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

But that’s the thing. Why would it take 20 years for DEI to be put in place for this kind of disadvantage, when it was quickly put through for other groups? Is there a push back on it by one group, who don’t want others to share their privilege?

I really think you are just dismissing problems here.

It all sounds so simple to you but clearly it’s not that simple or easy to do well. There have been countless issues with overreach, mis-targeting and the ignoring of other disadvantaged groups.

Absolutely. Here in the UK we have schemes to increase representation for women and for people from deprived backgrounds too, regardless of race. People whine about those being unfair to middle class white men too. But yes, I wholly support them.

We’ve got a law that protects against unlawful discrimination on the basis of race.

HR surely would have investigated your allegations and disciplinary would follow if it was found that the interviewee had deliberately discounted the candidate based on race. But DEI would have made sure in the first instance that the candidate would be picked for the job, regardless of whether they were the best person for the job. So totally different takes on the situation.

These structures and frameworks enforce discrimination. I’m only in my 30s, but I don’t remember any adverts for positions saying something along the lines of ‘..we particularly encourage applications from white people’. I think you’re letting your personal bias’s get in the way of being objective about this.

So, the flaw lies in the execution not the measure. As I said, educate and continue. If we simply gave up on everything just because there are problems to overcome we'd never see progress or achievement at all, would we?

Because the public don’t care about poor people. Society needs to change for DEI to be successful, and that’s like moving an oil tanker

People are of course going to whine about discrimination.

@AlasPoor, any chance of you addressing this post, which makes the point so well? Do you think this poster's son shouldn't have been given the extra support he got, given that in terms of innate talent he was manifestly the best? Do you accept that without the support, he would not be where he is now, benefiting his employer?

That's how these initiatives work when done properly.

I think you’re letting your lack of experience and knowledge get in the way of having a productive discussion.

Yes. He was extremely ignorant on the subject. DEI is not about hiring unqualified minorities. It’s about ensuring that highly qualified minorities who are the best candidate for the job are not blocked from that job because they are a minority.

Ironically, what Kirk and his ilk describe as DEI is exactly what Trump has done. He’s put completely unqualified people into positions of power purely because they are a certain skin colour, gender and political persuasion. Which is why the US currently has a government of unqualified bigots.

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.

Except that that exact thing has been happening in a number of organisations like the armed forces and city organisations - and that’s just the ones who have been caught out and it proven.

What reason can you think of that would make it necessary to particularly encourage white people to apply for a role?

Sorry, thought I did. No this seems entirely sensible and hasn’t discriminated against another group. I just don’t see not being white as a disability, its quite obviously just racist social engineering to push that idea.

I think lots of people don't realise the difference between UK and US application of positive action.

Re economic disadvantage. It took so long to even start on that because unlike sex, race, age, it is divine to absolute define. And then define the disadvantage it caused. Eg. Mum abroad grew up in poverty, but GM still very much encouraged her to make the most so she got good alevels and work (it wasn't standard to go to uni). Mum did better at school and work than some of her peers from better background. Hence why it's difficult to actually do schemes based on economic backgrounds because it could be easy to get them wrong.

I can’t think of a reason to encourage any particular race to apply for a role or discourage any particular race to apply for a role

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

But that’s exactly what’s happening. But not just against white men, but against white women too. Many companies are being pushed into a situation where they have quotas imposed on them, so it’s highly likely that to meet those quotas, there’s going to be positive discrimination going on, whatever people like to tell themselves. DEI would probably have been a good thing to have 30 years ago. But it’s now no longer needed. IMO.

Please tell me how many white men have failed to secure roles solely due to these initiatives? Because if you want to persuade people this is harming white men, you need to show patterns that clearly prove white men have unlawfully lost out to less qualified women and/or people of colour in significant numbers.

Lots of people on the thread have explained this. You may not agree with the reasons, but if you read the thread, you will certainly be able to think of them!

Do you have to show patterns when it’s by design? The ideas behind it is to get people with certain characteristics in jobs rather than people with other characteristics. That’s the aim. A job is zero sum, if it goes to someone else because of DEI then someone has lost out.
It’s straight forward.

Let’s be honest, there’s never going to be a collection of figures or statistics to prove this is there? I guess it would go under the label of collateral damage. Something necessary to progress the privilege of others.

You are the one who asked me !?!

I asked you if you can think of a reason why a company may not have felt the need to particularly encourage white applicants, but may have chosen to particularly encourage POC to apply. You stated you couldn't and I pointed out the thread explains why employers may particularly encourage POC.
The short answer being, they want their staff to be more representative of the population rather than being disproportionately dominated by white men.
You may not see a problem with white middle class men disproportionately holding the highest status most powerful positions in our society. Personally I think society has room for improvement and I'd like to see what people who aren't white middle class men can also bring to the table.

representative of the population rather than being disproportionately dominated by white men.

This is just a different way of saying we want less white people and more non white people in jobs, less men and more women in jobs and we want to introduce policies to achieve this. I’m agreeing with you, that this is the aim of these policies. I’m just disagreeing that discriminating based on race and sex is in anyway a good idea.