News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[ERED]

It's the new "3 letter" slur....

And most up in arms over DEI have no clue what it is and does.

At my former employer, DEI helped at risk college students who are the first in their family to go on to college. The DEI staff worked in conjunction with the retention staff to help each student be successful and not end up dropping out or failing.

Another unthought of aspect of DEI is to support those who are differntly abled, especially with finding meaningful employment.

 

[mkt]

And most up in arms over DEI have no clue what it is and does.

It means I can’t reject your job application because of your race, national origin, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, etc.

But I am absolutely allowed to reject it if you are completely unqualified or if you bombed the interview.

 

[James Alucobond]

At my former employer, DEI helped at risk college students who are the first in their family to go on to college. The DEI staff worked in conjunction with the retention staff to help each student be successful and not end up dropping out or failing.

This is one of the many worthwhile things some DEI programs tackle. I would agree that it is wrong to paint it all as objectionable, to shutter entire departments without review, and to invoke the acronym as a synonym for incompetence.

However, I have personally seen really problematic things go down under the watch of initiatives under the DEI umbrella, and I don't just mean training that makes people uncomfortable. For instance, I was assisting with hiring for a team of just five at a Fortune 50 wherein, after interviewing ten or so candidates, the team was told that they could not hire any of them because none met the demographic criteria necessary to move certain benchmarks. This was despite the fact that several were great candidates who were more than qualified. The interviews were only allowed to proceed initially in order to see what the candidates looked like via Zoom.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is one of the many worthwhile things some DEI programs tackle. I would agree that it is wrong to paint it all as objectionable, to shutter entire departments without review, and to invoke the acronym as a synonym for incompetence.

However, I have personally seen really problematic things go down under the watch of initiatives under the DEI umbrella, and I don't just mean training that makes people uncomfortable. For instance, I was assisting with hiring for a team of just five at a Fortune 50 wherein, after interviewing ten or so candidates, the team was told that they could not hire any of them because none met the demographic criteria necessary to move certain benchmarks. This was despite the fact that several were great candidates who were more than qualified. The interviews were only allowed to proceed initially in order to see what the candidates looked like via Zoom.

"none met the demographic criteria necessary to move certain benchmarks."

Sadly today this is the norm.

In the old days they picked the best person for the job no matter what they looked like.

In the old days, if your resume had a head shot, it was immediately thrown in the trash.

 

[Chi84]

In the old days they picked the best person for the job no matter what they looked like.

If that was true there never would have been a reason for DEI.

 

[James Alucobond]

"none met the demographic criteria necessary to move certain benchmarks."

Sadly today this is the norm.

In the old days they picked the best person for the job no matter what they looked like.

In the old days, if your resume had a head shot, it was immediately thrown in the trash.

I did not say it was the norm nor did I say that everything was being done well in the olden days. I merely said I have personally seen certain things that I (and almost everyone involved, for that matter) found objectionable.

 

[Brian]

It means I can’t reject your job application because of your race, national origin, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, etc.

The notion that you cannot and ought not be discriminated against for your race, national origin, gender, etc, is a very fair and noble one, and ought to be the policy of all public and private sector entities, and how the law is enforced. Sadly, that's not what DEI has been for many years, and anyone making a claim to the contrary is not being honest. DEI was wielded as a shield to be racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory towards groups that were unfairly labeled as "privileged" (particularly, but not exclusively, straight white males), and denying them opportunities based on these protected characteristics, so that a more "diverse" candidate, leaving merit aside, could take their place. The word "diverse" took on new meaning as simply "not white."

This was all done based on the assumption that because someone is, for example, a straight white male, they are inherently more powerful, better off, wealthy, etc, than a lesbian black woman. What this asinine theory of intersectionality fails to take into consideration, of course, is that one's protected characteristics are not the sole predictors of power or wealth. I'd much rather be a lesbian black woman than a straight white man if it meant I could be raised by a stable parent(s) with high income and go to a private school in Manhattan instead of being raised in rural Alabama to a parent addicted to drugs without two pennies to scratch together.

It is high time that, if it is to be implemented at all, both the public and private sector implement DEI in a manner that ensures equal and fair opportunity to all people, regardless of their protected characteristics, including those who have been labeled as "privileged" by moronic pseudo-intellectuals who know nothing of their circumstances but their skin color and their sex. Its sole purpose should be that, whether one is a straight white male, or a lesbian black woman, or anything in between, these characteristics are meaningless and the person is to be judged by "the content of their character."

 

[Chi84]

The notion that you cannot and ought not be discriminated against for your race, national origin, gender, etc, is a very fair and noble one, and ought to be the policy of all public and private sector entities, and how the law is enforced. Sadly, that's not what DEI has been for many years, and anyone making a claim to the contrary is not being an honest. DEI was wielded as a shield to be racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory towards groups that were unfairly labeled as "privileged" (particularly, but not exclusively, straight white males), and denying them opportunities based on these protected characteristics, so that a more "diverse" candidate, leaving merit aside, could take their place. The word "diverse" took on new meaning as simply "not white."

This was all done based on the assumption that because someone is, for example, a straight white male, they are inherently more powerful, better off, wealthy, etc, than a lesbian black woman. What this asinine theory of intersectionality fails to take into consideration, of course, is that one's protected characteristics are not the sole predictors of power or wealth. I'd much rather be a lesbian black woman than a straight white man if it meant I could be raised by a stable parent(s) with high income and go to a private school in Manhattan instead of being raised in rural Alabama to a parent addicted to drugs without two pennies to scratch together.

It is high time that, if it is to be implemented at all, both the public and private sector implement DEI in a manner that ensures equal and fair opportunity to all people, regardless of their protected characteristics, including those who have been labeled as "privileged" by moronic pseudo-intellectuals who know nothing of their circumstances but their skin color and their sex. Its sole purpose should be that, whether one is a straight white male, or a lesbian black woman, or anything in between, these characteristics are meaningless and the person is to be judged by "the content of their character."

NOW we believe that. All the discrimination can be done now, thank you. We’re good all being treated the same now.

 

[Stripes]

I did not say it was the norm nor did I say that everything was being done well in the olden days. I merely said I have personally seen certain things that I (and almost everyone involved, for that matter) found objectionable.

It’s not only objectionable, this kind of discrimination is illegal. Unless the open position/role qualifies for a bona fide occupational qualification, considering one’s sex or skin color in employment decisions are illegal. As an example of a BFOQ exception, let’s say the FBI wants to infiltrate the KKK. They’re going to need a white guy for that job. Or, let’s say it’s a movie character like T’Challa or Natasha Romanoff, the casting director can discriminate based on appearance without violating civil rights laws.

 

[Stripes]

The notion that you cannot and ought not be discriminated against for your race, national origin, gender, etc, is a very fair and noble one, and ought to be the policy of all public and private sector entities, and how the law is enforced. Sadly, that's not what DEI has been for many years, and anyone making a claim to the contrary is not being honest.

I work for one of the largest, most powerful, well-known companies on the planet. I’ve seen a number of stories in the conservative press critical of the fact that we have a DE&I team. I can tell you that our annual anti-discrimination compliance training, created by DE&I and legal, involves going over a scenario that highlights a white male and how it is against company policy, and grounds for termination, to discriminate against him based on his race or gender for any reason.

I understand and largely agree with the criticism of how DEI was practiced in universities, but, in my experience, the private sector DEI implementation is primarily just about ensuring the company is following the Equal Opportunity Employment statutes and similar anti-discrimination laws.

 

[mkt]

The notion that you cannot and ought not be discriminated against for your race, national origin, gender, etc, is a very fair and noble one, and ought to be the policy of all public and private sector entities, and how the law is enforced. Sadly, that's not what DEI has been for many years, and anyone making a claim to the contrary is not being honest. DEI was wielded as a shield to be racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory towards groups that were unfairly labeled as "privileged" (particularly, but not exclusively, straight white males), and denying them opportunities based on these protected characteristics, so that a more "diverse" candidate, leaving merit aside, could take their place. The word "diverse" took on new meaning as simply "not white."

This was all done based on the assumption that because someone is, for example, a straight white male, they are inherently more powerful, better off, wealthy, etc, than a lesbian black woman. What this asinine theory of intersectionality fails to take into consideration, of course, is that one's protected characteristics are not the sole predictors of power or wealth. I'd much rather be a lesbian black woman than a straight white man if it meant I could be raised by a stable parent(s) with high income and go to a private school in Manhattan instead of being raised in rural Alabama to a parent addicted to drugs without two pennies to scratch together.

It is high time that, if it is to be implemented at all, both the public and private sector implement DEI in a manner that ensures equal and fair opportunity to all people, regardless of their protected characteristics, including those who have been labeled as "privileged" by moronic pseudo-intellectuals who know nothing of their circumstances but their skin color and their sex. Its sole purpose should be that, whether one is a straight white male, or a lesbian black woman, or anything in between, these characteristics are meaningless and the person is to be judged by "the content of their character."

Rather than address this load of bunk, I'll leave it at this:

The number one group to benefit from DEI initiatives are white women, while African Americans benefit the least.

A simple Google search easily debunks the narrative that DEI is some grand conspiracy against straight white men. Reality is more complex than faux-right wing Twitter outrage.

Additionally, Veteran outreach is classified under DEI.

Signed, a straight white (passing) man who speaks English with a neutral American Accent and has landed jobs harder to get into than Harvard. So much for DEI - maybe it is about your qualifications and job history.

 

[LAKid53]

If that was true there never would have been a reason for DEI.

And I know from experience....

 

[Chi84]

And I know from experience....

Same here.

 

[LAKid53]

I work for one of the largest, most powerful, well-known companies on the planet. I’ve seen a number of stories in the conservative press critical of the fact that we have a DE&I team. I can tell you that our annual anti-discrimination compliance training, created by DE&I and legal, involves going over a scenario that highlights a white male and how it is against company policy, and grounds for termination, to discriminate against him based on his race or gender for any reason.

I understand and largely agree with the criticism of how DEI was practiced in universities, but, in my experience, the private sector DEI implementation is primarily just about ensuring the company is following the Equal Opportunity Employment statutes and similar anti-discrimination laws.

Coming from the university environment, I can say, especially for faculty, what's on your CV is what gets you the job, especially a tenure track one.

No system was perfect. But to paint DEI as some type of boogie man is wrong.

When SCOTUS, in its 3rd ruling on using some form of affirmative action in admissions decisions, put the nail in that coffin, one of the groups most adversely affected were Asian students.

 

[LAKid53]

Same here.

And I was just an unmarried female looking for a job as a secretary.....

 

[MR.Dis]

I work for one of the largest, most powerful, well-known companies on the planet. I’ve seen a number of stories in the conservative press critical of the fact that we have a DE&I team. I can tell you that our annual anti-discrimination compliance training, created by DE&I and legal, involves going over a scenario that highlights a white male and how it is against company policy, and grounds for termination, to discriminate against him based on his race or gender for any reason.

I understand and largely agree with the criticism of how DEI was practiced in universities, but, in my experience, the private sector DEI implementation is primarily just about ensuring the company is following the Equal Opportunity Employment statutes and similar anti-discrimination laws.

Interesting post. I saw the play Hamilton and loved it. Did anyone notice that all the straight white founding fathers were played by minorities. Did I care, no because the play was just darn good. Why do I bring this up, because it should not matter your race but are you best for the job.