i have an answer to this question you ask: "Is the left for or against DEI?"
now, i don't speak for the entire left, but my understanding is that most progressives would say they are for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
AND ALSO, folks on the right have taken the term and used it in a way that adds connotations of favoritism and a lack of merit in hiring, similar to how they once did with the term "affirmative action," when there are empirical studies demonstrating that such measures have helped make progress towards the goals of lessening the effects of a historically racist system in hiring (i read about it in the book "so you want to talk about race" which i remember being great, and very thorough with examples and statistics). neither DEI nor affirmative action has the goal of elevating unqualified folks, but that is how the right has painted it. "ah, an affirmative action hire." or "ah, a DEI hire." so, i think the intent (and the actual results) of such initiatives are what progressives want, and what they DON'T want is the negative associations that folks on the right have applied to the terms with their messaging (something i think you have written about, that they are good at).
I get it. But if you want there to be DEI hires then shouldn't you be proud of them? Your plan worked! When you are angered by the notion that someone is a DEI hire, then you effectively weaponize the issue for your enemies and reinforce their views. Also, one of the dumber things Biden did was say he'd appoint a black woman instead of just saying he'd appoint the best person for the job and then appoint her. That made it seem like tokenization instead of "best candidate possible."
I agree with you about that framing for Biden appointing her!
And I agree Democrats should try to be better with their messaging!
I think there are a lot of people out there being willfully ignorant and more into black-and-white (!) thinking than the nuanced truth of things, more people reading the clickbait headline than the actual information in the article, you know?
So if they said "Yes she is a successful representation of diversity, equity, and inclusion, for these very specific reasons," it's quite possible that folks on the right would just edit the clip or make the headline "THEY SAID THEY HIRED HER BECAUSE SHE'S BLACK." So, that could be why Dems aren't saying that, so instead they're doing the equivalent of saying "WE DID NOT JUST HIRE HER BECAUSE SHE'S BLACK." Which they're doing because the republicans have fairly successfully demonized the term "DEI."
This is my off-the-dome take here, as a non-political expert layperson.
"JD Vance (aka Thielbot 3000)…" Thielbot 3000" LMAO!! Gold!
dear matt,
thoughtful piece!
i have an answer to this question you ask: "Is the left for or against DEI?"
now, i don't speak for the entire left, but my understanding is that most progressives would say they are for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
AND ALSO, folks on the right have taken the term and used it in a way that adds connotations of favoritism and a lack of merit in hiring, similar to how they once did with the term "affirmative action," when there are empirical studies demonstrating that such measures have helped make progress towards the goals of lessening the effects of a historically racist system in hiring (i read about it in the book "so you want to talk about race" which i remember being great, and very thorough with examples and statistics). neither DEI nor affirmative action has the goal of elevating unqualified folks, but that is how the right has painted it. "ah, an affirmative action hire." or "ah, a DEI hire." so, i think the intent (and the actual results) of such initiatives are what progressives want, and what they DON'T want is the negative associations that folks on the right have applied to the terms with their messaging (something i think you have written about, that they are good at).
does that make sense?
thanks for asking, and sharing as you do!
love
myq
I get it. But if you want there to be DEI hires then shouldn't you be proud of them? Your plan worked! When you are angered by the notion that someone is a DEI hire, then you effectively weaponize the issue for your enemies and reinforce their views. Also, one of the dumber things Biden did was say he'd appoint a black woman instead of just saying he'd appoint the best person for the job and then appoint her. That made it seem like tokenization instead of "best candidate possible."
I agree with you about that framing for Biden appointing her!
And I agree Democrats should try to be better with their messaging!
I think there are a lot of people out there being willfully ignorant and more into black-and-white (!) thinking than the nuanced truth of things, more people reading the clickbait headline than the actual information in the article, you know?
So if they said "Yes she is a successful representation of diversity, equity, and inclusion, for these very specific reasons," it's quite possible that folks on the right would just edit the clip or make the headline "THEY SAID THEY HIRED HER BECAUSE SHE'S BLACK." So, that could be why Dems aren't saying that, so instead they're doing the equivalent of saying "WE DID NOT JUST HIRE HER BECAUSE SHE'S BLACK." Which they're doing because the republicans have fairly successfully demonized the term "DEI."
This is my off-the-dome take here, as a non-political expert layperson.
The answer is IT IS NUANCED!