990
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
990 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23316 readers
2379 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don’t agree with Harvard (DEI & Pro-Palestinian protests), but I support them defying this order. They’re a private institution, the government is overstepping here.
Wait, so you... both think they should not have DEI programs and should expel pro-palestinian protestors, but you also think they should defy the government order telling them to do what you think they should do?
I'm not sure what the guy you're responding to's actual position is.
But from an objective standpoint, he could disagree with Harvard's DEI policies but still support Harvard's defiance of Trump because the DEI policies should be Harvard's choice to make, not Trump's.
Basically a variant of the saying "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it."
Yes, because the order is an abuse of power. I don’t agree with their policies, but private institutions shouldn’t be bullied by the government. I support their autonomy.
Fair enough. We disagree on the policy, but definitely agree on it being an abuse of power.
Person wants to ride all the highs, no consequences.
What dei policies do you object to?
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action but that’s already been settled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
I’ve managed and hired in workplaces that have employed DEI for years. It’s not a hiring quota, like Affirmative Action. It’s a training course and cultural adoption to increase awareness around unconscious bias and microagressions. It’s a way to help identify discrimination, and bring it out into conversation. It also focuses on the benefits of diverse perspectives when approaching a problem.
That’s MAGA’s definition of DEI because Affirmative Action was repealed, so they needed a new way to rally the racists and bigots.
The only hiring guideline is equal representation in interviewing. There are no quotas in DEI as there were under Affirmative Action. No one gets hired to fulfill a requirement.
Your own link (https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-dei) that you’ve now deleted states the opposite. I’m sorry, but I believe employment should be merit based only.
You have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to DEI, like so many others you have just gobbled up the view points of the right propaganda machine. But let me ask one thing, where is the evidence os all this supposed discrimination that took place because of DEI?
Evidence is just talking with people in person about their lived experiences with the DEI hiring process/work life. Easily accessible to everybody. May I know how what I posted is part of the “right propaganda machine” when it’s literally on Harvard Business School’s website?
Thats not evidence, and that is just confirmation bias. If an actual study was performed looking at the hiring processes and the end result of alot of companies then that would be evidence. Also if there was a rise in discrimination law suits in situations where DEI was a determining factor would even be evidence.
What you said was basically was “Someone said it exists so it must”.
So your evidence is "I heard someone say it before." Great. That's not very valuable and I would advise not basing your worldview in it.
Anecdotal evidence is worth less than nothing.
DEI MAKES a position merit-based
Maybe the problem lies with your interpretation? Inclusion means to include a thing. You can still hire based on merit while being inclusive. The whole point of DEI is to make sure a company isn't missing out a massive talent pool because they're focusing on a singular demographic.
I deleted it because it’s written poorly. It implies requirements. There are none. Affirmative Action had metricized hiring quotas that must be met. DEI does not.
This is a better explanation from Forbes on how quotas are not just bad for the majority, but also cause resentment within minority groups.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/08/25/dei-backlash-4-legitimate-concerns-to-avoid/
There may be some poorly implemented DEI policies that are just quotas in disguise, but that seems like its own punishment, when you get unqualified people.
I’ve worked for several companies that have gotten it right: hired and promoted the best qualified people from all cultures, nationalities, religions, skin color, preferences, genders, etc. it’s not a matter of hiring based on those characteristics, but putting a little effort into ensuring that you can find the best person and they can thrive, even if they otherwise have many obstacles
Right. The only guideline that I’ve followed regarding DEI hiring is including a diverse group of interviewees. I’m still only hiring the most qualified people. Basically, if your sample group is heavily weighted towards one demographic, you may not have interviewed the full spectrum of diverse candidates available simply by using random selection.
I don't understand how fixing existing discrimination is in itself discrimination. People are not being oppressed because they aren't being given special treatment anymore. DEI policies have absolutely nothing to do with quotas or giving protected classes special treatment.
Most dei policies are designed to prevent people from using bias in the hiring process, and encouraging diversity. This can include removing name/gender/etc from the process.
What policies do you object to?
Can you elaborate on this? I've known DEI policies and Affirmative Action to be commonly confused with each other, but distinctly different.
In practice? Can you prove that?
I have always thought affirmative action had some issues but DEI was originally conceived by corporations to get better talent that would have otherwise not been hired due to racism, sexism, or any form of nepotism. Diversity of any kind has helped corporations make fuck loads of money for decades on top of helping veterans, old people and disabled people get jobs.
Just simply not true.
Just wanted to stop by and express my disappointment for the down votes. I disagree with you strongly on the policies, but I deeply respect your commitment to actual free speech, and I hope you hold that same energy when it comes to due process rights.
This type of "we must tolerate the intolerant" energy is how Reddit became neo-fascist. First being against DEI and Palestinians is a heinous political position. Second of all people who are against DEI believe it's racism, if he's okay with private institutions using what he believes are racist policies, that's a heinous position.
What you're basically reading is: "I'm a racist, and I think private institutions should be able to have policies I think are racist"
Yeah that's a no from me.
Exactly let's ban a dude for giving his opinion that doesn't make us fascists at all you see his opinion was wrong
Wow that isn't in good faith AT ALL. Downvotes aren't bans.
You don't have a right to an audience, if people don't like what you have to say, they don't have to listen. They can also let you know if you're a shit person. Maybe give you an opportunity to reflect and have personal growth.
Ban? The fuck are you talking about?
How about a not hiring example: A class in Urban Ecology and Planning will have a component on equity and inclusion. Historically, marginalized people were subjected to more pollution, more waste, and even evicted to create services and goods for other people. The notion that everyone is a citizen and deserves thoughtful design, access to public services, and equal burden of pollution is a relatively recent idea.
These orders make those discussions go away. Those considerations in planning and design are "divisive" and support "anti American values". Although that is not the real reason, the real reason is to go back to the way it was before.
Wheelchair access is DEI. Services for the deaf is DEI. Understanding the impact of diesel corridor pollution is DEI. They do not want you to waste resources and time on trying to do better, because it is not better for them.