[nhchris]

> Very few companies have DEI programs.

Please don't lie to me:

"I have surveyed the programming of every Fortune 100 company and have confirmed that all of them have now adopted so-called DEI programs." - https://www.city-journal.org/the-diversity-equity-and-inclus...

Though I'm sure if you look at all companies, including every corner store, hair salon, and taco shop, the proportion of DEI initiatives and HR departments falls.

> It's a trend because it's fashionable.

And it's fashionable in part because any company where it's not encouraged is in legal peril.

[tptacek]

That's obviously false. There are over 1.7MM corporations in the US and over 7MM partnerships and sole proprietorships, and you've attempted to characterize all of them by a sample of the 100 hugest of them. There are all sorts of things the F100 has that the median company doesn't, almost none of them owing to legal peril.

[AbrahamParangi]

Hold on, that sample is a sample of the biggest ones! That’s a fair sample! Amazon having a DEI program and mom and pop hardware store not having one do not weigh equally on the scale!

[tptacek]

Cite an example of any company being sued for not having a DEI program.

[AbrahamParangi]

Why do I need to do that to defend the specific, factual point that DEI efforts are common in American workplaces? It’s not a value judgement, it’s just a fact.

[tptacek]

Well, for starters, that's not what we're debating. We're debating the idea that companies have DEI programs out of legal necessity.

[AbrahamParangi]

I never said anything about whether "companies have DEI programs out of legal necessity". The parent poster made a claim about "every Fortune 100 company" and you said that claim was unrepresentative.

That is not true, and that is what I said and all I am saying now.

[nhchris]

They're not sued for not having a DEI program, but for vaguely and broadly defined "discrimination". Having a DEI program is a defense against such accusations.

[tptacek]

That's a conveniently non-falsifiable argument, isn't it?

[nhchris]

It's highly likely. Much likelier than the idea that having anti-discrimination so broadly enforced that a mere IQ test is illegal would not cause corporations to take steps to reduce legal risks.

But you are correct, my evidence is circumstantial, and if you really want to disbelieve such basic inference, you can. I'm sure you apply this degree of skepticism evenly.