Is this racist

[Whoiam]

I am seeing many posts about Charlie Kirk being racist. I also note that there are references to his stance on DEI.

I am interested, is this racist nowadays?

https://youtube.com/shorts/8HDYrISA1TY?si=m7vBABFnGn-6uqBy

YABU- yes
YANBU-no

Its not saying a certain race is short or 'deficient' in some way - it's showing the fence was built at the height of only one group of people - i.e society has been set up so rich or white people have it easier in many ways. Equality would mean giving everyone a boost (so now already priveleged people get even more so) while equity would mean ensuring everyone has the same access levels to begin with, by removing the specific barriers society has put in certain people's way. DEI initiatives exist to try to level the playing field. But Kirk etc cant stand that so twist it into something sinister.

What people miss about DEI and all the pearl clutching of 'preferential treatment' is that biased hiring has always happened, just the other way round. For decades, when there was two equally qualified candidates 9 times out of 10 the company would pick the straight white man from a well off family, because his face fit. In our grandma's era women simply did not get hired for certain roles and a female ceo was absolutely revolutionary. DEI is just about trying to cut off those intrinsic biases where white wealthy men are more likely to hire people like them.

You need a strength of character to be able to acknowledge that you hold your privilege due to factors other than your own excellence. For Kirk to support affirmative action would have required him to acknowledge that white men win their success with a head start, and without that they may be outperformed. That would take a lot of self awareness and reflection from a 31 year old man with limited life experience outside of his privilege, plus the decency to think outside of his own self interest.

Absolute moronic bullshit.

What people miss about DEI and all the pearl clutching of 'preferential treatment' is that biased hiring has always happened, just the other way round

I don’t think anyone is missing the fact that DEI is about biased hiring, that’s exactly why people are firmly against it. It’s quite remarkable there are still those who defend these malign practices, luckily this is all on its way out now and good riddance.

But people who think like you and Charly Kirk never worry about the days when an inferior white would be chosen rather than an excellent woman or black person.

But people who think like you and Charly Kirk never worry about the days when an inferior white would be chosen rather than an excellent woman or black person.

But people who think like you and Charly Kirk never worry about the days when an inferior white would be chosen rather than an excellent woman or black person.

But people who think like you and Charly Kirk never worry about the days when an inferior white would be chosen rather than an excellent woman or black person.

What a utopian picture you paint. Such optimism. What proportion of schemes are run to such high standards so you think?

With quotas there is also the issue of how you choose your target group. It requires generalisations that assume ALL people from certain groups with the right colour of skin are disadvantaged in some way which is absolutely not the case and in many instances supremely patronising.

An inferior white? lovely phrase. So which races are we treating as disabled for these schemes and who decides?

It is quite clearly an enforced bias towards hiring certain groups of people. How many applications get dropped by screening at the first hurdle because they didn’t tick the right protected characteristic box? It should be illegal and probably will be in a few years.

People like me never condoned in the old days in the UK (and we’re going back decades now) people being discriminated against for a job role due to the colour of their skin. This also happened with women vs men when a woman was overlooked in favour of a man. DEI isn’t needed and just creates resentment and positive discrimination.

No it doesn't assume that all people with a particular skin colour are disadvantaged in the same way. No one with a shred of intelligence would think that a disabled POC had the same disadvantage as a POC who was not disabled for example. Or a woman as a man. Or a POC from a wealthy family as a POC living in poverty.
The focus of the initiative is on commonality not individual experience. The commonality being that there are patterns demonstrating that POC are disadvantaged because of their race, in a way white people are not.
This is not to say every single POC is highly disadvantaged, but that a pattern has been identified. Just as there are patterns to show people can be disadvantaged by being disabled, or female or due to their age.
Its possible of course that a POC who is fortunate not to have experienced too much disadvantage might 'slip through the net' and benefit from a training course. But in the process many more will be given a much needed levelling of the field.
POC who feel patronised by the schemes can simply not apply, leaving more opportunities for those who do see the value. I really think you're creating problems here.

I’ve been in a few interviews where one panel member has dismissed black or brown people due to their colour. In the last 10 years.

what should organisations do to stop those panel members if they have no EDi?

Enforce the panel to dismiss people due to their colour?

I don’t understand your post. What do you mean?

You could say that about lots of life circumstances. Class also plays a big part. A young white boy who has come from a deprived background without opportunities someone else from a different class might have had. A young girl who has been abused her entire life by family, leading to lack of self confidence. Should these people have access to the privilege of DEI?

Obviously you should have raised this at the time with HR or senior management. That is if you had proof, ie verbal, and you didn’t make assumptions.

Yes and they do. It’s a very underrepresented and missed opportunity within DEI but it is getting better. I am a huge advocate for working towards closing the class discrimination gap and there are initiatives in place that help a little- as they other poster said, the university example is a great one to get disadvantaged children at the table into the recruitment pool in the first place. It’s pretty early days though, I reckon it’s 20 years away from being as sophisticated as other DEi groups

It means that your answer to seeing people restricted from employment opportunities due their colour is to have policies to restrict the employment opportunities of people of a different colour. It’s just racial grifting and equality of outcome nonsense.

I didn’t need to. I spoke to the panel member and in one of those instances overrode him because she was the best candidate.

but your suggestion makes no sense. If there is no DEi why go to HR? What would they do?

My answer isn’t policies. It’s awareness and building structures and frameworks that reduce the impact and risk of discrimination

Oh dear. I hope you are joking. You know it’s not just about height, yes? It is a metaphor.

Can we be perfectly clear? Under UK law it is illegal to discriminate positively or negatively against a person on the grounds of any protected characteristic when selecting for a job role unless certain exemptions to the EA apply. If you think this is what the schemes involve, then you need to research them.
It would be naive to believe that the law removes all discrimination. It is after all very hard to prove. However I think its safe to say that if a white man fails to gain employment its vanishingly unlikely the reason will be because he is white or a man. Whatever he may prefer to tell himself.