[chuckhendo]

This take is radically wrong, and you're just reinforcing OP's insecurities. How do you know that OP has a job at the expense of a white person? How do you know that OP isn't in fact the best candidate for the job? You're making a whole lot of assumptions here that are bordering on outright racism

[azangru]

> How do you know that OP has a job at the expense of a white person?

Which part of the parent's message says that he does?

What it does say that if an organisation gives preferential treatment to a certain group based on their skin color, then it follows, inevitably, that people with non-preferred skin color will lose to those with the preferred one, all else being equal. And thus, there will inevitably be "the white guy who was excluded from employment because of his skin color" (or sex, or both). Whether it was OP or someone else who was preferred to that guy is unknowable, and thus ultimately irrelevant. But that must take place in an organisation that is truly committed to DEI; because otherwise this abbreviation is meaningless.

[spangry]

That assumption was suggested by the OP, not me. Thanks for suggesting I'm racist, but I'm basically immune to such thought stopping non-arguments at this point.

If disagreeing with making hiring decisions on the basis of skin colour is racist, then I suppose I'm racist.

[chuckhendo]

OP never said he was hired due to the color of his skin though. Not once. Is it possible that's the case? Sure. But for all we know, he was hired on merit.

[hgsgm]

Again with the thought-starting cliches that parent already explained they disregard.

[chuckhendo]

What are you trying to suggest with this? Are you saying that OP only has their job because of their skin color?

[HideousKojima]

While it's not certain that the OP was hired over a white person, it is mathematically certain that DEI policies cause whites to be discriminated against in aggregate.

1. There are fewer qualified black and Hispanic candidates per capita (i.e. without a college degree, without the right experience, etc.) than white and Asian candidates. The cause of this is irrelevant to the argument, it is factually true.

2. There are a finite amount of positions at any given company paying any given amount.

3. If companies hire a larger percentage (beyond a certain margin of error) of black and Hispanic candidates than actually exist in the hiring pool then they must commit racial discrimination against whites and Asians in order to accomplish this. You can try to redefine racism and discrimination as "prejudice plus power" or whatever you want to justify the fact that you mistreat people on the basis of their skin color, but factually that is what is being done.

[chuckhendo]

It's completely fair to look at the big picture, but it's dangerous to look at specific situations and make assumptions is the only point I was trying to make. Without DEI, OP may have still gotten the position he has. We have no way of knowing that. I wasn't fond of the original replier making it seem like he got the position over a white person only due to the color of his skin, which is an unfair assumption to make

[catiopatio]

“Race aware” hiring is inescapably racially discriminatory, and it’s not racist to point that out.