Sounds like a white person wanting to protect their white privilege they don’t realize they have.
Yeah, this right here is why so many people don’t take these issues seriously. Because surprise, people don’t tend to listen to people insulting them, if not outright lash out against what they are saying.
So you’re ready to wait centuries before making the hiring process fair to non white CIS gender hereto men because that’s how long it’s gonna take to fix all socioeconomic inequalities that need to be fixed in order to guarantee that no matter who you’re born at, you have access to the same opportunities to build your CV in order to apply for a job for a blind process that only tries to determine who is the most qualified candidate.
I don’t believe it would take more than 40 years to fix most of them, if there was enough political will to fix them. And my whole point is that the bad perceptions around DEI sap away the political will for solving the systemic issues in exchange for short term relief with little long term benefit.
I’ll give you an example, white vs white. Quebec families don’t have as much wealth accumulated in general compared to Ontario families because until the 1960s the Catholic Church was omnipresent in people’s lives and forced them to have more kids and to pay to build churches and to keep doing manual labor under English management. To this day it still has an impact on their average level of education and on the kind of life they can afford to live.
An amazing example of one of the many inequalities, that pretty much every DEI policy I have ever seen completely ignores.
DEI policies wouldn’t ignore it because DEI policies would make it so employers would have to take into consideration that there might be a reason why the Quebecois got their bachelor’s from a provincial university instead of McGill and it doesn’t make them less competent even though their paper isn’t as prestigious.
Than maybe the issue is that people need to communicate properly what they mean by DEI exactly, because I never heard a DEI policy like that, neither online, nor in the news, nor at my job.
PS: Besides, hiring a competent guy from McGill sounds to me like hiring on merit. Hiring based on paper diploma is not hiring on merit.
DEI policies is anything that can be done to compensate for systemic (not systematic) discrimination in the workplace, may it be during the hiring process or after, the goal being to have a workforce representative of society and that is treated equitably and inclusively no matter who they are. It can take many shape or form.
Then I guess the issue is we need more granular names for various DEI policies, because it is impossible to discuss any merits or demerits of something this vague and broad.
This vagueness then makes the issue far more divisive as proponents pick best policies to defend and detractors pick the worst examples to criticize.
Yeah, this right here is why so many people don’t take these issues seriously. Because surprise, people don’t tend to listen to people insulting them, if not outright lash out against what they are saying.
I don’t believe it would take more than 40 years to fix most of them, if there was enough political will to fix them. And my whole point is that the bad perceptions around DEI sap away the political will for solving the systemic issues in exchange for short term relief with little long term benefit.
An amazing example of one of the many inequalities, that pretty much every DEI policy I have ever seen completely ignores.
DEI policies wouldn’t ignore it because DEI policies would make it so employers would have to take into consideration that there might be a reason why the Quebecois got their bachelor’s from a provincial university instead of McGill and it doesn’t make them less competent even though their paper isn’t as prestigious.
Than maybe the issue is that people need to communicate properly what they mean by DEI exactly, because I never heard a DEI policy like that, neither online, nor in the news, nor at my job.
PS: Besides, hiring a competent guy from McGill sounds to me like hiring on merit. Hiring based on paper diploma is not hiring on merit.
DEI policies is anything that can be done to compensate for systemic (not systematic) discrimination in the workplace, may it be during the hiring process or after, the goal being to have a workforce representative of society and that is treated equitably and inclusively no matter who they are. It can take many shape or form.
Then I guess the issue is we need more granular names for various DEI policies, because it is impossible to discuss any merits or demerits of something this vague and broad.
This vagueness then makes the issue far more divisive as proponents pick best policies to defend and detractors pick the worst examples to criticize.