begins in high anger screed and continues from there. The writer makes unsupported and stupidly false allegations that he does not even try to prove.
Attacking LGBTQ folks and their allies does not help make the case. Indeed, that there are people out there who view LGBTQ as not normal and dangerous and otherwise demonize them are an argument FOR DEI instruction and efforts, not against.
He offers nothing but angry screed. Sort of the same way you lead with your first comment here.
He says, with no support, "DEI is meant to hire and promote only those who are ideologically opposed to Christianity."
Of course, that is not factual. My agency and the various human services agencies I have in my friend circle hire Christians. They hired me, after all. Further, they also hire conservative Christians. I have conservative Christians at my office and so do my other friends in the human services world.
We DO take some precautions to let them know we serve people of all kinds and if you have a problem working with black people, with LGBTQ people, then this is not a fit for you. IF you are going to go to work with an agenda to NOT be welcoming and to try to "change" gay people and let them know they have a "bad life," then that is not our mission and we wouldn't hire such a person. Because of course. We're not going to hire someone who acts contrary to our ideals and goals to respect and serve all people.
Probably what this gentleman means is that many agencies won't hire overtly racist or misogynistic or homophobic people. As an agency who supports those with disabilities, we won't hire people who condescend to those with disabilities. That would be irrational and contrary to our mission.
No company or agency would do that. Your type of churches would not hire an openly gay organist or children's minister, right? Is it only churches that get to be discriminating?
Anyway, your first post I read had no data to support his claims. Just anger and fear of being marginalized for his hateful beliefs.
He concludes with a slight bit of a condescending peace offering, saying:
"It goes without saying that our society must be one that always shows compassion and cares for the vulnerable and weak, not only in the workplace but everywhere. This can and should be done without DEIA having to continue to exist..."
But again, he gives no data to support that claim. It SHOULD be possible to be welcoming and affirming to all and have a diverse and equitable workforce without any guidelines helping that to happen, but centuries of evidence say it's not enough.
Also, given the notion of gov't staying out of people's business, if a company, school, agency wants to implement DEI efforts to align with their mission and values, who are you to say they shouldn't?
I don't care about screeds with unsupported claims.
I'm out of time now, but will peruse the others later.
Or better yet, why don't you respectfully put a link to the most rational-sounding source making a data-based case for being opposed to DEI? Don't make me wade through nonsense and unsupported opinions full of false claims.
A quick read of your American "Thinker" piece rings similar to the first one I read, but with more links. The links, inevitably, appear to be linking to some like-minded conservative also condemning what the author is condemning. But based upon what?
For instance, the author claims, with no support:
"Hence. they teach the very opposite of Dr. Martin Luther King’s momentous call for racial equality. Whereas Dr. King called for E Pluribus Unum, DEI calls for E Pluribus Discord."
Says who? This author is clearly against DEI for what he fears he thinks it's teaching, as it appears to him, personally (and others like him). But where is the support for the claims he's making?
Making claims and REALLY believing something is bad is not sufficient to make one's case in adult conversations.
Truly, the more I look at his links to his buddies who share the same fears of what they claim is a "boogety man" with NO actual research that is not just opinion pieces trying to scare people into fearing DEI... I mean, I sort of know that's American "Thinker's" thing and the new Maga way, but I expect more.
Let's talk data. Let's talk research. Let's talk real world applications and how do we best improve our diversity and welcome of people from all walks... or some data as to why we shouldn't value diversity.
Is that the case that you want to make: That diversity is, itself, a bad thing?
As someone who works in a field where DEI is highly valued, and as someone who works with adults with disabilities who are seeking employment (in a world where a huge percentage of the disabled are under- and unemployed - 70+%, depending on the parameters), let me explain what DEI actually looks like for us.
1. We are NOT looking for a charity hire. Period. We are actively opposed to that and would not put someone in that situation. It's bad for the employee, for the employer and for DEI, in general.
That is, we don't want an employer to say, "Well, I don't really have a job for him, but I'll put him at a desk in the corner and he an occasionally shred papers or wave to people as they pass... and then they'll have a job! Yay!" That's HORRIBLY disrespectful and not what DEI means.
2. We get to know what our clients can and can't do (and they CAN do things, of course) and what needs to be in place for them to succeed on a job (no ladder climbing if they're in a wheelchair, for instance - unless that's something they're good at, which could be the case!) and then we find employers who can benefit from hiring someone with those talents.
3. All we're asking employers to do is to look beyond the disability and give them a chance... AND to consider "job carving." That is, if they have a job that requires doing These 20 tasks and our candidate can only do 10 of them, would it help the company to have someone who can do those ten things really well and free up the other employees to focus more on the other ten. IF that's the case, then that's where we want to talk employment.
It's common sense and it's bottom line helpful. Additionally, people with disabilities, when they find employment, are statistically significantly more likely to stay longer on the job than non-disabled, saving the employer the time-wasting and thus, costly, task of having to continually hire new employees. It's a money saver. It's bottom line efficient.
What is there to oppose in that DEI effort?
Marshal, with zero support said in a now-deleted comment:
Your post isn't at all an accurate reflection of it at all. It's just you promoting a bad idea and coloring over it with your anecdotal story. That's not adult. That's lying.
Prove it. Again, if you want to comment, especially in such an abusive manner, YOU must support your nonsense claims. Your say so has no weight on its own.
I hope you can understand.
I had said:
"No one is a moron here. No one is a Marxist here. Words have meanings."
Marshal responded, with ZERO support:
I'm fully aware of the words I use and those above are accurately used here.
Then define how YOU are using "moron," because factually, it just doesn't fit from the normal definition. And define "Marxist." Again, from a factual basis on the normal definition of the word, it just doesn't fit.
I am an educated adult, a college graduate. I'm a huge reader of books of all sorts and many articles on all types of research and opinion. I have had expertise in a wide range of areas, from woodworking to refinishing furniture, from education and specifically special education, from GIS and tech support in a wide range of areas, from music and leading in worship, from teaching Sunday School for children and teaching work skills to adults with disabilities. I factually have a fairly wide range of experiences and knowledge and life experience and expertise. In what POSSIBLE sense am I rationally a moron?
Likewise, I'm just not a Marxist, by definition. Words have meanings.
Your claims, on the other hand, are meaningless and stupidly false. They are the name-calling level of an ill-tempered, poorly behaved fourth grader. As demonstrated with this nonsense. PROVE it, or move on.
Marshal:
there ARE no "good ideals" in DEI that manifest in any ideal manner. The links I provided which I can see you immediately trash proves the point.
No, they literally don't. They are the rantings of people mad about DEI who offer no data as to why they don't like it. Just their unsupported and oftentimes false opinions about what they personally think/conjecture is the "intent" behind people who promote it.
Do you, Marshal, recognize the reality that many of us truly do support DEI because we value diversity, equity and inclusion? And many of us do so because we see the data that shows why it makes sense?
Marshal:
There's no way I can express my objections and disagreement which does not lead to you whining about being "adult" and speaking "respectfully" before you default to your typical childish level of response.
??? I LITERALLY just showed you how you can do this? "I get that DEI sounds decent on the face of it, but I have some problems with it. The reasons I have problems with it, according to the data I've seen, is...." And then you simply fill in the data with ACTUAL data. Not mindless, empty-headed screeds from people who, like you, loathe DEI for no rational data-based reasons you can support.
Provide adult, data-driven support for your claims or move on.
Your best case link does actually come from your first link (I skipped the Linked In first because the value of LinkedIn articles is wildly divergent based upon who's writing it).
This white guy begins by acknowledging that having diversity in the workplace IS a good thing.
"it must be clarified in advance that having diverse workplaces inclusive of ALL employees, is a worthwhile objective for all corporations for a multitude of reasons. There is information abound on the benefits of diversity but the most popular opinion is that differing perspectives are incredibly valuable in solving problems and innovation;"
He agrees with diverse workplaces. He just appears to disagree with at least some of the methods used to implement that ideal.
Do you agree with your source on that point?
But then, his first complaint doesn't hold water:
Logic suggests that preferencing candidates based on these qualifications mean that others are intentionally discriminated against based on the same criteria. How would you feel being told that you weren’t hired or promoted for a role because you weren’t the right color/gender for a role you were otherwise completely qualified for?
1. I have definitely said TO employers, words to the effect of, "Given equal candidates, I would certainly hope you'd hire a black person, a woman, a person with a disability over me. Why wouldn't you?!" No, I would not begrudge a person from a traditional minority background getting a job over me. Why would I?
2. This fails, largely in part, to the myth of "The Better Candidate." Given two candidates, one with a bachelors degree and ten years experience in a field and the other with a masters degree and two years experience in the field, where one has written extensively and well on topics in the field and one who accomplished a signficant achievement outside of quality writing... WHO is the "better/best" candidate? There is no definitive answer. One candidate will always have more experience in one area than the other, more expertise in some areas than the other and back and forth.
We begin with the notion that the reality is, We might have TWO (or more) strong candidates. Who is the best fit for our company/agency? And there simply is no definitive answer. The "Best Fit" is more slippery than that.
Can you agree with all these common sense notions?
Further, because agencies and employers REALLY want to have success in their company, no one is hiring someone they think is a lesser-qualified or unqualified candidate simply to have diversity. Why would they?
So, we're not talking about scenarios where you have a person with a disability with only a HS diploma going up against a white man with a Masters Degree and 20 years experience and the white man losing the job to the lesser qualified candidate. I know many white men (I've heard them say this) THINK that's the case, but I've never seen it in reality. It may happen, but I have to imagine that's quite rare.
Do you have ANY DATA that shows hiring an extremely unqualified person for a position over an extremely qualified white man, simply for diversity's sake, happens at all? Or at least regularly?
Your source didn't.
His second point:
Whether intentional or not, DEI programs tend to favor those who look different as opposed to those who are diverse in other areas, like thought, faith, culture, background, socioeconomic upbringing, experience, etc.
Fine. Let's talk about it. Where's the data?
Likewise, his third point:
By putting unnecessary limitations on the talent pool because of racial or gender quotas established under DEI programs, the number of qualified candidates that may otherwise be a better fit for the company is significantly reduced.
Where's the data?
It sounds like he's operating under the mistaken notion based upon a caricature of DEI. I work for a DEI-valuing organization. Many of my colleagues and friends in helping fields do, too. We very often would love to have minority or typically left-out candidates to apply for a job. But does that mean we don't even consider white male applicants?
Don't be ridiculous. I am sure this may RARELY happen, but I have NO data or reason to think it's likely common, as this guy assumes. IF and when he/someone provides data, we can talk.
Likewise for his fourth point:
When hiring preference is placed on one’s looks rather than skills, experience, and other qualifications, failure is often the result. Two things can typically happen when a significantly underqualified candidate is hired, 1) the candidate stays with the employer and decreases productivity over time, or 2) they quit/get fired and their work is passed on to others
??? WHERE IS THE DATA?
In fact, same for all his other "concerns..." WHERE is the data to support his fears/theories? It's not enough to simply state, "IT WILL BE LIKE THIS..." You have to support it with data.
As my sources have done.
So, while this guy starts off a bit reasonable sounding, he simply doesn't even begin to provide data to support his theories/claims.
Why heed his unsupported opinions?
Also, on his fourth point:
When hiring preference is placed on one’s looks rather than skills, experience, and other qualifications, failure is often the result.
NO ONE IS SUGGESTION we should hire an unqualified black woman because she is black. No one.
I defy you to find even ONE instance of this happening. It is a made-up fear, not a reality.
...I mean, outside instances where traditionally "cute" white women get hired while others equally qualified get passed over. THAT certainly happens. Again, the data supports this. Same for "traditionally handsome" white men.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/02/men-benefit-more-from-their-looks-at-work-than-women-do-new-research-shows.html
More... there's much more data on this...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/11/04/attractive-people-have-a-big-advantage-in-the-job-interview/
DEI is simply the policy of equality and equity in a democratic US. But Marshal and all thugs don't want an equal and equitable US. Because they won’t measure up to it.
Marshal, the fake patriot, should review the careers of the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff. Supreme achievements for both, who, for most big our lives would never have been considered for anything visible or so much to command. My black father-in-law was an enlisted man who served from the Vietnam War through the Clinton era. Passed every test; maxed out at the highest level possible: Chief Master Sergeant. His nephew, younger than 50, was just nominated for Brigadier General, of which there are less than 70 in the armed forces. A fighter pilot in Iraq; trained fighter pilots; commanded squadrons and schools and military bases.
All the above are black men who demonstrated mastery of war, leadership of soldiers, and builders of morale.
Trump’s trusted picks are Hitler praising accused sexual assaulters.
DEI is needed to clean the swamp of the worst kind.
Marshal, if you're going to state claims, you MUST PROVIDE PROOF. You making empty claims as if they were facts will not be posted here UNLESS you begin by acknowledging they are your own subjective unproven and pointless guesses and hunches, completely empty of data and support.
I don't know how to help you understand.
"We're not going to hire someone who acts contrary to our ideals and goals to respect and serve all people."
You just indicted yourself as bigoted. You prefer to believe that Christian truth is disrespectful to those who disagree with Christian truth. Thus, you oppose Christianity. The following piece elaborates on the poisoning effect of DEI:
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/is-dei-biblical.html
By your own words, you suggest that YOU are promoting that which is in opposition to Christian teaching, by suggesting your "mission" is not to preach. Well, fine. But then, what of the conservative Christian who will work with anyone, but not abide outward behaviors or speech which is counter to the faith. What if a homosexual is suffering as a result of his willful lifestyle choices? Is the conservative Christian among you simply to give him an aspirin for the pain and ignore the cause of it? And how likely is the conservative Christian to be defended if the homosexual is offended by the Christian's presence and known position on the behavior? Frank Turek, Barronelle Stutzman and Jack Phillips are just a few of the people who are true examples of people "oppressed" for being, as opposed to your stories of LGBTQ people allegedly cast out of their homes or churches simply for being. If, like Turek, a conservative Christian co-worker never said a darned thing in opposition to the LGBTQ agenda or lifestyle anywhere near the workplace, but an LGBTQ co-worker found a social media post where the Christian stated his agreement with Christian teaching opposing homosexual behavior or cross-dressing, and claimed he/she just couldn't work with "that bigot", what would happen?
"As an agency who supports those with disabilities, we won't hire people who condescend to those with disabilities. That would be irrational and contrary to our mission.
No company or agency would do that."
So what do you need DEI for? Every employer demands that all his employees, if not get along, keep their crap to themselves and get the job done. No employer tolerates employees harassing other employees.
"Your type of churches would not hire an openly gay organist or children's minister, right? Is it only churches that get to be discriminating?"
"Openly" denotes promotion of that which is counter to Christian teaching. Discriminating against behavior is not in any way inappropriate. God discriminates against many bad behaviors. Indeed, it's tolerance for bad behavior which has contributed greatly to the many problems of our culture today.
Trump’s winning margin of the national vote was smaller than Hillary’s 2016 margin over him. Don’t tell us we live in a democracy. In fact, Trump’s winning margin is the smallest since the 19th century. Decidedly NOT a mandate for anything.
And the majority of his major appointments so far? Accused of sexual assault, sex trafficking, and the abetting of grooming and sexually abusing children.
And the ones who aren't sexual predators or their allies have often been woefully unfit for the jobs they're appointed to. Very strange. It's like he wants to fail, or that he can appoint nincompoops who are in over their heads and sexual predators and then just bluff his way to "success" while Rome burns all around.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment (he again posted claims with no supports, no data, just empty claims) asked about the conservatives who work at the various progressive-minded agencies I'm familiar with, including mine:
I'd be interested to interview these alleged conservative Christians to see how they get on among you leftists. I wonder how conservative your company/organizations are in the first place, or how much more conservative they've become upon hiring these alleged conservatives.
1. They get along fine. But they're not the jerky types of conservatives who insist on having things their way.
2. My agency, at least, is quite progressive-minded. Why wouldn't we be?
3. Are you asking if our agency has become LESS progressive-minded when hiring conservatives. Not that I see. Why would that happen?
One of my more conservative colleagues is the wife of a pastor. The two of them started a charity to get the tools to get clean water to disaster areas and extremely poor areas. They provide the tools (cheap supplies) and the training so those places can build their own affordable water filtering systems. They save lives. Good conservative people doing good work. And when she's not doing that, she's working with our good liberal organization doing solid, good work. Getting people jobs that fit. Arranging for people to get homes to live in. Good work.
Again, what is there to argue with in either case? Why wouldn't conservatives be able to work with us (unless they want to insist on calling women, "men," or telling gay folk they're going to be judged by God)? Why wouldn't we be proud of their good work?
This conservative/liberal separation doesn't have to be that way.
Why delete on the false premise of "unsupported claims", when you constantly make such yourself? Such hypocrisy isn't new of you, I'm just trying to understand the reason for holding fast to your double standards. If I posted an unsupported claim, why delete the comment? Why not ask for support, as if you'd actually accept any, and see what happens? I know the actual reason, but I'm interested to see how you'll spin the answer to pretend it's valid, honest and "adult".
I've stated quite clearly that I can post the research again and I may, just to see if there is new data/research to update the old data. In this case. In other cases, I'm pretty clear if I'm stating an opinion rather than an objective fact or something that is data-driven.
On the other hand, your problem of failing to distinguish between subjective opinions (EVEN when you are making outlandish, stupidly false claims that are easily demonstrated) and objective facts are precisely part of the modern magop movement. You all rely upon false and unsubstantiated claims, attacks based upon false or misleading premises and sometimes dangerously false claims at worst and just arrogantly presumptuous false claims at best. I and many rational people view that as a problem.
And so, you don't get to post false and/or unsupported claims here.
AS LONG as you state clearly, "This is my opinion and it's subjective and unproven and I have no data to support it... it's my hunch..." THEN you can expect your comments to remain (as long as they are not otherwise abusive or vulgar and demonizing of people).
And Marshal, my whole history of interactions with you has been a history of 20 (has it been that long?) years' worth of me respectfully asking you and folks like you for data, or asking "Says who?" or otherwise asking you to support your claims. I don't know how you don't get what the problem is.
And, for the thousandth time, "There is a verse in the Bible that I think means X" is not objective data. It is literally a subjective opinion, unproven. Same for theories about policies. A guy saying, "Policy X is dangerous and those who advocate it are intent on tearing down and destroying..." is a subjective and usually stupidly false unsupported opinion. And when that guy has a link under the word "dangerous" that leads to another conservative saying, "I, too, think that Policy is dangerous because it's poisoning the minds of our Youth..." IS NOT SUPPORT. It's another subjective opinion.
In my example above about Policy X, do you see how that is a subjective opinion, insofar as what I've quoted says?
I had said, about the conservatives I work with:
"But they're not the jerky types of conservatives who insist on having things their way."
Marshal asked:
Who are such people? Name some so we can see if this claim of their actually being such people actually exists.
IF someone is opposed to folks being transgender or gay but they're willing to work with our clients, including any who may be LGBTQ and do so respectfully, not calling men "She" and dead-naming them or trying to convince them to "change orientations and get right with god, as I see god..." they can work with us (for one example). If they insist on dead-naming, etc, then they're disrespectful jerks who will not work for us. Just like if someone were racist. If they kept it to themselves, then we wouldn't know about it, would we? But as soon as the threat of them saying racist comments comes out, they'd be racist jerks who were fired.
The rest of the comment was deleted for insulting, unsupported, hateful comments, as you know will happen. It's sort of that "jerk" thing, again.
Research-based data, Marshal. SUPPORT your personal hunches or admit they are personal hunches. Or move on.
You pretend a study is needed to recognize the inanity and nonsense of DEI? That's funny. As each of my links demonstrate plainly, DEI is NOTHING more but progressive assertion, in terms of effectiveness in achieving goals which only have appeal to progressives. Normal people don't support it because it puts people at risk. The Biden administration is loaded with DEI, box-checking picks, and the result is the disaster of the last four years. You want to pretend your job proves the assertions of DEI. Not only does it not, but it lacks the "research-based data" you demand to support the obvious.
So, despite how well my previous linked offerings support my opposition to it, and despite your NOT providing a damned thing to suppose DEI does any good, I now offer this:
https://aristotlefoundation.org/reality-check/what-dei-research-concludes-about-diversity-training-it-is-divisive-counter-productive-and-unnecessary/
I've no doubt you'll dismiss it out of hand, likely on the worthless excuse that the author of the piece is "some white guy", as you like to do, it is loaded with references to studies upon which the piece is based.
Now, all the researchers cited in the piece might comprise a group who just don't understand what DEI is. That's a common theme among those who support it because it seems nice. But even if that is so...and it's an insipid suggestion...they really don't need to know what it is to see if the stated goals of DEI proponents are in evidence anywhere. They clearly are not.
DEI is worthless
Reviewing your link. A couple of things right off the bat:
Your white conservative Christian male author LEADS with:
"In July 2023, public school principal Richard Bilkszto killed himself. When announcing his death, Bilkszto’s lawyer traced his deteriorating mental health and ultimate demise to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) workshops his school board required him to attend.1
Recordings show that he was harassed and humiliated by the DEI trainer for questioning one of her claims.2"
DEI IS KILLING US! DEI INSTRUCTORS ARE HARRASSING WHITE CONSERVATIVE MALES. Those are two bad signs, right off. Also, note the 1 and 2 footnotes, presumably to sources supporting the far-fetched claim. None of the footnotes lead to anything.
So, two strikes right in the first paragraph.
Given that NOT ONE of his allegations/claims and fearmongering charges is supported (at least at this site), it remains a fully unsupported and emotionally overwrought subjective opinion piece that just doesn't ring true.
Once again, cite SOME DATA or admit you can't.
Feodor said, in a now-deleted comment:
who object to DEI, are not arguing for neutrality. They just don’t want moral law getting in their way of exclusion, prejudice, and racism.
Please do not use the R-neck term to refer to rural white people on my blog. Thanks. Your point otherwise is fairly solid, quite often.
Dan,
Two things:
1. An anecdotal story to lead off an article is not in the least unusual or uncommon. But unlike yourself, it doesn't use the anecdote to be the basis of its premise or claims.
2. The article is loaded with data and research, including a link to all of it at the end which supports the premise it presents.
Okay, digging down through the links and the links therein, I was able to find the reference data. But, just starting with the top claim (they're killing white men by shaming them!!!!) and the conclusion the authors and others were reaching...
While the hostility Bilszto was subjected to during his DEI training is not unusual, his extreme response to it is an outlier. But it also sounds an alarm
This points to me to a problem with the fragile egos of white men, not any "hostility..." It was a give and take adult level discussion where this white man was telling the black speaker that she should know better than to say Canada was better off/less racist than the US and she responded back. It's the kind of discussion that adults have. They weren't terribly disrespectful (any more than he was terribly disrespectful). It was a disagreement, not hostility. Why this white man apparently took it as hostility and "shaming" and an attack... well, that points to the very problem of white and male privilege... that daring to disagree respectfully with a white man is to be hostile and shaming towards him.
They disagreed. That's okay, disagreements happen. What would you have had her done? To bow down respectfully to the wisdom of the mighty white man? Is it not okay for white men to be pushed back against by a black woman?
That's just a bit on the first point they attempt to make, and the white privilege surrounding it.
Marshal:
you prefer to attack this guy's sad and unfortunate response to his dilemma with your evil, condescending "fragile egos of white men" crap
I'm not attacking anyone's depression or anxiety. Of course. I'm not speaking of THIS man. I was speaking of white men, in general. Where they find offense and "oppression" at every turn. Unfortunately, too many white (especially conservative) men feel that they are being oppressed and abused. They confuse being treated as equal with being oppressed and then, when things don't go the way they like or people don't simply agree with them, but push back, they feel like they're being somehow undermined or oppressed.
It's just the adult world for most of humanity. Christmas is NOT being attacked. White men are NOT the "only group that can be mocked." Affirmative action is NOT racism and an abuse of white men.
Could this black woman have treated this white man with kid gloves and been more gentle in her response? I suppose. But why does she need to appease this white man and his personal opinions and go out of her way to make HIM feel good about his personal opinion?
Marshal continues to give an object lesson in the emotionally fragile white male by his continued attempts to place himself and his personal unsupported opinions above my rules that he must speak respectfully and provide data to support his hunches or admit they are just his subjective opinions. Sort of like an emotionally fragile child might lash out over and over.
Post a Comment