@@ScaleScarborough-jq8zx So what do you call it when you hire someone based on race? Even over people with more relevant qualifications....... Sounds familiar. It sounds like some 1950s crap.
Was your country also founded by people (ie European settlers who stole the land from native people) who kidnapped millions of Africans (who account for millions of Americans today) and put them to work as slaves? This was all followed by a Civil War and over a hundred years of racial terror and segregation. I don’t think you realize how weird of a place America is my friend.
if you don't live in the west then you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. it's no surprise that you would scoff at DEI given how homogeneous and anti-immigration the citizens of 대한민국 are in general despite it being the solution to the problems created by having the lowest birth rate in the world.
@@rampage241 Korea (Although we have a gender proportion policy in the military or police... so those services are forced to hire females at lower physical standards.)
DEI is underlyingly racist, we all know it. Instead of giving people positions based on the skin color (which we all see for a certain race that is usually unqualified for), how about good ole' skill and ability - is that too hard?
@@AJX-2couldn’t you interpret that “disparate impact” both ways though? Discrimination against white is a “disparate impact” too, any race-based hiring is.
My general principle is that the colour of your skin or other factors should not count for or against you. I would not want to be hired because I'm black just as much as I would not want to overlooked because I'm black. If you hire an under qualified person because of DEI and they struggle at their job,their co-workers would then begin to have certain attitudes about people from that group perpetuating the same stereotype you're trying to avoid.
@@truimagz3441 i think so too . i can't help to think how much these corporate whim decisions make people hate the minorities they are pushing to the front of the line .
Perfectly said. I think that one reason DEI is bad is it actually makes racial divisions worse by causing white employees to question new black employees because they can’t be sure they were a diversity hire. And I don’t think it’s racist to ask when you know it’s happening, and DEI advocates will brush off your well-reasoned doubts as racism! It’s a double-edged sword.
Quotas is far too nice a word. Call it what it is, racism. People are too afraid to use that word, because racism has horrible connotations. But that's exactly what it is, and it is horrible. We need to stop tiptoeing around this issue. Call these woke racists out. When you see racism don't stay quiet, do what's right, and call the racist people racist.
Alot of us could tell way back in 2017 that Wokeism was going to be historically similar to Nazi Germany and that it would have a similar reputation at some point. Fast forward to 2024 and it is clearly making alot of progress towards that finale. Cant wait to see how Wokeism is studied during the 2030s, 40s, and 50s.
@@User_5tjk42gj9protest!ng against gews and chasing them and harassing them on college campuses,supporting a country with a long history of yt supremacy with n@z! battalions and a leader that gave a standing ovation to a literal n@z!,not allowing people with opposing views to speak,trying to make it so no one even has the choice to vot3 for their pol!t!cal opponent,trying to have them arrested,demonizing an entire group of people,control over all major med!a that repeats your message and pushes hate and division 24/7,funding a jan0c!de even though the whole world wants you to stop, the left are being literal n@z!s right now lol
They are quotas, can't wait till they drop all of this non-sense. Just hire the best people, diversity of thought is the most important not of anything else. Some other things can be used as proxies but I think the vail is being lifted here. It didn't do what they wanted and the quotas were ridiculous. Hire good people and treat the company like a sports team, win championships and expect the best.
Diversity of thought is the one type of diversity that the left absolutely cannot tolerate. It is the one type of diversity that not a single one of these DEI programs wants. They will do anything to avoid anyone who thinks differently. They want a bunch of people with identical minds, but different skin colors and genitalia.
I was just about to write that when I saw your comment. Over the past decade, I have seen so many mediocre white women get hired and promoted for below-average performance while extremely accomplished men, especially Asian or white, get passed over.
You and me both. I hire people based on what abilities and personality they bring to the table, not by metrics like race or gender. If you work hard and make money for my small business then I’m good, but I have no desire to hire based only on diversity and pass on a great candidate because of that nonsense.
and with that attitude, you will never own a business to have to worry about it. thankfully, your business will remain small enough not to have to worry about health insurance or FMLA since you'll never have enough employees to meet the respective thresholds.
it's important in big businesses than small businesses, at that scale the ceo can't vet every candidate, you need different types of employees when you have 50 people in a team
Who would have imagined that hiring on the basis of skin color and gender instead of talent would have led to this? Actively discrimination against white males also needs to be legally challenged.
2:03 she claims it will be hard to prove shareholders didn't benefit from as wide as possible pool of talent and that the problem was in the other direction, with hiring practices too prescriptive so the result is not diverse enough. That seems like some doublespeak! The whole problem is that Dei is prescriptive in a way that constrains the pool of talent to recruit from. Am I misunderstanding what she meant?
How about you let people hire whoever they want. The market will determine if your company survives. If you hire people based on race and not merit, you will get punished accordingly
@@Green__one Ok do it then. Once your company reaches a certain size, if it doesn't employ the right mix of protected classes you can be sued for Disparate Impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That's the whole reason why companies adopted DEI hiring in the first place, to keep the lawsuits off their back.
@@Sebster85 Yes, and any one of them can be swamped by a million real world examples of how DEI is drowning companies in debt paying these extortionist corporate street hustlers to "diversify" a workforce that was already diversified but is now excluding more qualified workers.
If focusing on a diverse workforce is beneficial to the companies ability to make a profit, then let them choose to do it on their own. If true the companies who focus on it will pull ahead in the market and the companies who don’t will either fall behind and adjust by changing their ways or go out of business. Don’t feed me some nonsense study with all sorts of confounding variables that were not accounted for and use that as a predicate to force DEI on companies.
That IS how it is being deployed...companies are putting DEI policies voluntarily because they believe it will improve their profitability. Is there some misinfo that it's being done by mandate ?
@@nlabanok Government mandate? The government has gone all in within its workforce and it is coerced in companies by investing firms that require certain markers.
@@nlabanok no, there are individuals including people in the media that are monitoring their progress and pressuring them to speed up the process. No company wants to be accused of not being diverse. I have no idea how you’re not aware of this.
@@marthaolmsted4029 This is a ridiculously vague allegation....specifics honey or you're just another dimwit acting out in public because some pundit on Fox told you to be outraged about it.
Six DECADES ago my siblings and I stepped aside as good Canadians (in LA) to accept there would be a catch-up process. Ten years after the Civil Rights Act (and before the asian invasion) outright money grants, preferred hiring, scholarships, and special positions being created just for people to catch up, we had no issue with. But we've now had four/five generations of entitlement, a USA black President, and many who DID grab that ring and help themselves UP. But we also have license entitlement with no responsibility, and it extends of a number of industrial countries and not just the USA. What do we have to show for it, besides the obvious???
We need a few huge maybe class action payouts to people who have been discriminated against as a group over the last 10-15 years - I think we know who they are.
We need to repeal the Civil Rights Act so that people and companies can legally hire whoever they want, rather than being bullied by "disparate impact" lawsuits.
I’m trying to think of a real world example of when it makes sense to prioritize something over someone’s ability to do a job. Their background check and experience should be the determining factors I would think. If two candidates were truly equal in all regards maybe pick the person whose personality you think would work best on your team.
It happens all the time & forever. It's why so many mediocre or incompetent white men have failed up in business & industry. The DEI backlash is that white men people will no longer have free reign. It's white fragility especially among the mediocre or worse. In my STEM career as a Bmed Engineer & Cardiologists, the worst coworkers were overwhelmingly white men who were only there b/c they knew somebody or people wanted to hire people that looked like them.
Oh good lord, I worked for a company that in effect found qualified (on paper) people to hire, interviewed, and the did exactly what you said...picked the person they thought would best fit on their team. What a $hitshow...the place ran like an eighth grade popularity contest..nobody ever pushed to improve or change areas that were problems because that'd hurt somebody's feelings, and they literally had policies that encourage dangerous behaviors because this frat and sorority like culture just couldn't deal with correcting dangerous work behaviors. That's what happens when everybody picks their next best friend to work with...like Enron, for example....a bunch of Texas fried bros who lost a couple hundred billion shareholders dollars.
@@nlabanok Sounds like bad judgment to me. Its rare candidates are ever truly equal with their experience and skill, so normally personality would not be a huge factor. What you are talking about has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
"If two candidates were truly equal in all regards maybe pick the person whose personality you think would work best on your team." if you are white, guess which candidate you're going to pick. the one who eats turkey and mashed potatoes on thanksgiving is magically going to be a better fit for your team than the one who doesn't even celebrate thanksgiving. DEI is about overcoming unconscious bias.
There are large Fortune 100 and Fortune 50 companies that have entire departments made up of minorities, LGBTQ, and women. Very few white men. I have personally witnessed it. I was the only white man in my class through licensing school for the job I have now. There was at least twenty Black women. Over fifteen of those Black women immediately quit as soon as it became a job and they had to start doing work. They coasted on a free paycheck the entire way through licensing school and quit. Yes, shareholders are losing money to the wrong talent. They are giving it away in welfare check payments to these people. Not to mention the amount of LGBTQ people I have seen that have to have accommodated work assignments or reduced work hours because they are not capable of the job. “Diversity is good for business” is a complete lie.
The gaslighting by these people. In a couple of years she will be saying, 'why are you so obsessed by all this, we have moved on now'. DEI didn't just affect recruitment, it affected how people at work were expected to think and believe. Anyone questioning it could find themselves sacked. This "correction" is long overdue.
they harassed online , they fired people, they created a highly toxic environments at work, worse then before. They made US Corps lose billions. it's a racket specialized DEI companies to teach your company things. Extra HR people to handle it.
I work in startups and as soon as one is big enough to hire an HR person I’m out the door and on to the next. Not taking part in any of this BS. HR is the Vatican of DEI.
@@johnmartin4641The problem is that anyone who is hired into HR, has to have certain qualifications. To get those qualifications you have to have either gone to school and been indoctrinated into DEI, or you have to have worked in the field and been indoctrinated into DEI. So as a result, having an HR department pretty much guarantees racism.
You could just see how disappointed this woman. Liz Hoffman, is that companies are coming to their senses and dropping this DEI nonsense. Around here, Liz, we call it reverse racism.
There's no such thing as reverse racism. There's being racist, and not being racist. Which race it is does not change the word. Choosing people based on skin color is racist. It is the very definition of the word.
Thanks to these policies, I will never again be able to look at a black, Latin American, or some minor ethnic group without questioning if they actually earned their job based on merit and if they were the best candidate for the job. I guess time and statistics will tell... unless they also redact that. Good job, well done... #facepalm
The track record of the last "four or five years" has shown the folly and absurdity of the "Diversity Equity and Inclusion" movement. Only talent and ability determines someones qualifications for jobs. Without fail, race, gender, sexual presences, religion or any other immutable factor certainly does not, in fact basing hiring decisions on any or all of those factors has the exact opposite effect. Merit based is the ONLY worthwhile metric to use in hiring and promoting...period!!
They should also get rid of favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and choosing candidates from friends, family or connections network for hiring and giving contracts over many eligible candidates/companies without any such advantage. Let's make hiring objective, transparent and data driven. Someone should launch a campaign for that too.
Now you've just gone too far. That's actually what they are trying to get BACK to (favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and choosing candidates from friends, family or connections network). The whole "Merit" argument is just the current shiny new word right now.
@@talonkarrde2578 "favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and choosing candidates from friends, family or connections network" was always around, even during the last 40 years, what happened was that a lot of extremely qualified people who were not within the crowd of "favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and choosing candidates from friends, family or connections network" were legally discriminated against, it was actually encouraged.
DEI is the same system of political commissars checking all actions for political orthodoxy regardless of the impact on the corporation. Similar to the system present in the old USSR which gave you such accomplishments as Chernobyl.
I worked for 20 years as an executive with a large financial institution. I believe DEI has gone too far. There is benefit to DEI if done correctly. However,the far right and far left get carried away and unfortunately destroy it.
DEI is doing wonders for the Aircraft industry😂 so far they haven’t killed anyone Yet? How doors and wheels coming of planes left and right. Most companies put the best people in there places now your making them put people that don’t have skills in positions they don’t deserve
Don't vote for the exact same 2 losers that we all did in the LAST election! Instead, vote for open debate! Vote for the best! Vote for coherency and tact! Know WHO is actually running the country! Know who is CAPABLY running the country! Vote for RFK!
Using capital in other means than maximizing value for shareholders is in direct violation of fiduciary responsibility. Management is being benevolent with other people's money.
People rarely discuss NASDAQ’s diversity requirements. This is a major, top down enforcement of diversity requirements by gatekeepers of the corporate world. For this woman to minimize the role of NASDAQ and imply there is a “competitive marketplace” for listing is ridiculous.
I work for one and hate the DEI focus. Why make an effort to separate employees thru creating sponsored groups based on race, and sexual orientation? People are good enough doing that on their own.
How bad do things need to become before our country comes to its senses? Maybe it needs to get personal. Think about this: You arrive at the ER having just been in a terrible car accident. Your life is hanging in the balance. Some how (magically) you have a choice between the medical team that graduated top of their equity based class, or the team that graduated at the top of them their merit based class. Do choose to you live or die?
I'm all for equal opportunity laws. If a sector has overlooked competent people because of bias, then they should take significant measures to correct that. And perhaps they should even err on the side of diversity. But DEI is a whole other philosophy, with far more radical ideas. And in practice it seems to create more division, more resentment, lower standards, and mainly just benefits upper-middle-class people.
DEI does not exist without quota. There is no possible way to encourage hiring specific groups without also discriminating against others. DEI says that you need to hire certain people despite them not being the best candidates for the job. That you must hire them based exclusively on their skin color or gender. Just call it what it is. Racism, and sexism. Those are the correct terms per the dictionary
Call it what it is, they can't get into the schools because of racism. The more we shy away from using the correct terms, the more legitimized the racism appears. When you see racism call it racism.
This started because America is a country built on segregation and inequity. That’s just a fact, and because our government has refused to take accountability for those hundreds of years of inequity we find ourselves here today. You have leaders of the business community trying to make up for something the Government should have paid for years ago. Think about it. Affirmative action is a great example. It was inarguably needed 25 years ago and was successful in doing what it was meant to do (bringing equity to higher education). However as a minority, I didn’t expect it to last forever and so I’m not upset with the Supreme Court striking down the legislation. The same could be said for the inequities in other institutions such as policing and business. Reforms should occur where they are needed, but should be rescinded once the issue has been substantially improved. This should be enforced and advocated for from our leaders at the highest level of government. Why? Because the issues cannot be left to smaller bodies such as individual companies or states to address as that leads to the problems we see today of equity leading to inequity. When reform is implemented in small pockets of the country only small pockets of individuals benefit. This leads to siloed benefits and siloed suffering across the nation. Which in-turn leads to no one being satisfied and greater polarization across different groups.
