254

What Republicans really mean when they blame 'DEI' (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

The term "DEI" (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has become a coded way for Republicans to conceal their anti-Black racism, echoing past racist dog whistles.

This parallels with Lee Atwater’s 1981 admission that conservatives used abstract terms like “states’ rights” to mask racism.

Today, figures like Alina Habba, Tim Burchett, and far-right influencers use "DEI hire" to discredit qualified Black figures.

The media's failure to challenge this rhetoric allows racism to persist, making "DEI" a modern substitute for explicit racial slurs.

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 129 points 4 months ago

The insinuation that if you see any woman or person of color in a position of power, prestige, or even competence, they got there because of identity politics and not their own merit, is directly bigoted, not even concealed by the first or second degree. The corollary, of course, is that you can only trust white men to do these important jobs correctly.

[-] Naz@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 months ago

This idea is so gross that I don't even want to entertain it mentally.

Thank you for your lucid and crystalline explanation though, internet stranger.

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago

Someone (I think at Do) literally said the “we need white men in charge” line out loud in those words.

[+] snakedrake@lemmy.world -20 points 4 months ago

Isn't this why DEI needs to be pulled back though?

People of color and women do get their status on their own but the policy of DEI implies that they got additional assistance even if they didn't. This policy robs them of their achievements and it generates as much resentment towards protected groups as it provides protection. You can't just tell the people not to feel resentment, or you'll get republicans in office forever. We should start advocating for class based workplace assistance rather than dividing ourselves up by race and sex. You'll help out basically the same people, but you'll get class solidarity.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

DEI isn't a hiring quota or mandate to prefer a minority candidate over a non-minority candidate. It is the mindset that different experiences, backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints provide more variety and richer ideas than a single homogenous set, and as such, those differences should be considered as a positive along with other qualifiers as part of the hiring process. A company that values DEI still hires straight white men (speaking as one who works for such a company), as ours is still a viewpoint that should be represented and adds value. But they may also choose a minority candidate over a white male candidate with comparable qualifications if they fill a gap in experiences or culture that the company/team is missing. However, in fact, the reverse is true. If a team is oversaturated with, say, Indians, women, LGBT, etc., a straight American male candidate may be the preferred hire in that case. Should that white guy feel like he needs to justify his position?

[-] Bgugi@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

The practice you describe is explicitly illegal in almost all employment circumstances in the United States.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 9 points 4 months ago

I won't say if I agree or disagree with you, but the argument you make is absolutely a legitimate one that we as a society should be considering in an ongoing process. Some level of forced integration was absolutely necessary after the end of slavery, but we all should want to live in a future where it's not necessary at all. How far along that scale we are, and how we push further in that direction are questions that current policy discussions largely ignore.

However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn't want a reasonable national conversation on the topic. The noise coming from the right makes it next to impossible for these conversations to occur. Sadly, that's why the politicians who rely on bigotry embrace that rhetoric, whether they are personally racist or not.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

However, we also have to contend with the fact that overt racism is still rampant and that a large part of this country doesn't want a reasonable national conversation on the topic.

Aye, there's the rub

[-] Sc00ter@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

Getting rid of a DEI initiative doesnt fix any of that though. We'd simply go back to the times of, "oh who'd she sleep with to get this job?"

[-] Yodan@lemm.ee 53 points 4 months ago

DEI, Woke, Left, Commie, etc are all the same word to them. There will be a new one too don't worry. It always means "stuff I don't personally like for either a religious or hateful reason and you can't convince me otherwise" and it's just a boogeyman of stories and ideas that never actually happen irl but somehow get quoted and shared around as if it were a real thing and then uninformed people get scared and vote for strong daddy man.

It's so dumb and telegraphed, make it stop already.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago

Meanwhile, people on the Left will spend weeks arguing the difference between Socialist and Social Democrat.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah... the nitpicking in-fighting from people that spend waaaaay too much time delineating groups rather than working for a common cause was particularly fun in the last election. "We're not the Judean People's Front! We're the People's Front of Judea!"

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 38 points 4 months ago

There's a tradeshow a client of mine is attending where the DEI talk has been rebranded "Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion" — JEDI.

Thought that was kinda clever actually.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 30 points 4 months ago

[-] Birdie@thelemmy.club 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They ALWAYS think DEI means hiring an inferior, less qualified person instead of the superior, more qualified white man.

That is because they cannot and will not believe any other race or sex could ever be equal to or better than the lowest white man.

They are certainly racist, they always have been and always will be. As far as I am concerned, every Republican is racist, and if they ever hire or appoint a POC or a woman, it's tokenism, not because they truly believe the hire is the best person for the job.

[-] misfitx@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

They mean civil rights. Our rights are being taken away.

[-] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 months ago

"DEI" is GOP's hard 'r'.

[-] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago

The R in republican stands for racist

[-] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Remember my friends, when Nazis started to control the Jewish population of Germany, the first restrictions inacted were limits to where the Jewish people could work, specifically it limited a Jewish person’s ability to be hired for a government position based on the bullshit notion that Jewish people weren’t as reliable as a German person. This was known as, “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" of April 7, 1933.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/anti-jewish-legislation-in-prewar-germany

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago

N*****

[-] thevoidzero@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's why I keep saying banning a word or making a world "not professional" doesn't do anything as long as people's though doesn't change. Like saying "don't say black, say african American" doesn't make them suddenly like them, they'll still be racist. Changing words will just make them use a new word to mean the same thing.

Yeah there might be emotional things about certain words and not wanting people to use it can be understandable. It might be a step is a direction if it's to be less humiliating or be inclusive. But just saying "don't use this word, use this word instead" will make the new word mean the same thing with same derogatory meaning if people use the new word derogatorily. Now DEI has become that new word, and instead of claiming the word back, owning it, people might go "don't say DEI" and come up with a completely new acronym while trying to "heal" from the past administration.

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025

254 points (99.2% liked)

politics

24085 readers

2291 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News