That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories.
* UC Berkeley received 893 qualified applications
* Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate.
If someone seeks to disprove the claim that 76% of applicants were rejected based on their diversity statements, they can find alternate figures for the numerator and denominator and offer reasons why their numbers are more authoritative.
> That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories.
3 out of the four companies I've worked at engaged in explicit discrimination on the basis of gender. As in, alternate interview pipelines where women got multiple chances to pass coding interviews where men got one. And one company even augmented that approach with outright withholding a portion of headcount for "diverse" applicants (which was defined as women and URM men, and in practice women made up over 95% of "diverse" applicants).
If you haven't been witnessed to discriminatory DEI practices, that's fortunate for you. But that's not been the experience of many people. DEI is widely perceived as a dogwhistle for discrimination, because it often is used to refer to discriminatory hiring practices, and I don't think condescension is a way to convince people otherwise.
As I said, the entire DEI thing smacks of hysteria and paranoia. Frankly, DEI programs do very little, in general.
I have seen a lot of guys overvalue their skills and undervalue others and then blame "DEI" instead of their own mediocrity.
The companies hiring had gender quotas to meet, so this was one field where they filled a lot of their quota. Our class was exactly 50% men, 50% women. I worked my ass off, we were graded 1-6 where 6 is best and I had all 6es except one 5 in one class.
Everyone applied for apprenticeships to Statoil (now Equinor) and from our class they hired one guy with literally perfect grades, and nearly all the girls. Over 80% of the girls were accepted, girls with a grade average of 4.2 compared to my 5.9 got the job. I didn't and neither did any of the other guys in the class except one.
But I think I was also a beneficiary of DEI, because my boss once told me I couldn't quit because I was the only representative of my race in our department.
I hear all these arguments about how DEI is misrepresented, it's all about making sure everyone feels welcome at the workplace and people aren't discriminated against for their appearance, name, background, etc. It's about introducing diversity of thought to challenge the status quo and avoid group think (good luck expressing any moderately conservative opinion at any of these places though). It's also marketed as making the workforce better reflect the customer base so as to create better products for all. I am completely supportive of those aspirations and feel that DEI programs have done more harm than good in advancing them.
Many people quietly become upset when they see the comparatively mild practices like I have described. They start to wonder if they're going to be targeted unfairly during the next round of layoffs so some manger can help to improve their team's diversity score. They wonder if it's going to be more difficult for them or their kids to get a job. They don't like how any criticism of these programs is silenced and/or dismissed as racism/sexism/fascism/etc. Resentment builds, our society becomes more polarized, extremist views become more palletable, and they take their frustrations out at the ballot box.
