I’m not sure it’s just length. Consider that one of the leading data points to push DEI was that those companies who scored better on diversity tended to be more profitable and successful. The charlatans jumped on this and mandated stuff without realizing it was a mindset, not setting thresholds that separated those firms.
I’m not sure it’s just length. Consider that one of the leading data points to push DEI was that those companies who scored better on diversity tended to be more profitable and successful. The charlatans jumped on this and mandated stuff without realizing it was a mindset, not setting thresholds that separated those firms.
My point is that countering the ills requires those types of easy to follow data point which I found missing in your piece. Take the antisemitism bits - there were equally people critical of Israel who were sent for re-education, it happened to someone senior at Creative Artist Agency. And to be clear, re education was the words used by the firm to describe the action they took! I don’t have the right data point but it exists if DEI was a bad idea.
As an aside, full respect for wading into the comments and exchanging respectfully with critics. To me, that says more than any article.
Yeah I don't think people should need re-education camps, that's fairly dystopian too. Can't we just all see and treat each other better, as American citizens. And I appreciate all perspectives here, I'm glad we can debate this issue openly (for awhile the mob would try to cancel you if you even broached the subject). This is how we get to better policy and perspective for everyone.
The federal government did not mandate private companies to implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the government may encourage diversity and inclusion through laws and regulations (such as anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act), it does not require private companies to adopt specific DEI programs.
Private companies typically implement DEI initiatives voluntarily, often because they recognize the value of fostering an inclusive workplace or because it aligns with their business goals, values, or industry standards. Some companies may also do so to attract diverse talent, improve innovation, or enhance their reputation in the marketplace. However, these decisions are driven by business considerations rather than federal mandates.
Government regulations, however, may apply to federal contractors or organizations receiving federal funding. For example, Executive Order 11246 requires federal contractors to engage in affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in employment. These requirements are not the same as private companies choosing to implement DEI programs independently.
Just look at the dismantling of DEI at the federal level that just happened. These things of course are signaling and trickle down. Note there has been litigation in California *against* policies that were overtly exclusionary. It's all going away anyway so doesn't matter now.
I’m not sure it’s just length. Consider that one of the leading data points to push DEI was that those companies who scored better on diversity tended to be more profitable and successful. The charlatans jumped on this and mandated stuff without realizing it was a mindset, not setting thresholds that separated those firms.
Whatever is more profitable to do, companies should absolutely keep doing it. This will honestly occur without state intervention.
My point is that countering the ills requires those types of easy to follow data point which I found missing in your piece. Take the antisemitism bits - there were equally people critical of Israel who were sent for re-education, it happened to someone senior at Creative Artist Agency. And to be clear, re education was the words used by the firm to describe the action they took! I don’t have the right data point but it exists if DEI was a bad idea.
As an aside, full respect for wading into the comments and exchanging respectfully with critics. To me, that says more than any article.
Yeah I don't think people should need re-education camps, that's fairly dystopian too. Can't we just all see and treat each other better, as American citizens. And I appreciate all perspectives here, I'm glad we can debate this issue openly (for awhile the mob would try to cancel you if you even broached the subject). This is how we get to better policy and perspective for everyone.
What state intervention?
The federal government did not mandate private companies to implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the government may encourage diversity and inclusion through laws and regulations (such as anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act), it does not require private companies to adopt specific DEI programs.
Private companies typically implement DEI initiatives voluntarily, often because they recognize the value of fostering an inclusive workplace or because it aligns with their business goals, values, or industry standards. Some companies may also do so to attract diverse talent, improve innovation, or enhance their reputation in the marketplace. However, these decisions are driven by business considerations rather than federal mandates.
Government regulations, however, may apply to federal contractors or organizations receiving federal funding. For example, Executive Order 11246 requires federal contractors to engage in affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in employment. These requirements are not the same as private companies choosing to implement DEI programs independently.
Just look at the dismantling of DEI at the federal level that just happened. These things of course are signaling and trickle down. Note there has been litigation in California *against* policies that were overtly exclusionary. It's all going away anyway so doesn't matter now.