[standardUser]

You are either lying about hard-number racial/gender quotas or you were working for companies that were flagrantly breaking the law. Did you whistle blow?

You see, it doesn't add up, because usually when a company breaks the law so blatantly, it does so in crafty, shady ways intended to make more money, not in an attempt to create diversity that does nothing for the bottom line while also threatening the very existence of the firm.

[int_19h]

When this kind of thing happens - and it absolutely does - it's never put in writing. The company training is always going to say what the law requires it to say.

But let's say that the top management in your org have made a public commitment to "increase representation of underrepresented groups". The managers in that org are then required, by company policy, to have their own goals be "aligned" with it, so they write something similar. What do you think then happens when it comes to interviews and hiring decisions?

[UncleMeat]

Hiring on merit can increase representation of underrepresented groups. There are also shitloads of decisions one can make that increase representation of underrepresented groups without violating Title 7.

You can have better parental leave and part-time work policies. Or you can open an office in a region with different racial demographics. Or you can send recruiters to events like Grace Hopper. The idea that leadership saying "we want to increase representation of underrepresented groups" converts to people illegally hiring worse candidates because of their demographics is... odd.

[int_19h]

The manager at the bottom who has no-one to pass that bucket to does not have the power to institute "better parental leave and part-time work policies", or "open an office in a region with different racial demographics". Yet they are still held accountable for those commitments.

So what they are going to do is the only thing that they actually have the power to do, which is to favor candidates that, if hired, will check off the right boxes as far as "team diversity" goes on their upcoming mid-year review.

[anonfordays]

He wasn't lying, IBM was caught doing just that: https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944

[asdsadasdasd123]

Ah yes, I'm going to whistle blow and ruin my career over something "illegal" that every university has been doing for the past 50 years. Im perplexed that you find this surprising at all. This stuff happened openly in all hands with pie charts of the existing gender and racial makeup, and the target makeup with struggle session-like questions of why our engineering department doesn't have 50% woman. None of this is inconsistent if the decision makers at the company think that any deviation in demographics is a sign of institutional racism.

[standardUser]

University admittance and workplace hiring are different issues under the law. It sounds like you are purposefully conflating the issue to avoid acknowledging the logical flaws in your original claims.

[beej71]

You can anonymously whistle-blow. Why not do that?

[monero-xmr]

The gaslighting here post-Trump is insane. I’m not going to pretend that “no white or Asian males” wasn’t standard policy during the DEI hysteria. Pretending DEI was “just all about merit!” is so absurdly revisionist. Pleaseeee

[standardUser]

I'm a white male and I got plenty of jobs. Perhaps you just lack qualifications or soft skills.

[monero-xmr]

https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1920817550301999229?s=46

[const_cast]

1. Universities are different, who knows how they decide to admit people

2. In the private sector, white men are not disadvantaged. Give me a fucking break man.

[monero-xmr]

Remember with the SEC tried (and failed after Trump’s win) to mandate every board have at least 2 “diverse” (no white dudes) members? Not a lot of merit there!

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/01/12/fifth-circuit-vac...

[standardUser]

> The only thing that matters is if someone can do a job - period!

That's an absurd lie. People convicted of sex crimes shouldn't have jobs with children. Foreign nationals shouldn't have top security or intelligence jobs. People with a record of substance abuse shouldn't operate heavy machinery. And so on an so forth... I'm boring myself with how obvious this all is.

And maybe, just maybe, extremely powerful jobs that have an outsized influence on our society shouldn't only be offered to straight white men. It's clearly not as obvious of an argument as my previous examples, but it's not absurd either.

[const_cast]

Why are you assuming that non-white people cannot have the necessary qualifications? If I didn't know any better, I'd conclude that reasoning is... racist.

The reality is there are more non-white, qualified people than you could possibly hire. The world is overflowing with them.

So if your board is 100% white men, that's really fucking weird. How did that happen?

The elephant in the room here is that white men are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be hired due to the color of their skin. Look at Trump's current admin - full of white men who aren't qualified, who are alcoholics, who are patently stupid, and on and on. But if you look at research, too, just having a white name is enough to increase your chance of being hired by 50%.

[GuinansEyebrows]

Your choice of vocabulary belies a personality that is probably not favored by many hiring managers, regardless of your ethnic background.