[cat_theorist]

Hiring people based on race (white) and gender (male) is what happened _before_ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.

Do you know what is the original and ultimate identity politics? Enslaving people because you deem them inferior to your own race. The civil war, the civil rights movement, and modern social justice movements are a response to this, not the root of the conflict.

I'm a white guy in academia - not tenured yet - and I cannot fathom the ignorance necessary to believe that white males are at an disadvantage because of university administrators being "woke". Give me a break!

[malwrar]

> Enslaving people because you deem them inferior to your own race.

This is irrelevant to the discussion of hiring in 2025, unless you believe your fellow “white” population harbors literal beliefs of a.) racial identity and b.) racial superiority, that c.) the “white” people making hiring decisions are actively excluding candidates based on these beliefs, and that d.) application of a nonwhite bias is just and measured in the face of a-c. I think all are incredible claims, and they’ve only lasted a decade because they have become rabidly-defended shibboleths for people who want to fix racism (and sexism and…).

> I cannot fathom the ignorance necessary to believe that white males are at an disadvantage because of university administrators being "woke"

If 1000 group A individuals and 10 group B individuals apply for a team, and both groups are accepted at ~50% due to a group B preference, then group B is ~100x as likely to be selected for the role due to that preference. Such observations are where my own perception of “disadvantage” comes from. Unless you’re claiming that no such preference exists, or that some prejudice you might have about group A justifies its individual members’ relatively unlikely chances of being selected, I can’t see how this preference doesn’t qualify as a disadvantage for such individuals.

[chasing]

> ...unless you believe your fellow “white” population harbors literal beliefs of a.) racial identity and b.) racial superiority, that c.) the “white” people making hiring decisions are actively excluding candidates based on these beliefs, and that d.) application of a nonwhite bias is just and measured in the face of a-c.

I believe many of my fellow "whites" believe this, but more importantly it's pretty obvious that many of the most powerful "whites," including the current President and his boot-licking minion Donald Trump, absolutely believe this.

[1832]

I proclaim that no such preference exists in the US in 2025!

[malwrar]

Hah definitely now, tho we’ll see how things play out.

I really hate how poisoned the well has become on this topic, there’s definitely elitism and exclusion that should be systematically addressed in hiring. I’d support programs promoting cheaper and universally-accessible paths to getting skilled jobs (e.g. accepting projects/certs/etc or offering literal job training) as long as they were open to anyone regardless of protected characteristics. You shouldn’t need to mainline an ivy-league path your entire childhood to have a chance at being hired at Google. I think such programs would be far less controversial and produce real value for real people.

[user3939382]

How does it require ignorance to believe something that’s spelled out in black and white policies? It’s not even belief it’s just reading comprehension at that point.