If you're all about diversity ...

So, just trying to follow your logic:

It's sensible to reduce requirements for doctors and pilots in order to increase diversity in terms of race (because black candidates can't meet the old requirement? I guess?)

If someone thinks this is a bad idea, they must be a racist who thinks black people can't make good doctors?

That is some pretty odd logic.

I kind of wonder when white wc men were top of the heap? It's not just glib, it's inevitably trotted out to justify racial discrimination.

The problem with this is that it is the same reason most of the kids who aren't white are disadvantaged - they are poor and working class.

The underlying assumption in a lot of these initiatives is that if there are disadvantaged people who are black, it's because they are black, and so programs target that. When in fact the problem is working class boys struggle. There are lots of middle and even upper middle class kids who are not white, and they do very well. (In some cases, these are primarily the kids making use of special programs, even though they don't particularly need the help.)

What they have done is cause a division among those working class kids, and it is absolutely transparent to the kids.

They should be targeting kids who need the help in programs with no racial component. It means helping those who need it, across racial lines, it doesn't stoke racial divisions, it doesn't direct money to kids who actually have plenty of advantages already.

It’s about recognising, and taking action to address, opportunity gaps - not skills gaps.

Your comment reads as actually pretty racist, implying people of colour in roles as pilots and doctors are unsafe and incapable.

Would you say the same about women in the UK parliament, some of whom were empowered to reach that position via DEI initiatives like all women shortlists?

The underlying principle of DEI is to ensure equality of opportunity by noticing and addressing places where opportunity has previously been unequal.

It’s not an erosion of meritocracy - quite the opposite. It enables merit to win out no matter what skin colour, ethnicity or sex it comes packaged up in.

🤣
I don't think its possible to include "political views" in diversity stats.
That's tickled me 😂

Quite. I've worked in tech for a long time and this is true

Something I think is never really addressed is that if eg a company is to fully embrace diversity then it needs to accept the full diversity of views and beliefs held by the population. And some of those people will hold views that those pushing diversity will disagree with, or find very uncomfortable.

When people push for diversity they’re often advocating for a particular type of diversity. My workplace is a pretty left leaning liberal organisation. If it actually wanted to be more diverse we should aim to employ more Reform voting, Brexiteers. Funnily enough that’s never mooted in discussions on how we increase diversity.

This week has been an Eisteddfod, a Welsh festival of culture, poetry, song, etc., in South Wales. Usually attended by mainly Welsh speakers as most of it is in Welsh. The poster features four characters, which I can only assume hit the DEI quota but sadly completely miss most of the actual demographic of Welsh speakers attending. The characters are a child POC, a woman in hijab and POC, a white boy in a wheelchair and a bearded white man.
I am not represented.

Having worked in a number of tech companies I can tell you the sector is overwhelmingly white and male. Whatever they say about diversity some companies only want to hire a very specific type of person, and that person is usually white and male.

I don’t think it is a given that ‘privilege’ works like this and imo the way it plays out cannot be tracked clearly enough in many cases to make diversity initiatives fair or worthwhile.

Much of what is happening is not through official DEI schemes, it is more a general consciousness/virtue signalling. The way it plays out is really strange - see the over representation of black actors compared to Asian actors (who are a much bigger demographic in the UK), for example.

I think DEI is just a racket. Go hard on actual discrimination, nepotism etc and leave everything else to take care of itself imo.

That’s not the reality at all.

The reality is long lasting benefits at a class level, that are perceived as the norm by those who benefit due to being a member of that class.

Societal privilege is experienced at populations levels, and benefits may well not be noticed or perceived by individuals.

When the class privilege is noticed, and addressed, previous beneficiaries cry discrimination.

As an example, think of all the men who protest about initiatives to even out positions of power and influence, like the judiciary, parliament, or corporate leadership.

Ah, you have flown back to strut around and knock over some more pieces? 🐦

Oh won't someone think of the poor white men

When a woman was added to the team of pundits covering rugby on RTE [Irish TV channel], there was an online outburst of 'Political correctness gone mad!'* 'Just there because she's female!' 'What does she know about rugby? She's just there to tick the diversity box!'
And so on and so forth - till somebody pointed out that this clueless random woman who knew nothing about rugby and who got the job solely to tick the diversity box was in fact the captain of the Irish team which had won the World Rugby Championship...🙄

*for our younger readers, 'political correctness gone mad' is what 'woke' used to be called.

Very glib, but the reality is in many cases the individuals who had their ‘privilege removed’ never personally benefitted from it, even if their demographic had up to that point.

The removal of privilege is often felt as discrimination by those who benefited from the privilege.

And yet I can find loads of initiatives/grants and support for BAME (hate the term) POC and girls yet non aimed at white boys of any class.

Off you fly then

Sure Start. The Tories axed it.
Pupil premium. Still there.

It's not because the boys are white or male, it is because they are poor and working class. I'm not aware of loads of DEI initiatives in schools (other than for Class in primary eg FSM opens up doors to additional funding) Class does need to be looked at and in the civil service for example it is being monitored and the levelling up agenda is looking to address but as per a lot of CS agendas, a lot of it is lip service.

Where are all the initiatives for white working class boys in schools?
There aren't any, And you saying that they aren't being discriminated against just adds fuel to the tates of the world that have found away to make money out of this.

🙄
Not really. Your posts are making it very clear who you are and I'm not in the mood for playing pigeon chess today.

You tell me where we are discriminating against white men? Wanting a diverse workforce representative of the population is not discriminating against white men. I've already said some organisations are a bit over zealous with their DEI initiatives but even then you'll find it's lip service as their statistics do not show what you think they should.