It can be argued that D.E.I. was a smashing success. A member of the South Asian diaspora is on the cusp of unleashing the nation's most powerful internal security apparatus on the general population. He'll be working hand in tattooed hand with the unapologetic white nationalist who controls the military. Content of our character, indeed. And what a cast of characters.
If it ain't D.E.I. it's Project 1619.
If it ain't Project 1619, it's The New Black Panthers.
Or some trans kid in Idaho, or they won't let us say, "Merry Christmas!"
By late spring it will be something nobody outside Portland, Oregon has ever heard of.
And that will be news to most of Portland.
It works. I know because, naive em-bubbled liberal that I am, I get out among the Real People. I don't have to rely on a NYT Cletus Safari. Cletus is my peeps. If some new outraged workshopped by Fox & Friends gains traction, I hear it at the next family gathering. Or the pulpit of Saint Mary Our Mother's Catholic Church in Horseheads, NY. On Christmas Fucking Morning.
Unfortunately, nuanced thoughtful give and take on my part won't change hearts and minds.
I mean, why would Joe Rogan invite liars on his show? What would he have to gain?
"Unfortunately, a lot of liberals defending DEI have not personally experienced DEI (either through programs or training) and themselves would probably run afoul of most DEI principles. It reminds me of the same liberals who claim they love theatre, because they believe they should say they love theatre, but they never actually attend the theatre and yet express surprise when a local theatre closes. Perception versus reality is the great liberal struggle."
Spot on. I'm not really a liberal - although I'll admit I prefer their company to MAGA assholes - but you got some great observations my friend. Thanks!
When many liberals say "DEI" it may be performative bullshit, but when conservatives say it, they mean the N-word.
Conservatives do not think the corporate workplace is a meritocracy unless 100% of the employees are white, straight men. They are advocating for open segregation again even if they don't have the guts to say it openly like their daddies and granddaddies did. Frankly, I would love it if journalists would confront them and ask to know why they're against diversity, equity, and inclusion in our workplaces.
And I have no idea how workplaces should reasonably address bias in hiring and promotions and workplaces, but I tend to trust the folks who make it a point to study that topic and put out proposals and initiatives like DEI. If the smart folks can find a better way to address inequality in our society, I'll back that.
Right wingers just assume POCs are naturally unqualified so any efforts that result in their advancement (jobs, college slots) are boosting unqualified people over the more deserving, and thus are inherently unfair. I think Stephen’s point is that as wrong and awful as that stance is, liberals often play right into it (e.g. Biden’s unfortunate statements), rather than frame their efforts as simply allowing qualified POCs to compete on the same field as qualified whites.
Kash Patel, Robert Wu, Aileen Cannon, Pam Bondi are all nightmares. However, Republicans would easily point to them as examples of “good” diversity, equity, and inclusion because they were picked for their merits (or their ability to be lap dogs to Trump).
The problem is that conservatives right now aren’t *saying* directly that “when we say meritocracy, we mean all white men.” That is a liberal presumption, perhaps a correct one. But when we saw “DEI,” that does read as “We are prioritizing a Black person over a white person.” A principal in Portland literally said her “priority” was the Black students. So, 99 percent of the student body doesn’t matter? That’s insane. I attended school during the 1980s in rural South Carolina and no one said “our priority is the white kids” (even if it probably was in practice ... they still wouldn’t say that out loud).
Here’s the big issue with liberal vs. conservative messaging:
Conservatives say “School choice” and we have to explain that means “no more public schools.” Conservative says “Make America great again!” and we have to explain why that means “they want to return America to a time when no one but white men had rights, etc.”
Meanwhile, progressives flat out say “defund the police” and conservatives say, “I think they want to defund the police,” so we have to explain why we ACTUALLY mean reforms that would reduce police brutality, etc.
100%. It’s not that our policy choices aren’t worth adjusting, even in a big way, but our biggest problem is we don’t know how to communicate to people.
Stephen, how do we do this? I don't know, but I've been hearing variations on the following:
.
1. Focus on changing or improving the behavior, don't focus on the people as a group. ("Defund the police" seems to attack the group as a whole without focusing on the brutal behavior that must never be tolerated. Yes, police unions are given huge power and monies in return for protecting the wealthy and privileged. Giving the RW and corporate media easy slogans to defeat in pursuit of keeping that status quo in place, though, doesn't seem like the wisest move.)
.
2. Stop using academic language. Even if people attend colleges and universities, it is no longer only those people who want to become scholars and teachers, pursuing advanced degrees. Many now attend higher learning because they must if they want to get white collar jobs or advance in business or chosen professions. In addition, people who attend programs to become electricians or nurses, for example, don't necessarily want to sound academic in their speech or other communications within their work lives. Not everyone who trains for a specific field or job has wider or deeper interests like many academics do.
.
3. The privileged should stop speaking for those who aren't. I didn't like it when Biden insisted on drawing attention to his enlightened reaching out to nominate a highly qualified POC or woman or both into a powerful position when he did it, and I still cringe. I strongly support Jackson on the SCOTUS and Harris as VP (she should be President right now), yes, but I wish he'd just not said it or tried to explain it. Their qualifications should have been more than enough.
.
4. If you have to explain it and especially if your explanation is too wordy or long, YOU LOSE. Marketing and advertising know some things, go learn those things.
.
5. Humor. We are better at it. They are better at punching down. And they kill puppies and protesters and children.
.
6. How do we defeat the RW and corporate media circus and get through to people? Especially people who went through a pandemic and don't seem to have noticed how it has changed them, and not for the better? We're all silo'ed. Do we have enough billionaires who would want to give up enough of their wealth and power to help America survive? It's gotten so UGLY out here.
.
7. I despise having to ask billionaires for anything. One of the terrible things about concentrating wealth in fewer hands? We have to keep paying only the top percent if we want anything. The billionaires show us every day how corrupted they are by their hoarding of power and money. Bill Gates got this weird hitch? tone? in his voice when he contemplated society not allowing him to remain a billionaire in a recent interview. Jamie Dimon cried real tears at the very idea that all of his money would be subject to taxes, such that TWO CENTS of each of his dollars would be directed away from him. They want to be celebrated and revered, but they don't want to share. Weird.
These are all good points about our major communication problem. I think when a lot of critics say Dems/Libs have “lost touch” with regular people, I think they’re right in a way—not that our beliefs/policies are out of step, but that our ability to sell them is woefully inadequate.
Well there are people on the left that then argue you are a corporate shill/bootlicker if you said “defund the police” was counterproductive. I am at the point where, let them drive because it doesn't even matter anymore. People believe fanciful lies about Democrats anyway since truth doesn't matter. And there is no room for nuance anyway.
Meanwhile the assholes on the other side are just free to openly call for tormenting entire states, but hey that is what Americans want so why argue really?
Yep—I’ve had my share of cringe interactions with other liberals over that. I try to point out that we have to be in the business of selling—would you keep an ad agency that tells you “forget it, your competitor will lie about your product anyway, might as well stick with the name brand “cat piss””?
Also, Democrats insisted that it was clever to demand that Republicans specifically define “woke.” (That’ll show them!) But the larger problem was that “woke” had become a shorthand for every weird liberal extremist position ... and those existed! Same with “DEI.”
Yep—for a millisecond it gave liberals the arm fuzzies to see Republicans unable to come up with a definition on the fly, but then they started associating every wacky liberal thing (eg, the very sensitivity training that gets mocked on workplace TV shows) with “woke.”
Let your enemies define you, don’t be shocked when they do this.
Here's the worst part; Democrats didn't even *make up* "woke." All of that is misappropriated Black vernacular that people like Rufo like to take to use as a weapon against us.
"Feel free to call me “eloquent” until I give the safe word."
Its still "banana", right? I know its not too imaginative, but in the heat of the moment you don't want to have to dig around in your memory for the clever exotic 'safe word' you chose recently
One more quick thing. There is no way to argue honestly with those who argue from bad faith, and it is a waste of time to even try. The right has no interest in fairness or logic or the general welfare. They only have their agenda, which consists of more power to them, and less to us. Once Dems accept that and stop worrying over the nuances of policy, and whether they present a cogent argument for those policies, we will no longer be offering details for the agents of chaos to deride.
When they say DEI, they really mean ni**ers. And when they say LBGTQ, they mean qu**rs. And when they mention discrimination, they only apply it against themselves. They need to be constantly called out for it.
Your paragraph on companies using DEI as PR and patting themselves on the back accurately describes the last company I worked for. Retaining those employees? Pffft, that didn’t seem to be the goal.
Lot of good points. In essence the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Undoubtedly in America, Beattie's view prevailed. Do not be surprised if the flagrant transphobia along with the full court press against DEI programs will be a casus belli to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Because a lot if people are itching to discriminate, often for phrenology-like reasons. That was one reason you would so rarely see Black NFL quarterbacks for example. Those biases matter and it makes organizations leave success and even profit on the table.
And of course we mustn't forget other American minorities who are so blinded by anti-Blackness that they screw themselves out of inclusion.
This was the sort of thing you heard from Latino voters in the Lehigh Valley, that perpetual swing area of Pennsylvania. Men with good jobs didn't see themselves in Harris championing "the poor" and lumping black and brown folks into that bucket en masse. Even if we all know it's bullshit, they liked what Trump was selling, the idea that they were, in fact, winners.
You've got me thinking about my own employer and the groups I am involved in. My employer is in Baltimore and makes a point of recruiting at the HBCUs in the area, but why wouldn't they? They also recruit at University of Maryland and probably at Georgetown and GW since they aren't far away. That said, our on-site diversity stuff does feel organic and made for and by the folks who identify those ways. The finance world, at least on the back office side, has never felt like it hurt for diversity in my experience. Not sure why it works out that way. Almost all of the management in my department are POC and women.
As for non-profits... yeah, we gotta do better. Just like you said, the board doesn't look quite like it ought to because who picks boards? Other board members. The one board I'm on definitely looks wrongly composed considering our mission and namesake. Maybe time for me to open that conversation.
Agree 100%. Frankly the use of the term “DEI” is an own-goal because most people don’t intuitively know what it means so the GOP narrative that it “gives points to under qualified minorities based on their race” takes hold. Not sure why “anti-discrimination” couldn’t work better but then I’m not a professional activist. I also thought “defund the police” was a dumb slogan.
It’s also true that while the Right’s approach to race is ghastly (essentially, that whites are the oppressed ones because the system favors under qualified POCs) the Left’s approach isn’t great, even if well meaning. Biden’s comments were typical of white liberals but ultimately damaging and fed the narrative of “unqualified hire”. And DEI often just means CYA.
The shame of it is there are worthwhile discussion good faith people can have about how to address anti-discrimination—how even among an organization that means well, racial discrimination can occur, and how to alleviate it.
My thing is, what can Democrats do about that? Censor academics? Hell, given that we might as well censor (somehow) urban planners who talk about density increase in cities because the rightwing weaponized that. This is what the “Democrats want to destroy your suburbs” thing is about. And yet no Democrats ran on abolishing suburbia.
Democrats are going to keep chasing their tail on language till they take the rightwing media human centipede seriously.
There is no possibility for good faith when you have that...you know...massive rightwing conspiracy to fight that Hillary warned us all about. Maybe once the new fave AOC gets destroyed by it people will listen?
They can’t censor academics or outside activists of course, but they (and we) have to recognize the problem we have in communication. We can push back on counterproductive messaging and adopt more effective messaging ourselves.
So instead of defending DEI by using that term, for example, defend “fair hiring” or “anti-discrimination efforts” or Hell, defend “race neutral hiring” (and before anyone says “that’s the term the Right uses in bad faith to perpetuate white-only hiring, this is exactly my point—our side wants to make the playing field more fair for non-white candidates, so reclaim the mantle of “race blind” policies—it was insane that we allowed the Right to claim it in bad faith, just like it was insane to let them claim the mantle “pro life”. We are really bad at this!)
Yeah, the reality is that “race blind” and “race neutral” are compelling arguments not just for white conservatives but *many* POC! (And if you argue that “race blind” is “ableist,” you’ve already veered off into academia land.)
We saw this with “defund the police,” when it was Black and Latino moderates who recoiled the most because they supported law enforcement (they just didn’t want crooked cops beating the crap out of them).
I honestly don’t know how to engage with white liberals who define “diversity outreach” as looking at non-Ivy League schools. That’s incredibly insulting and will always look as if you are lowering standards. I can appreciate regional and class diversity (that was a big thing back at my college when they give special consideration to students outside of the Atlanta area). Say you’re looking at HCBUs *as well as* smaller state colleges with good programs and not just the Ivy League, etc.
Yep—no one wants to think of themselves as getting a boost just because of their race (hey, look how whites react when you suggest THEY did! POCs naturally feel the same) so it does nobody any favors T frame it or implement it like that. The idea was always supposed to be addressing unintended racial discrimination (eg, hiring mostly through “old boys” networks which would tend to be rich and white) not to boost the unqualified but to bring more qualified candidates (and naturally including more qualified POC candidates) into the pool.
Which is why it’s so maddening to see liberals frame it the same way the Right does.
Referrals are objectively a good way to hire people because most employees don’t vouch for someone they know is going to suck and make them look bad. Also, it *does* help ensure that someone “fits in” to the office culture.
Yes, that has in the past and even now resulted in a degree of bias because most people have friends within their same race, class, etc. However, ending referrals is an extreme fix to a problem that could’ve been more elegantly resolved.
I think Democrats have created a situation where a good segment of the population doesn’t trust them. It’s easy to believe the worst about people you don’t trust. It’s not really an issue of fairness. They have to resolve it or they will remain in the minority permanently.
What I don't get is how 'not trusting democrats' translated into 'trusting republicans'...I TOTALLY get not trusting either party, but trusting republicans??? where does that come from?
Branding they get to carry and have reinforced by a rightwing media human centipede.
There's also the fact that some folks just use it as a fig leaf for their own racism. That's why they get rid of pro-labor politicians and replace them with venture capitalists and millionaires (who openly hate them).
One problem I feel like I run into with professional liberals and folks further to the left all the time is that they'll take some academic term from a niche field of study, use it as a new shibboleth, and then ending up handing the right a sledgehammer when the term starts to leak out to normies and they don't know what they hell it means. See CRT for example, or the way race gets talked about at my well-meaning, white, liberal church where about 90% of the members have college degrees and probably 50% have advanced degrees. We sound really freaking weird to folks who aren't deeply read into the program.
TBF, CRT was NEVER a term bandied about in lefty circles...its an arcane set of academic legal theories on the intersection of race and law...Some RW garbage found it out in the Netherlands of academia and turned it into a 'thing'...Same thing with 'woke'...While I'm aware of the origins of the term, it was NEVER the huge shibboleth for the left that RWers insisted it was...The only option is to never have terms for ANYTHING, because thing is...RWers will make shit up out of next to nothing and there is nothing we can do to stop that...The solution lies elsewhere
Couldn’t agree more—it seems they’re often so in their bubble of well-read highly educated activists that it never occurs to them how much ordinary people aren’t getting what they’re referring to at all. And when your message isn’t clear to the public it makes it easy for bad faith actors to define it for them.
Is there a simple, easy to grasp way to communicate to the people we want to win over? Then do it that way! We’re not trying to defend a PhD thesis, we’re trying to win mass support.
This is one reason I was opposed to the changes the Unitarian Universalist Association made to our 7 principles last year. Before they were something anyone off the street could understand if they walked into our congregation. Now they read like a sociology textbook.
Ugh, yeah—the question always has to be “who are we trying to win over—someone who already thinks like we do, or someone who we would like to think like we do?”
Nothing like James Brown first thing in the morning to get things going. I’ve loved him since I was in junior high school. “Funky President (People It’s Bad)” was a favorite on my JB greatest hits CD. I relished putting the top down on my convertible and playing it at high volume whilst chauffeuring my kids through our Southern white suburban landscapes. They would duck down and cringe but they got the groove, and it stuck. Much thanks, Stephen.
It's been said before, but when equality is forced on the previously privileged, it seems like discrimination to them. Most of us would resist seeing our odds of success reduced, even if fairness insists that they deserve to be. And when one has long been part of the status quo, that person will not be happy losing even a particle of their benefits. The world is changing, even if it is kicking and screaming all the way.
Its especially difficult for authoritarian types who can only think in Zero Sum terms...If YOU have something, that's something I don't have...The idea that things can be better for everyone is incomprehensible to them
It feels like you're giving a foothold for right wing pundits to keep saying "DEI" over and over. And there are probably instances where DEI is taking the place of meritocracy.
But players please. You know FULL WELL that these people are operating from a place of hate and exclusion against people and ideas they don't understand, where they work backwards to "DEI" to explain this cultural grievance. These are people who DEPLORE women and minorities, and "DEI" gives them a way to say that and save on syllables.
Some really good points here. I also found the way Justice Jackson's nomination and especially Kamala Harris' nomination were handled to be grating and insulting, not just to them, but to women and Black people generally. On the other hand, I've worked in situations where if you aren't insisting on a so-called "diversity hire," no one who isn't a white man will ever be hired. (and not because of merit - because of unconscious bigotry)
It can be argued that D.E.I. was a smashing success. A member of the South Asian diaspora is on the cusp of unleashing the nation's most powerful internal security apparatus on the general population. He'll be working hand in tattooed hand with the unapologetic white nationalist who controls the military. Content of our character, indeed. And what a cast of characters.
If it ain't D.E.I. it's Project 1619.
If it ain't Project 1619, it's The New Black Panthers.
Or some trans kid in Idaho, or they won't let us say, "Merry Christmas!"
By late spring it will be something nobody outside Portland, Oregon has ever heard of.
And that will be news to most of Portland.
It works. I know because, naive em-bubbled liberal that I am, I get out among the Real People. I don't have to rely on a NYT Cletus Safari. Cletus is my peeps. If some new outraged workshopped by Fox & Friends gains traction, I hear it at the next family gathering. Or the pulpit of Saint Mary Our Mother's Catholic Church in Horseheads, NY. On Christmas Fucking Morning.
Unfortunately, nuanced thoughtful give and take on my part won't change hearts and minds.
I mean, why would Joe Rogan invite liars on his show? What would he have to gain?
"Unfortunately, a lot of liberals defending DEI have not personally experienced DEI (either through programs or training) and themselves would probably run afoul of most DEI principles. It reminds me of the same liberals who claim they love theatre, because they believe they should say they love theatre, but they never actually attend the theatre and yet express surprise when a local theatre closes. Perception versus reality is the great liberal struggle."
Spot on. I'm not really a liberal - although I'll admit I prefer their company to MAGA assholes - but you got some great observations my friend. Thanks!
"but I was also the most qualified person there. They should’ve hired me long before trying to tick a box."
mic drop
When many liberals say "DEI" it may be performative bullshit, but when conservatives say it, they mean the N-word.
Conservatives do not think the corporate workplace is a meritocracy unless 100% of the employees are white, straight men. They are advocating for open segregation again even if they don't have the guts to say it openly like their daddies and granddaddies did. Frankly, I would love it if journalists would confront them and ask to know why they're against diversity, equity, and inclusion in our workplaces.
And I have no idea how workplaces should reasonably address bias in hiring and promotions and workplaces, but I tend to trust the folks who make it a point to study that topic and put out proposals and initiatives like DEI. If the smart folks can find a better way to address inequality in our society, I'll back that.
Right wingers just assume POCs are naturally unqualified so any efforts that result in their advancement (jobs, college slots) are boosting unqualified people over the more deserving, and thus are inherently unfair. I think Stephen’s point is that as wrong and awful as that stance is, liberals often play right into it (e.g. Biden’s unfortunate statements), rather than frame their efforts as simply allowing qualified POCs to compete on the same field as qualified whites.
Kash Patel, Robert Wu, Aileen Cannon, Pam Bondi are all nightmares. However, Republicans would easily point to them as examples of “good” diversity, equity, and inclusion because they were picked for their merits (or their ability to be lap dogs to Trump).
The problem is that conservatives right now aren’t *saying* directly that “when we say meritocracy, we mean all white men.” That is a liberal presumption, perhaps a correct one. But when we saw “DEI,” that does read as “We are prioritizing a Black person over a white person.” A principal in Portland literally said her “priority” was the Black students. So, 99 percent of the student body doesn’t matter? That’s insane. I attended school during the 1980s in rural South Carolina and no one said “our priority is the white kids” (even if it probably was in practice ... they still wouldn’t say that out loud).
Here’s the big issue with liberal vs. conservative messaging:
Conservatives say “School choice” and we have to explain that means “no more public schools.” Conservative says “Make America great again!” and we have to explain why that means “they want to return America to a time when no one but white men had rights, etc.”
Meanwhile, progressives flat out say “defund the police” and conservatives say, “I think they want to defund the police,” so we have to explain why we ACTUALLY mean reforms that would reduce police brutality, etc.
100%. It’s not that our policy choices aren’t worth adjusting, even in a big way, but our biggest problem is we don’t know how to communicate to people.
Stephen, how do we do this? I don't know, but I've been hearing variations on the following:
.
1. Focus on changing or improving the behavior, don't focus on the people as a group. ("Defund the police" seems to attack the group as a whole without focusing on the brutal behavior that must never be tolerated. Yes, police unions are given huge power and monies in return for protecting the wealthy and privileged. Giving the RW and corporate media easy slogans to defeat in pursuit of keeping that status quo in place, though, doesn't seem like the wisest move.)
.
2. Stop using academic language. Even if people attend colleges and universities, it is no longer only those people who want to become scholars and teachers, pursuing advanced degrees. Many now attend higher learning because they must if they want to get white collar jobs or advance in business or chosen professions. In addition, people who attend programs to become electricians or nurses, for example, don't necessarily want to sound academic in their speech or other communications within their work lives. Not everyone who trains for a specific field or job has wider or deeper interests like many academics do.
.
3. The privileged should stop speaking for those who aren't. I didn't like it when Biden insisted on drawing attention to his enlightened reaching out to nominate a highly qualified POC or woman or both into a powerful position when he did it, and I still cringe. I strongly support Jackson on the SCOTUS and Harris as VP (she should be President right now), yes, but I wish he'd just not said it or tried to explain it. Their qualifications should have been more than enough.
.
4. If you have to explain it and especially if your explanation is too wordy or long, YOU LOSE. Marketing and advertising know some things, go learn those things.
.
5. Humor. We are better at it. They are better at punching down. And they kill puppies and protesters and children.
.
6. How do we defeat the RW and corporate media circus and get through to people? Especially people who went through a pandemic and don't seem to have noticed how it has changed them, and not for the better? We're all silo'ed. Do we have enough billionaires who would want to give up enough of their wealth and power to help America survive? It's gotten so UGLY out here.
.
7. I despise having to ask billionaires for anything. One of the terrible things about concentrating wealth in fewer hands? We have to keep paying only the top percent if we want anything. The billionaires show us every day how corrupted they are by their hoarding of power and money. Bill Gates got this weird hitch? tone? in his voice when he contemplated society not allowing him to remain a billionaire in a recent interview. Jamie Dimon cried real tears at the very idea that all of his money would be subject to taxes, such that TWO CENTS of each of his dollars would be directed away from him. They want to be celebrated and revered, but they don't want to share. Weird.
These are all good points about our major communication problem. I think when a lot of critics say Dems/Libs have “lost touch” with regular people, I think they’re right in a way—not that our beliefs/policies are out of step, but that our ability to sell them is woefully inadequate.
This is all spot on. Thanks for such an informed thoughtful response
Well there are people on the left that then argue you are a corporate shill/bootlicker if you said “defund the police” was counterproductive. I am at the point where, let them drive because it doesn't even matter anymore. People believe fanciful lies about Democrats anyway since truth doesn't matter. And there is no room for nuance anyway.
Meanwhile the assholes on the other side are just free to openly call for tormenting entire states, but hey that is what Americans want so why argue really?
Yep—I’ve had my share of cringe interactions with other liberals over that. I try to point out that we have to be in the business of selling—would you keep an ad agency that tells you “forget it, your competitor will lie about your product anyway, might as well stick with the name brand “cat piss””?
Also, Democrats insisted that it was clever to demand that Republicans specifically define “woke.” (That’ll show them!) But the larger problem was that “woke” had become a shorthand for every weird liberal extremist position ... and those existed! Same with “DEI.”
Yep—for a millisecond it gave liberals the arm fuzzies to see Republicans unable to come up with a definition on the fly, but then they started associating every wacky liberal thing (eg, the very sensitivity training that gets mocked on workplace TV shows) with “woke.”
Let your enemies define you, don’t be shocked when they do this.
Here's the worst part; Democrats didn't even *make up* "woke." All of that is misappropriated Black vernacular that people like Rufo like to take to use as a weapon against us.
"Feel free to call me “eloquent” until I give the safe word."
Its still "banana", right? I know its not too imaginative, but in the heat of the moment you don't want to have to dig around in your memory for the clever exotic 'safe word' you chose recently
What if “eloquent” was the safe word???
too meta maybe?
Indeed!
One more quick thing. There is no way to argue honestly with those who argue from bad faith, and it is a waste of time to even try. The right has no interest in fairness or logic or the general welfare. They only have their agenda, which consists of more power to them, and less to us. Once Dems accept that and stop worrying over the nuances of policy, and whether they present a cogent argument for those policies, we will no longer be offering details for the agents of chaos to deride.
When they say DEI, they really mean ni**ers. And when they say LBGTQ, they mean qu**rs. And when they mention discrimination, they only apply it against themselves. They need to be constantly called out for it.
Your paragraph on companies using DEI as PR and patting themselves on the back accurately describes the last company I worked for. Retaining those employees? Pffft, that didn’t seem to be the goal.
Lot of good points. In essence the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Undoubtedly in America, Beattie's view prevailed. Do not be surprised if the flagrant transphobia along with the full court press against DEI programs will be a casus belli to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Because a lot if people are itching to discriminate, often for phrenology-like reasons. That was one reason you would so rarely see Black NFL quarterbacks for example. Those biases matter and it makes organizations leave success and even profit on the table.
And of course we mustn't forget other American minorities who are so blinded by anti-Blackness that they screw themselves out of inclusion.
This was the sort of thing you heard from Latino voters in the Lehigh Valley, that perpetual swing area of Pennsylvania. Men with good jobs didn't see themselves in Harris championing "the poor" and lumping black and brown folks into that bucket en masse. Even if we all know it's bullshit, they liked what Trump was selling, the idea that they were, in fact, winners.
You've got me thinking about my own employer and the groups I am involved in. My employer is in Baltimore and makes a point of recruiting at the HBCUs in the area, but why wouldn't they? They also recruit at University of Maryland and probably at Georgetown and GW since they aren't far away. That said, our on-site diversity stuff does feel organic and made for and by the folks who identify those ways. The finance world, at least on the back office side, has never felt like it hurt for diversity in my experience. Not sure why it works out that way. Almost all of the management in my department are POC and women.
As for non-profits... yeah, we gotta do better. Just like you said, the board doesn't look quite like it ought to because who picks boards? Other board members. The one board I'm on definitely looks wrongly composed considering our mission and namesake. Maybe time for me to open that conversation.
Agree 100%. Frankly the use of the term “DEI” is an own-goal because most people don’t intuitively know what it means so the GOP narrative that it “gives points to under qualified minorities based on their race” takes hold. Not sure why “anti-discrimination” couldn’t work better but then I’m not a professional activist. I also thought “defund the police” was a dumb slogan.
It’s also true that while the Right’s approach to race is ghastly (essentially, that whites are the oppressed ones because the system favors under qualified POCs) the Left’s approach isn’t great, even if well meaning. Biden’s comments were typical of white liberals but ultimately damaging and fed the narrative of “unqualified hire”. And DEI often just means CYA.
The shame of it is there are worthwhile discussion good faith people can have about how to address anti-discrimination—how even among an organization that means well, racial discrimination can occur, and how to alleviate it.
My thing is, what can Democrats do about that? Censor academics? Hell, given that we might as well censor (somehow) urban planners who talk about density increase in cities because the rightwing weaponized that. This is what the “Democrats want to destroy your suburbs” thing is about. And yet no Democrats ran on abolishing suburbia.
Democrats are going to keep chasing their tail on language till they take the rightwing media human centipede seriously.
There is no possibility for good faith when you have that...you know...massive rightwing conspiracy to fight that Hillary warned us all about. Maybe once the new fave AOC gets destroyed by it people will listen?
They can’t censor academics or outside activists of course, but they (and we) have to recognize the problem we have in communication. We can push back on counterproductive messaging and adopt more effective messaging ourselves.
So instead of defending DEI by using that term, for example, defend “fair hiring” or “anti-discrimination efforts” or Hell, defend “race neutral hiring” (and before anyone says “that’s the term the Right uses in bad faith to perpetuate white-only hiring, this is exactly my point—our side wants to make the playing field more fair for non-white candidates, so reclaim the mantle of “race blind” policies—it was insane that we allowed the Right to claim it in bad faith, just like it was insane to let them claim the mantle “pro life”. We are really bad at this!)
Yeah, the reality is that “race blind” and “race neutral” are compelling arguments not just for white conservatives but *many* POC! (And if you argue that “race blind” is “ableist,” you’ve already veered off into academia land.)
We saw this with “defund the police,” when it was Black and Latino moderates who recoiled the most because they supported law enforcement (they just didn’t want crooked cops beating the crap out of them).
I honestly don’t know how to engage with white liberals who define “diversity outreach” as looking at non-Ivy League schools. That’s incredibly insulting and will always look as if you are lowering standards. I can appreciate regional and class diversity (that was a big thing back at my college when they give special consideration to students outside of the Atlanta area). Say you’re looking at HCBUs *as well as* smaller state colleges with good programs and not just the Ivy League, etc.
Yep—no one wants to think of themselves as getting a boost just because of their race (hey, look how whites react when you suggest THEY did! POCs naturally feel the same) so it does nobody any favors T frame it or implement it like that. The idea was always supposed to be addressing unintended racial discrimination (eg, hiring mostly through “old boys” networks which would tend to be rich and white) not to boost the unqualified but to bring more qualified candidates (and naturally including more qualified POC candidates) into the pool.
Which is why it’s so maddening to see liberals frame it the same way the Right does.
Referrals are objectively a good way to hire people because most employees don’t vouch for someone they know is going to suck and make them look bad. Also, it *does* help ensure that someone “fits in” to the office culture.
Yes, that has in the past and even now resulted in a degree of bias because most people have friends within their same race, class, etc. However, ending referrals is an extreme fix to a problem that could’ve been more elegantly resolved.
Yep—same with “how at ease are they in the interview” when the candidate who looks more like the interviewers will likely feel more at ease anyway.
I think Democrats have created a situation where a good segment of the population doesn’t trust them. It’s easy to believe the worst about people you don’t trust. It’s not really an issue of fairness. They have to resolve it or they will remain in the minority permanently.
What I don't get is how 'not trusting democrats' translated into 'trusting republicans'...I TOTALLY get not trusting either party, but trusting republicans??? where does that come from?
Branding they get to carry and have reinforced by a rightwing media human centipede.
There's also the fact that some folks just use it as a fig leaf for their own racism. That's why they get rid of pro-labor politicians and replace them with venture capitalists and millionaires (who openly hate them).
Yep—we can argue for the front of the class or the back of the class, but it’s the back that you win elections with.
Do you think Kenyatta and/or Hogg will provide enough clues for Martin to not fumble the eggs?
One problem I feel like I run into with professional liberals and folks further to the left all the time is that they'll take some academic term from a niche field of study, use it as a new shibboleth, and then ending up handing the right a sledgehammer when the term starts to leak out to normies and they don't know what they hell it means. See CRT for example, or the way race gets talked about at my well-meaning, white, liberal church where about 90% of the members have college degrees and probably 50% have advanced degrees. We sound really freaking weird to folks who aren't deeply read into the program.
TBF, CRT was NEVER a term bandied about in lefty circles...its an arcane set of academic legal theories on the intersection of race and law...Some RW garbage found it out in the Netherlands of academia and turned it into a 'thing'...Same thing with 'woke'...While I'm aware of the origins of the term, it was NEVER the huge shibboleth for the left that RWers insisted it was...The only option is to never have terms for ANYTHING, because thing is...RWers will make shit up out of next to nothing and there is nothing we can do to stop that...The solution lies elsewhere
Couldn’t agree more—it seems they’re often so in their bubble of well-read highly educated activists that it never occurs to them how much ordinary people aren’t getting what they’re referring to at all. And when your message isn’t clear to the public it makes it easy for bad faith actors to define it for them.
Is there a simple, easy to grasp way to communicate to the people we want to win over? Then do it that way! We’re not trying to defend a PhD thesis, we’re trying to win mass support.
This is one reason I was opposed to the changes the Unitarian Universalist Association made to our 7 principles last year. Before they were something anyone off the street could understand if they walked into our congregation. Now they read like a sociology textbook.
Human Resource Speak.
Ugh, yeah—the question always has to be “who are we trying to win over—someone who already thinks like we do, or someone who we would like to think like we do?”
Nothing like James Brown first thing in the morning to get things going. I’ve loved him since I was in junior high school. “Funky President (People It’s Bad)” was a favorite on my JB greatest hits CD. I relished putting the top down on my convertible and playing it at high volume whilst chauffeuring my kids through our Southern white suburban landscapes. They would duck down and cringe but they got the groove, and it stuck. Much thanks, Stephen.
People people,
We got to get over
Before we go under
https://youtu.be/8_ODghRTeyQ?si=WTFYga9sEqS-5cUy
It's been said before, but when equality is forced on the previously privileged, it seems like discrimination to them. Most of us would resist seeing our odds of success reduced, even if fairness insists that they deserve to be. And when one has long been part of the status quo, that person will not be happy losing even a particle of their benefits. The world is changing, even if it is kicking and screaming all the way.
Its especially difficult for authoritarian types who can only think in Zero Sum terms...If YOU have something, that's something I don't have...The idea that things can be better for everyone is incomprehensible to them
It feels like you're giving a foothold for right wing pundits to keep saying "DEI" over and over. And there are probably instances where DEI is taking the place of meritocracy.
But players please. You know FULL WELL that these people are operating from a place of hate and exclusion against people and ideas they don't understand, where they work backwards to "DEI" to explain this cultural grievance. These are people who DEPLORE women and minorities, and "DEI" gives them a way to say that and save on syllables.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
“Feel free to call me ‘eloquent’ until I give the safe word.”
Okay, I will. Stephen, you are eloquent.
Some really good points here. I also found the way Justice Jackson's nomination and especially Kamala Harris' nomination were handled to be grating and insulting, not just to them, but to women and Black people generally. On the other hand, I've worked in situations where if you aren't insisting on a so-called "diversity hire," no one who isn't a white man will ever be hired. (and not because of merit - because of unconscious bigotry)