News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The backlash against DEI is at the individual level imo. How people feel is the reality, see the economy (which is also an attribute of using the wrong metrics to measure performance as it relates to the consumer but that is a different topic).
Let’s see if I can explain it: So let’s say you’re an average white guy, and you know your company has a DEI program. You feel like you work very hard, or at least as hard as everyone else in your workplace, but you see that your minority coworkers get promotions or that the new hire for a better paid position than yours is a minority you start to feel as though you’re getting passed over because of your identity. This could be because it is a diverse workplace and so the best people for the promotion may just happen to be of other races or women. It could also be actual racism which I’m sure happens but it’s probably very very rare. But that doesn’t matter, what matters is that you see people who are different from you getting promoted, and you don’t particularly feel they are better than you.
Then you maybe look a little bit into what the theory behind DEI is and you learn that it’s proponents argue that there is systemic favoritism towards white straight males which is why if you have two equally capable candidates but one is white and the other is a minority, you should choose the minority. As a straight white male you won’t feel (and frankly should not, I’m sorry) that you are responsible for your advantage in society, so what you’ll feel is that now you’re the disadvantage one and that DEI is just racism against white straight males. It isn’t but that doesn’t change how the individual feels.
My personal opinion is that DEI is more of a bandaid than a solution and some of the backlash is warranted. The real solution is for people to have equal opportunity at the lowest level, meaning education. There’s no reason for some schools to be better than others, and less for that difference to arise from the value of the houses in the schools district. Of course Trump and co will not fix it either because they campaigned on destroying the education system because they seemingly want a slave caste or something. But if everyone had equal access to good schools and colleges, I don’t think DEI as it is implemented in most orgs would be needed.
Edit: this was supposed to be a reply to @danc4498@lemmy.world
There's a fundamental truth that certain white people (i would say over 50%) who don't believe they are racist - will never hire a non-white person for a position, and they aren't even consciously aware that this is the case.
There's just a natural subconscious bias towards people that look and sound like you do. DEI helps to overcome that.
I think "will never hire a non-white person for a position" is a little far but I do think "are unlikely to ever hire a non-white person for a position" (maybe even "highly unlikely") is fair.
Yes, but I think this a bias reinforced by the same point I made above about education. All schools should be as equally good as possible, or at the very least they should be equally funded and have the same program etc. And then we should aim that schools are as diverse as possible.
It will not completely solve the issues, rural areas by their very nature will probably remain very white and very entrenched. But it would alleviate it a lot.
That brings me to another point, that I think no one has made to rural Americans. If they are being left behind and there’s a housing crisis, why the fuck are their politicians not running campaigns on using government money to fund industry and development in the huge amount of literally empty space there is in this country? We could build the European walkable cities dems dream so much about in the heart of America, and make it affordable too, at least at the beginning. I’ve thought about a lot and I think a plan to develop the economy of the heartland of America would be a good platform for a democratic candidate to run on and it could fit within all the trappings of a The “Golden Age” of America that people want. And it would be a national project, something we sorely need to unite us again.
Because change is hard, and people would rather be told comfortable lies. So the grifters and liars get into office on their platforms of lies, and instead of doing anything useful they just grift.
I work at a pretty progressive company (comparatively but definitely not perfect) and DEI there has nothing to do with preferential treatment, nor does it need to be.
The fact is that if you want to hire the top X people in the labor market, but your hiring and business practices exclude, say, half of that market, you absolutely will not get the actual top X. You will have to reach deeper into your half and be forced to pick people that are less qualified and/or capable.
So DEI, at least where I'm at, is about widening that pool so that you can actually get top talent. That means reevaluating your business practices to figure out why you're excluding top talent. Maybe your recruiters always go to specific colleges for recruitment and certain websites. Maybe just the way they're talking to candidates is more attractive to a certain type of person. Maybe you've got hiring requirements and an interview process that is not actually predictive of success. Maybe candidates are looking for some benefit that you're not offering. Everything needs to be looked at.
For example, "Women just want more flexible working arrangements so that's why we can't get them" is something I hear often. Well, have you actually evaluated why your company is so inflexible? Is it actually necessary? Or are your executives a bunch of people who learned how to manage in the 20th century and haven't changed since then? Maybe there are things you can do to enter the 21st century and make room for more women, not just because they're women, but because you gain access to people who are actually better at their job than the ones you've had. Not every company can be supremely flexible, of course, but the number of times that inflexibility is actually necessary of much smaller than its prevalence.
The demographic breakdown of your workforce is a quick and easy weathervane to help figure out how these efforts but of course they're not everything. Diversity comes in maybe forms, not just skin color and genitals. But in my company they're used in a backwards looking manner, to see how new policies are working, not for quota filling and preferential treatment.
That sounds like a good and well thought out DEI program. But there are also DEI programs that were just quotas. I’m not saying they are the majority or even common but just one lends credence to the “it’s racism” narrative.
I mean, I guess, yeah, the wrong metrics issue is a little tangential, but papering over the spiraling inequality sure isn't helping the proverbial white working-class guy stop misattributing his failure to get ahead.