[nperez]

I think there's still appeal in the underlying (very) basic ideas of trying to create a workplace that's comfortable for everyone.

It's being rolled back quickly because that's what influential rich people want, and because DEI has become a politically charged term that pretty much invites conflict and toxicity at this point

[unclebucknasty]

>because DEI has become a politically charged term that pretty much invites conflict and toxicity at this point

I agree with this on its face, but it seems an incredibly passive tone. DEI didn't just "become a politically charged term". It was deliberately made so.

And the term doesn't just "invite conflict and toxicity". There are toxic people who are using the principles themselves as a point of conflict.

Not being pedantic here. Maybe it's what you meant to say. Or maybe not and you don't agree. Either way, I point it out because it reminds me of the media headlines these days. I find that, among media reporting that purports to be "objective", there's a very odd passive tone, as if these unprecedented things are just happening.

And, that introduces a pretty hard bias.

[nperez]

I think I'm mostly in agreement with your points. I think a significant part of the downfall of DEI was deliberate bad-faith behavior from those who actually oppose equality, but there are also things to be learned about how DEI programs were run.

I've been in mandatory corporate DEI seminars that I had high hopes for, only to find that they felt overly prescriptive and ill-equipped for the complexities of trying to be sensitive to every culture. Having to jump in and explain "Well, some Latinos actually find LatinX to be an offensive term, so you might get the stink-eye if you use it" was a bit uncomfortable for me personally, for example. Getting it all right is hard, and getting a few things wrong can leave a really bad taste.

[unclebucknasty]

It is hard to get right, and there is definitely work to be done on the approach(es).

Ironically, I think the idea itself that it's all so very sensitive is one of the biggest barriers to progress. People are afraid to be open and honest about biases, beliefs, ignorance, curiosities, etc. So, in an effort to ensure that no one is ever offended, companies tend to fall back to these prescriptive simplifications that rest on things like terminology.

Of course, that just reinforces the fear and the divide.

The irony is that it can also seed resentment to simply lecture people about their vocabulary and other third rails. OTOH, when real interaction is allowed to take place, there is an opportunity for humor and humanity to arise. Mistakes will be made, but progress is more about good faith and extending grace on all sides.

So, it's, using x terminology doesn't mean I hate you. I just didn't know. When you assume that good faith, then your guard goes down. And, if I know that you know that, then I'm not going to be so fearful, and my guard drops too.

Next thing you know, we're having an actual conversation.

[biohcacker84]

I think there's still appeal in the underlying (very) basic ideas of trying to create a workplace that's comfortable for everyone.

It's doing more harm than good: https://x.com/stevemur/status/1621680046317654016

Color Blindness is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxB3b7fxMEA

It sets up people for failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97R3z2ofuYk

Its origins are Marxist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbby7yFrIxM