Summary

The term “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has become a coded way for Republicans to conceal their anti-Black racism, echoing past racist dog whistles.

This parallels with Lee Atwater’s 1981 admission that conservatives used abstract terms like “states’ rights” to mask racism.

Today, figures like Alina Habba, Tim Burchett, and far-right influencers use “DEI hire” to discredit qualified Black figures.

The media’s failure to challenge this rhetoric allows racism to persist, making “DEI” a modern substitute for explicit racial slurs.

  • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The insinuation that if you see any woman or person of color in a position of power, prestige, or even competence, they got there because of identity politics and not their own merit, is directly bigoted, not even concealed by the first or second degree. The corollary, of course, is that you can only trust white men to do these important jobs correctly.

    • Naz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      12 hours ago

      This idea is so gross that I don’t even want to entertain it mentally.

      Thank you for your lucid and crystalline explanation though, internet stranger.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Someone (I think at Do) literally said the “we need white men in charge” line out loud in those words.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        But if you get too good at that job, the insinuation changes and you must’ve had sex with your manager in order to get a raise/promotion.

    • snakedrake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Isn’t this why DEI needs to be pulled back though?

      People of color and women do get their status on their own but the policy of DEI implies that they got additional assistance even if they didn’t. This policy robs them of their achievements and it generates as much resentment towards protected groups as it provides protection. You can’t just tell the people not to feel resentment, or you’ll get republicans in office forever. We should start advocating for class based workplace assistance rather than dividing ourselves up by race and sex. You’ll help out basically the same people, but you’ll get class solidarity.

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        DEI isn’t a hiring quota or mandate to prefer a minority candidate over a non-minority candidate. It is the mindset that different experiences, backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints provide more variety and richer ideas than a single homogenous set, and as such, those differences should be considered as a positive along with other qualifiers as part of the hiring process. A company that values DEI still hires straight white men (speaking as one who works for such a company), as ours is still a viewpoint that should be represented and adds value. But they may also choose a minority candidate over a white male candidate with comparable qualifications if they fill a gap in experiences or culture that the company/team is missing. However, in fact, the reverse is true. If a team is oversaturated with, say, Indians, women, LGBT, etc., a straight American male candidate may be the preferred hire in that case. Should that white guy feel like he needs to justify his position?

      • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Getting rid of a DEI initiative doesnt fix any of that though. We’d simply go back to the times of, “oh who’d she sleep with to get this job?”

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 hours ago

        DEI is popular in finance. If a bank is engaging in polices to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion it is because it makes them more money than not following these programs.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I won’t say if I agree or disagree with you, but the argument you make is absolutely a legitimate one that we as a society should be considering in an ongoing process. Some level of forced integration was absolutely necessary after the end of slavery, but we all should want to live in a future where it’s not necessary at all. How far along that scale we are, and how we push further in that direction are questions that current policy discussions largely ignore.

        However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn’t want a reasonable national conversation on the topic. The noise coming from the right makes it next to impossible for these conversations to occur. Sadly, that’s why the politicians who rely on bigotry embrace that rhetoric, whether they are personally racist or not.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn’t want a reasonable national conversation on the topic.

          Aye, there’s the rub