Over the last week, the guide has surged to become the 5th-most-accessed book on Project Gutenberg, an open source repository of free and public domain ebooks. It is also the fifth most popular ebook on the site over the last 30 days, having been accessed nearly 60,000 times over the last month (just behind Romeo and Juliet).
Direct link to the book (without the backref):
So is this why DEI exists?
DEI exists because racists often have hiring power. It doesn’t force the hiring of the unqualified, it supports the qualified from not being discriminated against.
Nice “centrism” btw.
Why is centrism in quotes?
So riddle me this, why is it hard to believe that DEI type policies could be plot by some organization or country against the U.S. when there’s literally a field manual which says that such policies should be used against “fascists”. People on Lemmy call the U.S. imperialist all the time.
The flaw in your argument is the false equivalency between minorities (people the DEI programs are there to support) and “inefficient workers”.
Are straight white dudes exempt from ever being considered inefficient? That’s silly.
DEI goes beyond hiring. If you have a sizeable office but no comfortable and private area for new mothers to pump breast milk that’s being inequitable to them. Same for maternity and paternity leave policies. These are not about giving advantage to minorities.
That’s fair, but those don’t decrease efficiency consistently enough to be a viable method for simple sabotage. There are better ways to decrease efficiency in ways people won’t notice. Everyone notices DEI because it’s so divisive.
Additionally, pointing out a semantic issue with my statement doesn’t change the fact that the people the DEI practices help are not “inefficient workers” anymore than any other group of workers.
No, I didn’t say minorities, you’re assuming that. I was pointing out the part in the text which says, “fight fascists by creating bureaucracy”. There are lots of articles already which point out that DEI is for all identities, not just POC.
I didn’t say POC anywhere in my comment.
These identities are minority identities. Women, POC, LGBT+ communities are all considered minorities. There are legitimate reasons for DEI, including increasing efficiency in workplaces, which doesn’t line up here, because in this doc the increase in bureaucracy is for the purpose of decreasing efficiency.
Some studies I’d like to cite regarding my claim on Diversity practices increasing efficiency:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30765101/
Results: Most of the sixteen reviews matching inclusion criteria demonstrated positive associations between diversity, quality and financial performance. Healthcare studies showed patients generally fare better when care was provided by more diverse teams. Professional skills-focused studies generally find improvements to innovation, team communications and improved risk assessment. Financial performance also improved with increased diversity. A diversity-friendly environment was often identified as a key to avoiding frictions that come with change.
https://dinastipub.org/DIJDBM/article/download/2986/1924/12080 (This one is a PDF) CONCLUSION This study shows that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have a significant positive impact on employee performance.
I also found this article from Harvard that explored practices that don’t increase efficiency, however, when they don’t work, the reason is usually unconscious bias and racism:
https://hbr.org/2024/06/research-the-most-common-dei-practices-actually-undermine-diversity “These methods often exacerbate existing biases and fail to address systemic barriers, perpetuating organizational inequities. For example, diversity and harassment training programs frequently focus on blame, legal consequences, and unconscious bias. Employees are often told they are biased, and managers are informed that they will be held accountable if employees are accused of discrimination. This is counterproductive because employees tend to react with resistance and anger to these messages, inadvertently increasing discriminatory behavior.”
The reason I am including this is that even if the end goal was to decrease efficiency, it would have to be the goal of management, not the regulatory bodies, because management are the ones choosing these methods, and if it were management’s goal to decrease efficiency, they would be able to do this without DEI requirements.
My overarching point here is, while I understand your skepticism on DEI practices, there are much simpler and cheaper ways to perform the methods in the original post, making DEI an extremely unlikely culprit.
The plain and simple truth is that DEI often increases, not decreases, efficiency and productivity. It does this by creating accommodations for efficient workers who would, without them, not be able to work, such as in the new mothers example. It also increases efficiency by combating existing institutional racism and allowing for good, efficient workers who would otherwise be hedged out of the system, to have a chance to participate. A good friend of mine has pointed out that their company is not, under any circumstances, going to let go of their DEI policies because it’s lead the best and most efficient departments they’ve ever had.
There is more merit to people in a meritocracy than grades alone.
Do you not believe in getting opportunity? Can you recall a few times people took a chance on you? What if nobody ever did?
Please stop. I literally made this thread a while back
https://lemmy.world/post/15392191
I believe in people getting opportunities. What I don’t like are thought police, or thought correction officers.
Left authoritarianism is still authoritarianism.
I also don’t take it for granted that someone talking about “empathy” or “compassion” necessarily doesn’t have ulterior motives.
DEI only irks people who are racists. For everyone else, it’s just a hiring process.
DEI is for all identities, not just POC. Creating more process is part of the the CIA field manual for fighting fascists, hence the question, are more bureaucratic jobs being created in some misguided attempt to “fight US imperialism”?
When you are already in a hole, stop digging!
No, I won’t. Considering what you wrote in your linked post, why are you asking such strange questions?
Thought police? Yet you’re ok with being told not to touch/compliment women’s butts at work??
I won’t stop because you’re hilariously inept 🤣
I am asking these questions because we already have EO laws and ADA policies. We also have anti-harassment policies. What does DEI add that’s new other than create more bureaucratic jobs?
From my perspective, DEI just creates divisions between groups by splitting people into distinct identities.
Why wouldn’t you ask your questions like that initially?
The more you talk, the less confident I am of your good faith.
You seem troubled and confused about why helping all people is a good thing. Good luck to you.
Tbh, I am coming to terms with my own vulnerability to fall for leftist propaganda.
Please do explain how to give such people opportunities without any “thought police” being involved…
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names
Never a good sign when I’m already cringing after 4 words
Because that goes against their narrative you silly goose! Of course they can’t possibly be wrong!
Non-white, non-males must be less efficient. Surely thats why they have been paid less and gotten less promotions.
Nice try, Mr. Cultural Marxism.
Was thinking the same thing. It sounds exactly like inclusion due to irrelevant factors.
I might be coming off a bit too ideological, but i dont think race, gender, sexuality should matter in a profession. Therefore i think DEI is inherently unfair.
But i also see how the tactic applies to anybody that sucks at their job, DEI not included.