Kemi Badenoch: Diversity policies should not "come at the expense of white men"

[AdamRyan]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1879473/kemi-badenoch-diversity-white-men/amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/kemi-badenoch-diversity-initiatives-can-be-ineffective-and-counterproductive-b2515403.html

Two links with different headlines but the gist is the same.

White men are disproportionately represented in a number of organisations (including the RAF which Badenoch highlighted). Any activity that increases representation of any other groups including women is necessarily therefore going to come at the expense of white men.

I know KB is anti-woke but I hadn't realised she was also anti-feminist. I cannot get my head round this statement at all. It's all a bit "people, know your place"

I mean, if you are arguing for meritocratic system where individuals aren't discriminated against according to the colour of their skin or their perceived ethnicity then I agree with you. I don't really view this as anyone taking a "hit" though. I suspect that most people entering the workforce (including white men) would agree that this is how they would want to be treated.

I think research has shown that wealth/poverty has a bigger impact on life prospects than other characteristics (race, sexuality and even sex).

That certainly accords with my own experience and observation.

I tick quite a few "boxes" - immigrant, mixed race, woman in a majority-male job subcategory, and I was one of very few girls taking my subject at uni. I had a single mum growing up.

Frankly, that same single mum was a high earner, and as a result I've coasted through life with ease. I'm not white but I'm aware I'm certainly more privileged than the majority of white people, men and women.

Edit to add - my point is, I've sat through a lot of EDI training crap that never touches on rich/poor, ever.

My company and my partners company (majority white, historically very white) are both making an effort to celebrate Ramadan with Muslim colleagues to share culture.

Were they actually asked if they want that? Because lots of the EDI go ott and do things to actually make other uncomfortable by forcing them to publicly in business setting celebrate their cultural events and differences, making them feel even worse ("the other", imposing etc). Not saying yours does, but I am an immigrant, while I enjoy telling people who are interested about my things, I would feel so uncomfortable having that foeced on everyone by HR.

Very fine line between inclusion and foeced inclusion.

The issue is that all employees should feel like there isn't certain employees are given favourable treatment for their identity.

Workplace cultures should be of benefit to everyone.

Instead many course are talking about oppressors and the oppressed. Our local school is definitely doing a good job of making 13 year old boys feel vilified and to blame for social ills. That's not ok.

To suggest this isn't happening is tone deaf.

If that's the case (and I don't believe it is), then why don't they just focus on improving groups that are falling behind in the same way that you allege is done for white men - without punishing others?

Sometimes I feel like FWR posters live on a different planet, or maybe lots of people have just been our of the workplace for a while.

Is it FWR thats on a different planet? Or you?

I love how you assume your position is the 'normal' one...

There is only a bias towards certain white men - middle class.

More white working class people would benefit from a meritocracy, which would drive DEI people mad.

From my and DH experience class makes massive difference (at peast the perceived one) by how people treated us so I gather it's the same for natives and can to an extent override racism/xenophobia.
However, as much as wealth may affect future outcomes, it's simply way too difficult to actually pinpoint it for it being protected characteristics.
Eg. An ok money family child may go to local maimly poor family lower preforming school. They will therefore be disadvantaged eventhough they are not poor. But they didn't get fsm etc. So based on current EDI forms, they won't fit. Or vice versa.
I don't fit and greatly and appreciate that few who have "didn't grow up in uk", because if I did we would totes be on fsm.
I also eat hummus, olives, pomegranates, sauerkraut, kefir and other "rich people" foreign foods while living in deprived are, wearing primark and using a bus. It confuses natives😂

Class is just very hard to pinpoint on many people unlike race, age or sex.

Also just to add about "there is no hoerarchy to protected characteristics"... There is. Age is at the bottom with so many exceptions.

You aren't asking the right question because you think that women coming out of training have fewer opportunities. They don't, they do as well as men at a similar level, or better.

That's a data issue it's nothing to do with a worldview as such, except insofar as you have this idea that bias leads to women not being hired rather than some other mechanism and you can't seem to consider any other possibility.

Everyone understands this.

But you are saying individual men should be actually penalized based on their race. Concretely. As in, losing a job to someone else of the target race or sex. I don't hire Dave, because he is a white male, I hire Ester, an Asian female, instead, because she is not white or male.

You have defended this practice throughout the discussion, so yes, it looks like you think it's a good thing. It's starting to seem like you are trying to backtrack.

No, I'm saying improving diversity is an acceptable "tie breaker" in the event of a dead heat.

I think improving diversity and moving to a genuine meritocracy is a good thing and I'm not very interested in mediocre white men and their handmaidens whining because it might make their life a bit harder.

Is it maybe swpf fulfilling prophecy here? Women (could) do ok in that situation but are told by other women they don't so the don't. Iyswim

The way you do this is not so much to 'protect" people on a class basis, as look to make sure people with less money have access to opportunity, and try to eradicate poverty.

Of course how to accomplish that is not totally straightforward, but good schools and access to higher education is a big one. Probably some kind of housing policy is another, IMO.

It also means that if, for example, black families are disproportionately poor, they will benefit disproportionately from programs like this. No need to target anyone by race.

And you avoid funding people like my friend's ex, who came from a wealthy family but was able to access all kinds of programs to pay for education and enrichment, because he fell into a target race groups. Which was a big waste of money and also it tends to create resentment among those who have less.

It is by law but when or how often do you actually have tie breaker that tight that it would fall under EA2010 s159 allowing it? Nearly never. No matter what "it was so close" rejection emails say

Good Lord - you have just said it is ok to not hire Dave because of his race - why are you still saying you are not saying that? It doesn't matter if it is a tie breaker or not, you are justifying giving places on the basis of race.

Do you not understand that race is a protected characteristic for everyone?

Why are you assuming Dave is mediocre, anyway? Does that mean Ester is mediocre too, since they are equal in terms of meit?

FWR posters assertions about "this kind of thing happens like this" (in this case EDI training, but various other topics too) are very far away from what I see and hear from everyone in the real world. I have a job where I engage with all sorts of people so it's a puzzle.

I'm not very interested in mediocre white men and their handmaidens whining

Woah this thread has escalated suddenly. Are you referring to Badenoch? Or someone on this thread.

Is anyone defending mediocrity on this thread?

Absolutely the accesa to opportunity must start early. School. Parents. Money.
There were studies that white wc boys don't get benefit like girla and poc children because of programmes aimed at them. All should be really accessible to all.
I believe that some of the diversity (not just race) programmes bread future issues. As you say about creating resentment, that grows to hate.

Unfortunately my experience working in majority white male environments is there is a lot of racism and sexism. You don't have to spend a lot of time discussing this before some man will start telling you why men are better adapted to Be The Boss/Understand The Difficult Things.

Remember the Google document? I hear views like that all the time. And these are the men who are interviewing and hiring. So yes, there is bias.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/google-memo-women-tech-biology-sexism

Anoyone who uses handmaidens on women who voice their opposing opinion is a lost ause or abtroll. Either way, wasteof time.
Or "cool wifes"
🤢

I think we need to also think about whether diversity is a thing in itself, or not.

I would argue that we want diversity in so much as it indicates that processes are fair. If the hiring doesn't reflect the population, it may be the hiring is not fair, which is a problem.

(Not always though, there are other reasons some jobs may not be attractive to some populations. That is not always a problem and will mean that you can't assume every workplace should have the same kind of demographics.)

Diversity in itself can sometimes be a positive for a workforce, and sometimes be a challenge or even a problem, but a lot of the time it's neutral. And what it looks like is pretty variable too, there are a lot of kinds of diversity that are not visible, or covered under EDI. No one should set up a factory in the middle of China and expect that it won't be staffed pretty much entirely by Asian people. Similarly parts of the UK are much more homogeneous. That is not a moral failing.

No, I said it's acceptable for companies to use diversity as a tie breaker if they want to. The evidence shows that diversity increases companies performance and a measurable impact on the bottom line, so why not use that?

If it was a female dominated company Dave would do better out of the tie breaker. If we were truly meritocratic it would be no biggie.

Your position is Dave deserves the job more than Sarah. That says a lot about you.

I think it's clear to me that you have a certain life bubble that is very closed and that you perhaps should talk to more people outside that life bubble.

You time and again are very dismissive of the life experiences of anyone else but yourself.

Handmaiden is an acceptable feminist shorthand for women who uphold patriarchy. Don't sweat it. I've seen it used on lots of threads here recently.

Do you not understand that race is a protected characteristic for everyone?

It would be a lot easier if race had an objective definition. Which it doesn't.

So your idea of race, may not equate with mine.

Meanwhile e=mc² anywhere and everywhere in the universe.