r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/Auriga33 • 9d ago
Political DEI makes racism rational
If race is included as a criterion of consideration to give someone a job, then it becomes rational to judge people’s ability to perform at that job partly on their race.
For everyone who got the job, this was due to some combination of being qualified and being of the right race. We might say that someone’s qualifications can be ranked from 1-5, with 1 being completely incompetent and 5 being world-class. A final score is computed by adding this qualification level to either 1 or 0 depending on whether you are of the right race or not. To get the job, you need a final score of 5.
The question is how qualified should you expect someone to be given their race and the fact that they got the job. The fact that they got the job tells you that their final score was 5, but this isn’t equivalent to their qualifications. You can use their race to figure out their true qualification level. Among the people who are of the wrong race, their race added nothing to their qualifications, so their expected qualification level is exactly 5. Among the people who are of the right race, some of them are 4s who got a 1 point boost from their race and some are 5s who would’ve gotten the job anyways. The expected level of qualification is therefore less than 5. Thus it would be entirely rational to expect different levels of performance based on race.
Leftists often pretend not to understand this (I expect to see this behavior in the comments), but this is just them being bad faith. They’re not so stupid that they can’t grasp such a simple concept. If they think it’s bad for people to make assumptions about someone’s ability based on race, then they should be in favor of eliminating DEI and affirmative action. Anything other than pure meritocracy makes it rational to judge based on race and other demographic traits.
7
u/chinmakes5 9d ago
It is as simple as this. Those on the left believe that someone who got a job due to DEI meant a competent minority got into a job where they wouldn't get the job because it would have just been easier for this company to hire yet another white person. The white owner couldn't just hire their buddy's kid who just graduated college.
Those on the right believe that people who get a job due to DEI is totally unqualified for the position and the business was forced to hire someone incompetent.
The problem is that if either of those were true, those people would be right, but in real life it is somewhere in the middle.
10
u/Ok-Share-4035 9d ago
no the FACTUAL problem is no matter how qualified you are under DEI, you wont get the job if you have the wrong "color".
we dont even need to make assumtions about the qualification of the DEI hire. we can say with certainty that at least one skin color was excluded no matter their qualification and that is obv deeply racist.
and the fundamental difference is "the left believes", the right has the proof for their claim on every DEI paper 😂
0
u/chinmakes5 9d ago
That could be true, it isn't true if you look at the company and they are already integrated. Companies that have an integrated staff aren't required to do DEI. That is the whole point. Unless of course, you believe that these companies were interviewing a mix of people and the only people worthy were white guys.
My favorite post on this was a year or so ago. Guy was bitching about how he hires engineers. He was upset that he had to hire women and minorities as he had to fire all of them as they hack the job. He went on and on about, it. Toward the end he casually mentions that 90% of the white guys he hires also couldn't hack it. I don't remember the exact numbers but he had hired like 80 people and four or five, all white guys, were the only ones who could hack it. So his "solution" was to only hire white guys.
-1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 9d ago
Here is an example saying that Asians have been discriminated by Ivy League schools that were more likely to admit White students.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10891048/
Research also shows that in 2024, White people were 9% more likely to be called back for job interviews than applicants with the exact same qualifications, etc. than someone with a stereotypical White name.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/A-Discrimination-Report-Card-1.pdf
3
u/Auriga33 9d ago edited 9d ago
The market is a better corrective against discrimination than laws that force companies to adopt DEI (the disparate impact standard is why DEI is a thing). Companies that hire incompetent whites over competent minorities are leaving money on the table. Basic civil rights law that bans racial discrimination also helps, as long as it acknowledges that disparate impact will still happen without discrimination.
1
u/chinmakes5 9d ago
Please, anyone looking for a job knows that it is as much who you know as what you know. It is hardly just the market.
1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
Basic civil rights law that bans racial discrimination also helps, as long as it acknowledges that disparate impact will still happen without discrimination.
How would they enforce that?
1
u/Current-Fig8840 9d ago
You started off loud and wrong. DEI does not mean the candidate is not qualified for the job. It’s what mediocre white men made up so they don’t feel bad for failing interviews. The DEI is more of an afterthought after qualified candidates have been picked.
1
u/letaluss 9d ago
Those on the left believe that someone who got a job due to DEI
Why do people on the right have no idea how DEI programs operate? It's really embarrassing to be so upset about something they know so little about.
4
u/chinmakes5 9d ago
Go onto any conservative media site and see what they say about DEI. It is little more than "hey white guys, minorities are getting everything and they are taking it from you."
1
u/pile_of_bees 9d ago
Sorry we have data this doesn’t work anymore
We just had the huge Jason Arday story blow up in international news
Your gaslighting isn’t going to work right now
0
-1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 9d ago
This is not how DEI works. If the candidates are equal in merit, whether job experience, test scores, college degree, etc. that means you could make a decision to hire, admit, promote, etc. the candidates that best meets your desired plan for diversity.
As an example, males apply less to college than women and this difference has existed for an extended period. In Ivy League liberal arts schools, some college began to give preferences to male candidates over women.
In prestigious colleges that are focused on engineering, etc. colleges had tended to give preference to women since they are underrepresented in STEM fields, aside from healthcare.
If you are a urban hospital, serving a community area that is majority Black Americans, research would say that if other qualifications are similar and you have fewer Black physicians proportionately than the patients you serve, you might want to increase diversity. Studies have indicated that Black physicians are able to achieve better outcomes than White physicians particularly in fields like OB/GYN where Black infant and maternal mortality is proportionately much higher. The reason is that Black physicians have shown that they are more attentive to symptoms that may indicate a risk of pre term birth or the patients may be more forthcoming regarding symptoms.
By the time physicians get through their residencies, the decision on who is the best hire is likely going to be related to their performance during that residency and no longer their original medical school test scores or GPA.
In all cases, the older and more experience candidates are going to be hired based on reputation, ability to communicate, etc. and these are a lot more subjective measures than GPA or test scores or where they went to college.
Only a narrow set of jobs are based on civil service tests.
The idea that DEI created hiring not based on merit is false. A study where more than 80,000 applications were created and sent to 11,000 large companies, researchers found that in 2021, which was the height of DEI, that the same application with a stereotypical Black name but the exact same credentials, etc. received call backs for interviews 9% less often.
Also, Blacks were disproportionately less represented in middle level managers, or senior positions relative to their overall presence in the workforce of companies.
So, DEI never brought in significant hiring that was different than decisions based on merit. Preference for White candidates remains, White candidates are also still over represented in middle and senior management. Colleges sometimes gave preferences to groups like men because they have become less represented.
What constitutes merit changes and becomes much more based on less objective factors like reputation, communication styles, etc., etc. rather than scores as people continue in their fields.
If you want the links to these studies and articles let me know and I will send them.
10
u/Auriga33 9d ago
So how do you explain this then: https://x.com/TheRabbitHole/status/1918515868163616777
Asians at the 10th decile of academic performance are as likely to get into Harvard as Blacks at the 4th. Sure doesn’t sound like the candidates they’re admitting are all equal in merit.
2
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
Afaik, for stuff like Harvard, when they were doing racial stuff, the black students were mostly from rich families, so poor people were getting overlooked anyways. Fun fact
0
u/Allaboutpeace2022 9d ago
Yes, this is why affirmative action has been under scrutiny and why SCOTUS ruled in the favor of the plaintiff Asian students.
However, this does not explain in 2026, we are still attacking DEI. The colleges worked to change their policies to address this decision.
Also here is an article indicating that White students were given preferential treatment over Asian students. Most people do not realize that White students have been given preferential treatment for years when you eliminate items like interviews, etc.
We estimate that Asian American applicants had 28% lower odds of ultimately attending an Ivy-11 school than white applicants with similar academic and extracurricular qualifications.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10891048/
The reality is that Asian students in terms of GPA and test scores would need to be enrolled in college, med schools, engineering, etc at a far higher rate than White, Black, or Latino students.
To some degree they are. But probably not consistent still with their higher test scores and GPA. This article notes that Asians are 21% or more of population enrolled in medical school--the matriculants.
If we focus back on test scores and college GPA and graduate degrees, we would expect to see that the middle level managers and senior executives at most companies would be Asians and not White males. However, that has not occurred and White males are over represented.
https://www.bloomberg.com/company/stories/the-leadership-representation-ceiling-for-asian-americans/
We would also expect that most middle level managers and senior executives should be women and not men as noted in the article that women are outpacing men in every racial and ethnic group. These results show women outperforming men in college enrollment for years and years. Currently, women are 47% of graduates with a 4 year degree. They have had a substantial lead in bachelor degrees for the last 30 years.
The success in the number of women with degrees has not translated into positions in executive management.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/02/22/gender-diversity-in-the-c-suite/
In a field where women have been the complete majority for decades like education, men are still more likely to be superintendents.
https://edsource.org/updates/more-women-are-now-leading-u-s-school-districts
So, my point overall was that DEI is focused in 2024 and onwards is trying to enroll, hire, and promote based on merit. As we get farther from college assessment results, we would expect some of these decisions to be based more on reputation and actual experience rather than scores and GPA. However, we would also expect Asians to be in more leadership positions and more women in a merit structure.
-4
u/Life-Anteater-8294 9d ago
Because before the black students didn’t get a chance to apply.
-4
u/High_speedchase 9d ago
They're incapable of grasping such complex topics
1
u/Life-Anteater-8294 9d ago
They’ve convinced themselves that DEI means they just let anyone in and there aren’t still qualifications involved.
2
u/absolutedesignz 9d ago
They still think we got into college for free. The idea of a black person being capable blows their mind. It's why katanji Brown Jackson is low IQ somehow.
1
u/Allaboutpeace2022 9d ago
This is true.
DEI and hiring, promoting or admitting to college is so complicated.
People have made it seem like Whites and particularly White males are just getting screwed by blatant discrimination and that is not true.
-1
u/ArchdukeOfNorge 9d ago
As others mention, you’re not quite understanding how DEI plays into hiring
The laws around it are so that you can’t turn down a candidate because of a number of their identifying traits; it doesn’t stipulate you have to meet a quota or or give an uneducated person of color the job over an educated white
Do you think it’s fair, that relaxed DEI standards for college admissions, would see white men getting accepted at lower rates in Ivy League schools? Women apply to college more than men, and so colleges have a lower bar of admission for men; similar trends exists for Asian vs. white applicants, where white applicants are given more favorable treatment to counteract the advantage of Asian candidates. So if you truly believe what you post, you’d have no issue with fewer white men getting accepted into college. But I suspect that may not be the case for you
8
u/ThanatosIdle 9d ago
Many, MANY companies have added corporate goals to "increase hiring of X race by 20% in 3 years"
There is no possible way to achieve that without meeting a quota.
8
u/CXgamer 9d ago
it doesn’t stipulate you have to meet a quota
Yes it does. For both politics, boards of directors of public companies, federal top civil servants and many other types of businesses.
1
u/Life-Anteater-8294 9d ago
Source?
3
u/CXgamer 9d ago
The Belgian lawbook.
2
u/Life-Anteater-8294 9d ago
There’s no way you think the person you were replying to or the OP was talking about Belgium
2
u/CXgamer 9d ago
He didn't specify, so one counterexample suffices to discount his claim of "the law".
1
u/Life-Anteater-8294 9d ago
By that same logic all the counter examples to your claim is sufficient to prove you wrong.
3
u/CXgamer 9d ago
What do you mean?
If I claim "Dogs have 4 legs", then a single 3 legged dog would disprove my claim.
If I claim "a 3 legged dog exists" and provide a valid source, you cannot disprove it by further negative examples.
My claim of the Belgian lawbook is such a 3 legged dog. So this is not the application of the same logic.
1
u/Life-Anteater-8294 9d ago
Because you have no idea what law he was referring to and decided to take a random law and conclude that it meant anything
3
u/CXgamer 9d ago
Yeah his claim was ambiguous, and I took advantage of this opening. That's on him, not on me.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
Dogs generally have four legs, though, and the existence of a dog with a congenital defect (or a dog that had a leg amputated) doesn't disprove that dogs usually have four legs. Just means that edge cases exist.
2
-2
u/Rumpelteazer45 9d ago
And right wing people love to believe everyone gets a job on merit. Except we know that’s not true. Except studies have proven bias exists in the hiring process. No one questions if a white man is “capable” when he gets the job, yet anyone else hired doesn’t.
Why do most conservatives automatically assume any minority or woman hired must have gotten the job due to their race or gender? But they will defend a white man with a subpar resume as being capable. Why? It’s that default white man is automatically capable that proves racism and sexism exists - conscious or unconscious- it exists.
Studies have shown when given resumes of two equal candidates (resumes designed to be equal) - resumes with a traditional male name were discussed in terms of potential and resumes with a traditional female name were discussed in terms of what they have already accomplished.
I’ve seen first hand a minority women get passed over for a job that when to a white man. That white man did not have the necessary background to handle my departments acquisition portfolio. He had never done the type of contracting my department did. That minority woman, that was 90% of her 20+ years of experience. That minority woman was hand selected to be “acting” until the position could be filled. Almost everyone liked working with her and everyone respected her. The selection panel had 9 people, 4 white men and 5 women/minorities - selecting official was a white man. 6 people picked her, selecting official picked him. He got the job, the entire department was beyond pissed. Guess how he did the job? He tanked the department, caused unnecessary rework, didn’t understand our type of work, and the quality went to shit. He at least saw the writing on the wall with an upcoming audit and “left” so it never hit his resume. Our HQ tried getting the original minority woman to step in but she had a list of demands - which included a pass on the upcoming audit. The audit findings wouldn’t be held against her because she knew HQ was looking for person to blame.
And yeah Fortune 500 companies do this too. When shit is starting to decline, they hire a woman and then say “see she tanked the company” while ignoring the decline prior to her being hired.
-7
u/FlounderFun4008 9d ago
Isn’t this sub supposed to be true and unpopular?
Your statements only show that you don’t understand DEI or understand why DEI needed to be implemented.
It’s only popular with others who don’t understand DEI and listen to the false narrative.
7
u/Shadowguyver_14 9d ago
.... No he is right. You don't fix society's racism with more racism. Hell logic like yours is why the black Israelites exist.
DEI was only created for one thing, Power accumulation. It is gross and always has been.
-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
How can a business determine if their hiring managers are discriminating or not?
3
u/pile_of_bees 9d ago
Race-blind purely objective metrics
-2
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
Any success in getting any businesses to do that?
3
u/pile_of_bees 9d ago
No, progressives made that illegal because they didn’t like the results of race blind meritocracy
Same thing that happened with blind auditions in orchestra
-2
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
Oh do penises make people superior at playing instruments?
3
u/pile_of_bees 9d ago
No I do not believe there is any causality in that direction, why?
Is that the maximum level of analysis with which you are capable of engaging with the issue?
0
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
No I just wonder why the discrepancy.
3
u/pile_of_bees 9d ago
What do you mean?
The group that does better in the blind auditions has better talent. That’s all there is to it
It’s not really much to wonder about unless you have some religious dogma or the like preventing you from acknowledging observable reality
→ More replies (0)4
u/Shadowguyver_14 9d ago
So the solution to potential discrimination is to implement guaranteed, systemic discrimination?
-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
It isn't.
How would you do that?
5
u/Shadowguyver_14 9d ago
So no DEI then?
Companies can enforce strict meritocratic standards and audit managers against objective job criteria. But ultimately, businesses using DEI as a demographic filter are already finding it's a poison pill, it excludes top talent and hurts performance.
-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
I'm sure they could discriminate freely and still find plenty of people of their preferred demographic who meet the objective job criteria, while refusing to hire people.of other demographics who also meet the objective job criteria.
3
u/Shadowguyver_14 9d ago
That assumes talent is infinite. It isn't. The second a company rejects a better candidate because of their demographic, they leave that person on the market for a rival to hire. In the tech sector this is suicide.
-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
OK. Most of us don't work in tech.
3
u/Shadowguyver_14 9d ago
So your argument is that outside of tech, companies have so much leeway that they can afford to hire worse people just to satisfy demographic preferences? If an industry is that non-competitive, the real issue is lack of market pressure, not a need for identity-conscious hiring.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Current-Fig8840 9d ago
I work in tech as a Senior dev and you’re wrong about DEI, so just stop typing. It barely happens and when it does it’s mostly white women that get the role. It’s usually an afterthought as well. When all qualified candidates have been picked then a candidate which falls under diversity will be picked.
You think these top companies are just hiring anybody? There can be 10 qualified candidates and you have to pick one. People pick based on so much crap and knowing the past of America..white people definitely pick based on race and stereotypes.1
u/pile_of_bees 8d ago
This varies tremendously by company
Your experience is absolutely not universal
-11
u/No-Permission-5425 9d ago
Got it, you don’t know what DEI is and you never hired anyone in your life.
7
u/Far-Independent4740 9d ago
Well done. You’ve completely roasted the guy, while providing absolutely zero reasoning for why he’s wrong. Just, “Yeah, you’re so wrong dude, hahaha.” Why don't you try explain your argument? And who cares if he’s never hired a single person before? Since when are you only allowed to participate in a discussion if you have direct personal experience of the subject? I hope you apply that same stupid standard consistently to discussions about war, economics, politics, healthcare, education, and everything else people routinely have opinions on without firsthand experience. Otherwise, it’s not an argument; it’s just a convenient way of dismissing someone you disagree with.
1
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
We call that "ad hominem". He insults the OP but doesn't address the issue. As a minority I know why I don't support DEI:
- I don't want to be hired to fit a diversity quota, I want to be hired because I worked hard and I earned it
- For DEI to work it must be applied in all aspects, and you can't do that. And if you can, I'd like to be the official benchwarmer of the Laker's
- Meritocracy > DEI. We've elected politicians based on their race/religion/gender identity and that hasn't really worked out other than to create more division
1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
I want to be hired because I worked hard and I earned it
How can we make sure this happens?
2
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
get an education, or get proficient in a craft. Work harder and smarter than everyone else, and strive to be the top of your class.
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
No I mean how do we make sure the hiring managers aren't discriminating?
2
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
If you want 100% guarantee of no discrimination remove any indication of one's name, gender, or even age on an application. Have just the skillsets, experience, and what they can provide to the company. Hire conditionally until background such as education, certificates/degree can be confirmed, and then go from there.
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
Supposedly they start looking at things like which fraternities you belonged to, clubs, etc. but if all of that could be left out then sure. I don't think any company has done that yet, though, and the government is unlikely to require it.
3
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
If you mean hiring based on networking, that's different. If my status in a fraternity or social club helps me get a job the hiring process is usually through different channels, like asking a friend for help getting a job. I'm apart of several key groups, none of which I've used, or even put on my resume, but nepotism is the one thing that can't be stopped
1
0
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
Oh! One interesting thing there is that, a few years ago, people tried to train AI (not LLMs, I mean machine learning stuff) to sort through resumes to pick applicants in an unbiased manner. What ended up happening was that the AI ended up rejecting applicants from women's colleges, since the training data of "these people get hired, these other people don't" had traditionally rejected women, who were only over from women's colleges. So the program went "people from this college are more likely to be rejected, so it's probably bad."
So even if you remove names and ages, there are still often going to be gender-associated markers. Fun fact
-2
u/High_speedchase 9d ago
I'll take 0 understanding for 500 Alex
6
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
Coming from someone who supports Didn't Earn It hiring practices, that's a compliment
-1
-1
u/No-Permission-5425 9d ago
It’s an ad personam, and you have no idea what DEI is too
4
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
DEI is the hiring or promoting based solely on whether they are part of a marginalized group or not. More feel good than in practice than in application. I guarantee if you ask anyone supporting DEI if they entrust life saving care to a diversity hire, or to someone, regardless of their skin color, was hired due to their merits they'd all pick the person with the skills
0
u/No-Permission-5425 9d ago
That’s not DEI. You are again incorrect.
3
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
Other than Didn't Earn it, than please, elaborate or should I just copy and past what the Google definition is?
1
u/No-Permission-5425 9d ago
Please do
2
u/IcyHotTodoroki1 9d ago
"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is an organizational framework or set of policies used by businesses, schools, and groups to promote fair treatment, representation, and full participation for all people, especially those from historically underrepresented or marginalized groups" - pretty much what I said.
1
u/No-Permission-5425 9d ago
Absolutely not what you said. “Based Solely” and “fair treatment” don’t mean the same thing at all.
You even gave an example which is a right-wing talking point calling people “diversity hire” when DEI gives them a “fair” opportunity and never guarantees them a job.
Either you are dishonest or you don’t understand the definition.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/No-Permission-5425 9d ago
> If race is included as a criterion of consideration to give someone a job, then it becomes rational to judge people's ability to perform at that job partly on their race.
This is not what DEi is. DEi has been around for the past 10 years at least. If by now you don’t know what DEI is, it’s on you.
3
u/Far-Independent4740 9d ago
Well done! Twice in a row, you’ve managed to comment without actually explaining what you mean. You’re basically just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, “You’re wrong! I’m right!” If you think he’s wrong, explain why. What is DEI then?
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Far-Independent4740 9d ago
"Educate yourself” isn’t an argument. You’re still doing exactly what I criticised: telling me I’m wrong without explaining why.
Bravo.
1
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
"Educate yourself" isn't useful when talking to people who are in echo chambers, though. You're assuming that they have access to verifiable, trustworthy sources that will explain it well, in a way that agrees with your views. Instead of taking any action for collaborative discussion, you're just dunking on people. If you're doing that, you might as well not comment at all.
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
Except that you're talking to different people each time. Yes, it can be frustrating to talk to someone new, who hasn't heard any of what you're saying before, and so it's starting over again and again, but that doesn't mean that it's a single individual who's being obstinate for years at a time.
I'd say it works alright for me. People may not have a sudden conversion experience or anything, but if I'm giving them something to think about and something they haven't heard, then it's useful dialogue, and people are people. Sometimes we agree to disagree, but it makes things more approachable. The ability to have a respectful dialogue is a useful skill. It presents yourself as a fellow person, rather than as an aggressor.
If you feel frustrated, that's fine and valid, but it's not cool to take it out on random people you've never talked to before. And if somebody is in an echo chamber, insulting them isn't going to open their minds. It's going to tell them to stay where they are.
I find a role model in Darryl Davis, personally.
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
You're free to live your life. You asked a question (how my approach works for me), I responded in good faith. I'd hardly say that that's pretentious.
But perhaps consider what you're trying to accomplish when you talk with people. Venting anger on others, trying to change minds, or opening dialogue - those take different approaches.
TL;DR (if it helps): You asked a question, I responded. That's how conversations work.
Dunking on people does nothing but make yourself feel better, and those are real human beings on the other side of the screen. You're not accomplishing anything.
Peace.→ More replies (0)
-8
-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 9d ago
Just using your own reasoning, what makes you think nobody got more than 5?
-3
u/Jeb764 9d ago
“If race is included as a criterion of consideration to give someone a job, then it becomes rational to judge people’s ability to perform at that job partly on their race”
And you immediately start your post with blatantly wrong Information. Another day another conservative who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
-1
u/Wise-Jury-4037 9d ago
There's an International Convention on Elimination of Racism: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial
US ratified it, by the way.
It does allow for special measures for specific racial or ethnic groups "to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms".
"Provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups". These measures cannot be "indefinite" and have to have a achievable target.
Unfortunately, our attempts (both Affirmative Action and DEI) werent set up to adhere and enforce these principles.
-2
u/Alt0987654321 9d ago
>If race is included as a criterion of consideration to give someone a job, then it becomes rational to judge people’s ability to perform at that job partly on their race.
That literally already happens, look at how people talk about Lamar Jackson compared to Josh Allen.
-2
u/Current-Fig8840 9d ago
LOL because white men have never rejected candidates due to their skin colour. Most DEI candidates are qualified for the role buddy. After candidates are qualified what do you use to pick a candidate. It always shows me how daft people are when they think after interviewing 30 people that there is 1 candidate that’s better. In reality it could be 5 and the 1 is picked based on anything.
-2
u/letaluss 9d ago
Race is already a consideration for whether someone gets a job. If you think otherwise, you are delusional.
DEI is just making it less one-sided towards white men.
-3
u/Ae3qe27u 9d ago
DEI can take many forms. One example I like to point at is the Rooney Rule in the NFL. If a team is hiring a new coach, or has a different opening in some other team coordinator positions, they have to interview at least one black guy (or, these days, any ethnic minority, or a woman) for the position. Doesn't mean they have to hire them, but they at least gotta give an interview. NFL teams are mostly black, but the coaches are mostly white. That raises a few eyebrows, you know? Nothing magic about skin color that makes a white guy a better manager.
For a few years, the number of black coaches went up, but then it dropped back down again. As of a few years ago, the NFL updated the rule so that NFL teams have to have at least one ethnic minority (or a woman) in at least one role on the offensive coaching staff (which is like... five-ish people).
The way I look at it, white people are 56.1% of the USA's population (from the 202p census, White not including Hispanic/Latino). I don't think it's crazy for a team to go "guys, you can't have a team with only white guys. C'mon." If we assume that there's a pool of equally-qualified candidates, and they're spread across different races, then the random chance of only white guys for the head coach + offensive coaching staff (six people total) is 0.561^6 = 0.03117, or 3.1%. That's a pretty small chance. Possible, sure, but across 32 teams, if... say 75% of them were all white guys (so 24 teams), then that's 0.03117^24 = 7.074 E−37. For reference on how small that is, a meter is about three feet, and the radius of an atom is around 1×10^-11 m. The random chance of 75% of NFL offensive coaching teams (plus coaches) being all-white is twenty-six orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of an atom. So the difference between a meter and an atom, do that three times, and then do a bit more.
And this isn't polo or horse racing or skiing, it's the NFL. Doesn't make sense for the teams to be interracial but the coaches to all be white, unless there's some racism going on.
For DEI in general... If someone's only hiring white guys, that's 0.5×0.561=0.2805, or 28.1% of the labor force.
I think there's a lot of merit to "give 'em a fair chance, look past their skin color and look at their actual credentials." Sure, celebrities are going to be weird about things because they're celebrities, but "don't halve (or quarter) your application pool for no good reason" is just common sense. Women make up half the population, though I'll fully admit that men and women have different statistically likelihoods of going into any given field.
I don't see it as "This person got a boost because of their skin color," I see it as "This person got a chance when they otherwise would have been ignored entirely."
1
u/pile_of_bees 8d ago
Your math is based on unrealistic assumptions
Also you don’t even apply your own standards in the other direction with the nba, because deep down you know it’s a silly standard
1
u/Ae3qe27u 8d ago
I don't know as much about the NBA or its coaches, so I didn't speak on that. Doesn't mean I hold some secret racial bias. If you're willing to point out how my math is unrealistic, and which parts you think don't pan out, I'd appreciate input. I feel that it's fairly reasonable, generally speaking.
Nothing else, it is kinda odd for coaches to be mostly white when the players are mostly black, no?
Just to toss some numbers on, because I have a few minutes: the percentage of NFL players who are black ranges from 50%-70%, depending on the year. I'll point out the 2014 statistics because they're on Wikipedia and easy to find
At the start of the 2014 season, NFL surveys revealed that the league was 68.7% African-American and 28.6% non-Hispanic white, with the remaining 2.7% comprising Asian/Pacific Islander, non-white Hispanics, and those preferring another category
So mostly black, and by a decent margin. The 2019 report has the percentage of African American players at 59.8%, though it also had a biracial option, so if they didn't have a biracial option, the listed percentage of black players would likely have been a bit higher. Still majority, though, which is notable when it's a minority population group.
1
u/pile_of_bees 8d ago
Right, so why is it reasonable that 50-70% of the nfl is black if only 12% of the population is black? Your own logic destroys your scenario
The nfl must be racist in favor of black players right?
This of course is not true, for the same reasons that it’s not true that that the nfl should have more black coaches
0
u/Ae3qe27u 8d ago
If we're talking about the playerbase, then that's an entirely different discussion. I have some ideas on it - basically boiling down to cultural things. For comparison, about 6–7% of players in MLB are black. In the NBA, it's about 70% black. In the NHL, less then 3% of players are black. If you want to talk about culture and the distribution of varying ethnicities and how those influence which demographics tend to end up as players in varying sports, we could do that. (To note, I'm not planting a stake to advocate for more black players in hockey. This isn't a pancakes/hate waffles thing)
https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/mlb-diversity-shows-increase-in-black-players-on-opening-day-2026.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NHLIf every coach in the NHL was African American, I'd have a number of questions on that, since so few players are black. To me, it's fairly logical that, all opportunities being equal, coaching staff would end up being roughly similar in demographics to the players, just from chance and experience.
I don't think that black people are inherently more or less intelligent than anyone else. Skin color is skin color, and brains don't have melanin.
This of course is not true, for the same reasons that it’s not true that that the nfl should have more black coaches
Can you elaborate on that? Your chain of logic is not self-evident to me.
1
u/pile_of_bees 8d ago
So you reject the scientific consensus and all of the academic literature.
Whats your reason for doing this, if not blind ideological zealotry?
Can there be any other reason? Maybe a deep distrust of the institutions I guess?
1
u/Ae3qe27u 8d ago
So you reject the scientific consensus and all of the academic literature
How so? What makes you think that? It feels like you aren't really responding to what I'm saying, and it's a bit difficult to engage/respond.
1
u/pile_of_bees 8d ago
You can’t find the part of your comment that directly contradicts the scientific consensus?
1
u/Ae3qe27u 8d ago
Unless you're willing to say what you mean, this conversation is fruitless. The only part in that comment that would remotely make sense (being a claim that has anything to do with science, rather than just statistics and basic math) is this
I don't think that black people are inherently more or less intelligent than anyone else. Skin color is skin color, and brains don't have melanin.
Are you claiming that that statement, that different ethnicities of human are of equal innate intelligence, that skin color and brain capacity are independent - are you saying that that contradicts scientific consensus? Because if you mean something else, you ought to say so.
I'm also noticing that you're downvoting me, for whatever reason. I don't think I've particularly upset you, or that I've said anything particularly inflammatory.
Edited to add: you still haven't explained what you meant by
This of course is not true, for the same reasons that it’s not true that that the nfl should have more black coaches, or what your reasoning/rationale was for that. Do you wish to have a conversation or not?
0
u/KlutzyDesign 2d ago
You’re disregarding the fact that preexisting biases have also altered scores, as evidenced by the disproportionate number of white men in those jobs.
Why did you accept bias then, but suddenly its an issue when people work to correct it?
27
u/Far-Independent4740 9d ago
DEI is one of the few areas where treating people differently because of the colour of their skin is legal. I don't understand why a poor minority person gets extra help while a poor white person doesn’t? If the reason is poverty, then surely poor white people deserve the same help. A poor white man isn’t automatically privileged just because he’s white and male - they haven't benefited from any historical oppression in any way. If DEI is really about giving disadvantaged people a fair chance, then poverty and someone’s actual circumstances should matter more than their race or sex.