To Think that Grad & Apprenticeships are now only for Diversity Candidates

My son is brown. He got into a grad scheme in finance after over a 100 applications. He has now converted that into a job at a global consultancy for 2026. His grades at A levels were 4 A stars and he got a first in his degree. He is currently doing a masters at Oxbridge.

Do you want to claim my son is a diversity hire?

It must be exhausting to get triggered by the very acknowledgement of racism. This isn't a myth, no matter how uncomfortable that makes you feel. There are lazy white/brown/black parents, no one is claiming that is the issue here. The pertinent issue is that any time a non white person achieves something there's always "what about the whites!" is exclaimed by some. This thread was/is about perceived advantage that poc have in the workplace, and it being claimed that an attempt to level up the starting line is to the detriment of white people. The way I see it, the working class boys don't even have space in this subject, because they aren't even meeting the criteria for the schemes. By all means start a new thread, it needs to be talked about.

I think there are two groups of people:

• Those who believe that everyone should have equal opportunities to participate in competition for uni places / work experiences / apprenticeships / jobs.
• Those who believe that some groups of society should be banned from such competitions, or drastically deprioritised, in order to give better chances to remaining groups.

Such groups can be defined by race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or social background.

I don't think these two groups will ever agree with each other.

Ironically, when the second group meet anyone sharing their views but in favour of another sex or race, they call them racists and sexists.

Feel free to post again, but whenever knife crime amongst black youth in London is discussed, white people and “the racist system” get the blame. But when people are discussing white children doing badly in school it’s a huge rush to talk about useless lazy white parents.

You mustn't have read them properly as the issue is far greater than boys "goofing off".

Men who are not white and men who are not MC don't breastfeed either, so don't have career interruptions, yet are under represented compared with white middle class men. A point so obvious to anyone with half their wits, I didn't think it merited pointing out. I apologise for over estimating you.
White middle class men are estimated to be 15% of the population. I imagine using the recognised identifiers of social class. FSM is not a social class signifier. Its simply a criteria used by some schemes to narrow down eligibility on financial grounds. Others schemes use parental occupation/education or postcode.

No one is framing women and poc as the barrier to success, it is the large corporations and even government organisations where the EDI department has lost sight of reasonableness, sanity and sometimes lawfulness that are the problem.

There is a significant group of kids in the middle of the two groups you describe. The ones from middle of the road family backgrounds, parents probably first in their family to go to uni, fairly stretched but on incomes. I know a number of these kids snd OP is right, they are struggling to get jobs and placements.

This clearly isn't true though, is it? White males dominate every profession and institution and power structure within UK society, so clearly they are highly employable and promotable. The white males who are struggling are a subset of white males. The WC disadvantaged ones. The wealthy privileged ones continue to do just fine.
Why is the most important factor that effects whether a white male is likely to be rise to the top of our society or be disadvantaged ignored in favour of pretending its his whiteness and maleness that disadvantages him?

Why are we framing women and POC as the barrier to his success rather than the MC, wealthy white males who are disproportionately occupying the positions he might aspire to?

yes Ive also heard this debated a million times it’s nothing new. White boy goofs off and dosent listen at school he just has shit white parents. Black boy dosent listen and goofs off at school it’s because the white teachers are racist.

White boy does listen and works hard at school and gets a good job he’s just “privileged” black boy does the same it’s because he’s hardworking and intelligent.

Everything is white peoples fault is nothing new

What are you on about?

It's mostly a skill/drive issue. Lots of white working class people I know don't bother at school. Entire generations see school at useless, refuse to go in, don't even do GCSEs. They have no drive whatsoever to learn and improve themselves. They'll happily claim benefits and then blame all the immigrants for taking their jobs.

Men who are not white and men who are not MC don't breastfeed either, so don't have career interruptions, yet are under represented compared with white middle class men. A point so obvious to anyone with half their wits, I didn't think it merited pointing out. I apologise for over estimating you.
White middle class men are estimated to be 15% of the population. I imagine using the recognised identifiers of social class. FSM is not a social class signifier. Its simply a criteria used by some schemes to narrow down eligibility on financial grounds. Others schemes use parental occupation/education or postcode.

You don’t address the points made regarding men not getting pregnant or breastfeeding so not having their career interrupted or that working class is based on fsm status in all these statistics which means earning less than £7400 per household a year.
You pulled 15% out of your ass crack

Blocking would be telling a group they can't apply for a job or deliberately not selecting them for a job because of their group. These things are illegal.
These schemes are not closing the doors white middle class males have always been able to enter jobs through. They are as equipped and entitled to apply for jobs as they ever were. The schemes are not jobs. They are just a means of allowing other groups to compete.
White males are 40% of the population. White MC males are around 15%. As far as I understand the OP, the scheme being complained about here is open to white males, just not white MC ones, because their over representation shows they don't need help to be able to compete fairly for roles.
I do understand what you're saying about the possibility of a racist backlash. But that's happening because people are misrepresenting the schemes. Using US terms like 'diversity hire' in a country where this isn't even lawful, conflating training and work experience opportunities and positive encouragement to apply for jobs with discrimination in selection.
The answer to that is to keep correcting these lies where we see them, not give in to racist/sexist/classist pressure.

And yes, I am aware that the right are misrepresenting and exaggerating EDI initiatives to further a racist sexist agenda that paints white males as victims. However I don't think the answer to right wing threat is appeasement by removing protections and support for disadvantaged groups.

It's not protections and support for disadvantaged groups. It's putting barriers and blocking opportunities for a group based on their skin color (white), sex (male) and social background. If the same was done against brown people it would constitute criminal offence, and absolutely rightly so. I understand that you don't see it this way and will never agree, but let's see what voters say in 2029. Reform's prospect terrifies me.
You also forget that winning a place when significant proportion of competition was just blocked from participating will leave you forever in doubt if you were a diversity hire. And people around you will think the same.

ETA: no, it's not 15% of population. White men are 40% of population.

Only about 15% of the population is white and male and middle class though, and this group disproportionately hold the top positions in our society.
No one is suggesting that being white male and middle class automatically makes a person LESS qualified, but if we look at outcomes for this group, and imagine that positions are gained only on merit, then we'd be forced to conclude that being white male and middle class makes a person innately MORE qualified for these roles.
I don't know about you, but I don't believe in the inate superiority of the white middle class male. So when I see their disproportionate success over other groups, I tend towards thinking there are other things at play that give them an advantage.
Its not about blocking them from jobs. It's about making sure that other people aren't blocked from competing with them for jobs because they weren't fortunate enough to have the opportunities and connections of being a privileged white male.
And yes, I am aware that the right are misrepresenting and exaggerating EDI initiatives to further a racist sexist agenda that paints white males as victims. However I don't think the answer to right wing threat is appeasement by removing protections and support for disadvantaged groups.

Did you read the links?

This clearly isn't true though, is it? White males dominate every profession and institution and power structure within UK society, so clearly they are highly employable and promotable. The white males who are struggling are a subset of white males. The WC disadvantaged ones. The wealthy privileged ones continue to do just fine.
Why is the most important factor that effects whether a white male is likely to be rise to the top of our society or be disadvantaged ignored in favour of pretending its his whiteness and maleness that disadvantages him?

Why are we framing women and POC as the barrier to his success rather than the MC, wealthy white males who are disproportionately occupying the positions he might aspire to?

Only about 15% of the population is white and male and middle class though, and this group disproportionately hold the top positions in our society.
No one is suggesting that being white male and middle class automatically makes a person LESS qualified, but if we look at outcomes for this group, and imagine that positions are gained only on merit, then we'd be forced to conclude that being white male and middle class makes a person innately MORE qualified for these roles.
I don't know about you, but I don't believe in the inate superiority of the white middle class male. So when I see their disproportionate success over other groups, I tend towards thinking there are other things at play that give them an advantage.
Its not about blocking them from jobs. It's about making sure that other people aren't blocked from competing with them for jobs because they weren't fortunate enough to have the opportunities and connections of being a privileged white male.
And yes, I am aware that the right are misrepresenting and exaggerating EDI initiatives to further a racist sexist agenda that paints white males as victims. However I don't think the answer to right wing threat is appeasement by removing protections and support for disadvantaged groups.

No, of course not. But certain cultures are very happy to let their children work all hours to ace the exams. I'm just saying, that perhaps there needs to be outreach programmes to poor, white boys as these are often the least likely to progress. Unless you're arguing that Indian and Chinese children have higher IQs? That would be quite contentious...

I think that being white, male and middle class does not make a person less qualified than anyone else. Which means these criteria must not be considered when selecting for any position.
If we're talking about positions being reflective of UK population, than 82% of it is still white. When you're trying to block significant proportion of population from getting certain jobs or educational places, this always comes back.

ETA: don't you really see that blunt approach like this, opening desired positions to diversity candidates only, automatically lead to rise of Reform and Tommy Robinson? If you're parent of white boy like OP, who did all things, worked hard at school, got good grades, and now can't even apply for many positions, will be at the very bottom of the queue for many unis who prefer to offer to diversity applicants, don't you really see that these families will be very tempted to vote far right?

By all means, do blind recruitment, but stop this nonsense

Why do you think it will 'bite us' if we end up with fewer middle class white males heading our society, and the people in the top positions become more reflective of the population? Do you think that being white, male and middle class makes a person particularly well qualified to perform the most responsible and powerful roles? Or do you think that women, WC people and POC may have be equally equipped to contribute at this level if barriers were removed?

White males were not allowed to be hired in my last job without going through a lengthy senior exceptions process (large banking IT department).

I think US firms had to stop DEI legally, so perhaps worth looking at US multinationals?

White middle class males you're talking about got there 30-40 years ago.

At present, unless we're talking about top level, specialist head hunted type of roles, this group is at the very bottom of every list. White middle class boys aren't even allowed to apply for many intern, apprenticeships, work experience positions.

This will come back to bite us badly. Saying this as POC.