What do you think about the trend toward anti-DEI now in corporations?

It’s a capitulation before bigotry to preserve profits.
Though it is not like they actually believed in liberty and equal rights anyway. Even their “pro-diversity” stance before was just a marketing tactic.

What @ragingloli said. It’s marketing. There was a time when hiring a DEI officer and plastering rainbows on products during the month of June was good for the bottom line. If it no longer is, they’re not going to do it anymore. They will latch onto the next flavor of the month. Toyota is not going anywhere.

Short-sighted and stupid. It’s right-wing pressure groups flexing their muscles, helped by Musk and corporate bigots.

What the anti-DEI corporations don’t see is that they are alienating their customers and their employees.

Wait a couple years, we’ll have DEI movements (under a different name, of course) again.

What @ragingloli and @Demosthenes said above. Corporations are not ethical institutions. They are inherently bad, and the use of marketing is necessary to keep people buying. In a capitalistic, consumer society, people build their self-worth through purchasing – buying products they feel represent who they are or want to be. When people buy a car, they are buying an image of who they believe their own true nature to be. It’s a means of self-expression and involves a large amount of signaling to others who you are as a person, human, and citizen. It’s real bleak stuff.

So, when corporations (that all destroy the planet and steal labor and resources) sell themselves as pro-trans, their hope is that they make more money than if they didn’t sell themselves that way. Period. It doesn’t suddenly make them a better entity. And in many ways, it is pretty disgusting. So, I don’t have any hopes or desires for corporations to paint themselves as anything pro-humanity. They are not, and it’s simply false advertising.

That isn’t to say that corporations’ influence on general culture doesn’t exist. If a large company were to suddenly run campaigns of pure racist, anti-trans horseshit, and they were able to survive any pushback, that probably wouldn’t be good – for reasons related to capitalist culture described above. Culture (even its foundations are built on violence, exploitation, destruction of the planet, and is spiritually rotten) matters. People should put pressure on corporations to not use marketing to exploit vulnerable populations or countries. But we needn’t fool ourselves into thinking that a soulless corporation is suddenly decent because it sells the end of the planet via the use of diverse cast of characters.

I’d say it’s a step in the right direction. DEI is racist and sexist. Pushing to hire people because of anything other than their skill is just plain wrong. And I don’t equate moving away from pushing DEI and all the other woke nonsense with hating LGBTQ+ or any other group. I find it interesting and very telling that the attitude of this group is that if you are cheering 100% with their views and pushing those views on others regardless of the consequences you are somehow evil. Very interesting.

I don’t often completely agree with @hat @Demosthenes and @ragingloli but I do. I have some minor quibbles, but what they said are in essence completely correct.

@seawulf575
We wouldn’t have needed the Crown Act if employers were only looking for skill, but the empty platitudes sounds nice to type out.

I have some problems with the DEI agenda, but I do agree corporations will change with the wind to increase profits. We can’t look to corporations to lead the way on equality, most companies will react to consumers buying habits more than anything.

I do predict that eventually there will be a shift away from some of the extremism (some people won’t think it is extreme of course) in the DEI and woke movement. Already I noticed Columbia University school of Social Work took down their vocabulary list for students; the link was broken last time I tried it. I did a Q about it a while back. Their definitions of Capitalism and some other terms and language used was biased and I assume it was taken down once it received so much attention after the New York Times called attention to it. I don’t use capitalism as an example because we are talking about for profit corporations, but rather because I disagreed with the definition being used.

The definition was: a system of economic oppression based on class, private property, competition and individual profit. See also: carceral system, class, inequality, racism. “Colonization” is “a system of oppression based on invasion and control that results in institutionalized inequality between the colonizer and the colonized. See also: Eurocentric, genocide, Indigeneity, oppression.” Here is the NYT article that reported on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opinion/social-work-columbia-ideology.html

Here is another definition of Capitalism on Columbia’s website: Capitalism is a system where the means of production are owned privately and operated for profit. It is a system opened to new ideas, new firms and new owners where decisions on investment, production, trade and pricing are largely determined by market forces. Source: https://capitalism.columbia.edu/content/glossary That sounds more like the type of definition I would expect and then there can be discussion about whether capitalism can be oppressive or positive, I think most people, especially Americans, would say it is a mixed bag.

A corporation declaring they are anti-DEI seems stupid. Why a corporation even uses these terms now that the terms have become so political doesn’t make sense to me.

@JLeslie They are using the terms as a “dog whistle”. It alerts racists and let’s them know you’re “on their side”.

An example would be a guy mentioning some super obscure makeup brand only women would know about, in order to gain their attention.

@Blackberry I completely agree, but alienating half of America doesn’t seem like good business. I would say stay out of the fray as much as possible.

I think companies can and should make statements about their support of diversity in hiring practices and customer base, but using these trigger words that are so politicized doesn’t seem wise in the long run.

@JLeslie
It shows some progress, at least.

Instead of being called the evil names of the past, evil people just call us “DEI hires”.

Similar to when “affirmative action hire” was an insult.

@Blackberry I think both are terrible. It propagates the false notion that unqualified people are being hired.

Hiring practices are not my concern with DEI. I support tracking stats on diversity in the workplace and companies doing their best to represent the ethnic and racial make-up in the community. We can be cognizant of problems in the system, and not go all the down the road of what DEI and woke is preaching.

@Blackberry It’s interesting how the language changes, but the underlying idea hasn’t changed at all. It’s just another way that corporations off-load their problems onto something (and someone) else. You hear it all the time now. When a product doesn’t meet expectations or a company is late delivering a product, it’s blamed on “too many DEI hires” or “work from home”. It’s a means for those at the top of corporations to remain faultless (rather it’s the fault of those lazy workers and minorities) and for everyone to keep on hating the people they already hate.

@Demosthenes Is that why they blame a DEI hire? I was completely missing that angle. When I hear people say it, not a CEO I always see it as an attack on the individual and the minority community to try to diminish them as unworthy of the position they are in, and as a dog whistle to white people that they missed an opportunity or are being “replaced.”

When a CEO announces it I figure it’s marketing to a specific group of individuals. I guess it also matters how people define DEI, the specific changes in a corporation to meet some sort of standard.

Interesting to me about the work from home statement too. I’ll be watching for that. Makes sense to me what you said about that.

@Blackberry So when I say that to hire for anything other than skill is just wrong, how is that an empty platitude? I’ve done hiring. I’ve hired just about every imaginable demographic you can hire. I will say I never hired a trans person myself, but one of my fellow managers had one apply. She came to me asking about it. The person was perfect for the job, but she wasn’t sure how the management would handle it if she hired this person. My response was to just make management aware that you wanted to hire this person so they could figure out any changes that might need to happen. If they are perfect for the job, they are perfect for the job. It really isn’t that hard. Now, that being said, it would also depend on the position I was hiring for. You bring up the CROWN act. If I have a position that is directly interfacing with the public in a high end business, I might not want to hire someone that looks scrubby. That might not be the look I want being the “face” of my business…the first thing people see or have to interact with. It doesn’t mean a scrubby looking person might not be perfectly fine for a different job with my company, just not that particular job.

I just reas this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresahopke/2024/01/31/what-companies-are-getting-wrong-about-dei/ and all I could think was what were the companies doing before DEI became a catch phrase? This article is talking about the 2020 time frame.

My husband works in HR, specifically compensation, and he has been evaluating demographics among the employee population of the companies he has worked for since I can remember. He himself is part of the diversity being Latin American, although I honestly never think of him that way except as a company maybe seeing it as a bonus if they like him for hire.

My husband’s name is not Spanish at all, and he went to university in the US, so there is no indication on his resume that he is Latin American unless you count that he is bilingual. Once they meet him I guess they hear an accent, and he isn’t blonde with blue eyes. I think he looks from the Mediterranean to most Americans. Greek, Italian, maybe Arab if they aren’t familiar with the ethnicity of his last name. His name is very Jewish, but people who don’t know the name often guess Middle Eastern, especially the people who work at ticketing for the airlines.

As far as I know Jews are excluded from DEI. The DEI creators decided Jews are white and part of the majority. I understand that for some situations, but not including Jewish people at all or even to the point that Jewish people might be framed as part of the problem or the elite, which has created some backlash from Jewish people.

They were only doing DEI for virtue signaling anyway. The way they did it was all wrong too. They would put token people in positions based on what they are and not who they are which is condescending to minorities. DEI done right gives everyone a fair shake and promotes people because of what they do regardless of what they are and who they know. Those people will be respected because they earned their position.

After the George Floyd riots in 2020, it was almost a trend for corporations to say they support BLM and DEI and all that. Now, according to the article, the pendulum is shifting.

White women are the group who benefitted most from DEI initiatives. Most of it was lip service. True DEI work is important, valuable, and necessary. It has little to do with affirmative action, although folks love spewing that we need to hire “based on sKiLlS!!” As a disabled person, I need DEI. I need accessible, welcoming spaces. I need to know where I am safe. Where I can wear a mask for my own protection. As an Autistic person, I need to know who values my differences. As a queer woman, I need to know how I will be perceived. DEI is critical for race/ethnicity. But it’s so much more than that. And if you don’t know that, you probably don’t want to know.

I believe the best decisions are made when you have to fight through differences to find the right way forward. We need leaders of all kinds. We need teachers of all kinds. We need firefighters and police of all kinds. All walks of earth. Low-income, high-income, disabled, able bodied, LGBTQ, straight, neurodivergent, neurotypical, learning differences, average learners, geniuses, logical, emotional…. give us all equal opportunity to climb the ranks. Give us all a seat at the table. Make the table accommodate us. Why wouldn’t you believe in that?

@Cupcake I think most people believe in the things you mentioned. Sometimes it isn’t logical how it’s applied, but overall, equal opportunity at work and diverse work forces make sense and I would argue are better for business than everyone being from the same group.

What I touched on above regarding antisemitism, DEI in school education seems to highlight white oppressor and people of color being oppressed. They group Jewish people in as white oppressors and it is causing antisemitism on some college campuses.

Add in Oct 7th and that DEI teaching became more apparent, but it was before Oct 7th and not just related to Israel. Of course students should be able to be critical of Israeli policy and have discussions about it.

This over-focus on race, and blanket assumption that white people are always oppressors, and the ignorance that Jews are all white or always considered white is faulty and false. Half of Jews are people of color, All Jews in Nazi Germany and in the KKK South were not considered to be part of the white race. Jews were sent to the ovens, oppressed, enslaved, throughout time, so we very much understand systemic racism, and have been always a part of fighting it in many countries around the world, especially in the US. Young people and minorities of all ages often are not aware of that.

DEI seems to not teach any of that at all. I hear a lot of people talk about Israel in terms of the Palestinians being people of color. Palestinians come in as many shades as Jewish Israelis, you can’t boil it down to the color of their skin, eyes, and hair. I’m not here to debate Israel, but rather I want to point out some of the wrong assumptions DEI is fostering.

People complain DEI in universities has led to an inability to discuss issues of race, because there is intolerance, and questioning anything that is under the heading DEI is responded to with a defensive posture if not fury. Because of this, and some other issues, the DEI label is getting push back.

Don’t get me wrong, I realize some of the anti-DEI is embedded in racism, but what I see is a reluctance to discuss (not by you) where DEI might have some faults or might go too far. We don’t want people only judged or prejudged by race, I’m sure you agree with that, and young people seem to be going that route more and more. At the same time I think the younger generation are more inclusive, so it’s complicated.

Workplace and university education are two different things, but the DEI label is being used in both places. Previously, we had affirmative action and then what was taught in school regarding Black history or minority issues was a separate label.

@Cupcake “White women are the group who benefitted most from DEI initiatives. Most of it was lip service.”

That’s the honest truth