If White Women benefit from DEI the most, then why are we mad at Trump for getting rid of it?
- Thread starter Hov
- Start date
Clearly the only faith he knows is faithfully hitting that METH pipe
Thank you. There are those of us that have busted our asses to be where we are in life. Meanwhile, in my experience, most of us want to be catered to with handouts and acting like victims and shyt but NEVER applied themselves to be in a better position.
It's 2025... get off social media, learn a fukking skill on that same phone, and get to where you want to be. Nobody is holding us back but ourselves. I'm so sick of my people...
We coulda closed the thread after this reply. Common freaking sense
Last edited:
get these nets
Veteran
NobodyReally
Superstar
This is what White people and brainwashed Black people say because at the root of this argument is a fundamental belief that if you remove DEI people will see you as equal. This is false and it's been proven false. When applicants with the SAME qualfications are presented to recruiters with only their names changed, the "Black sounding" applicants are over 70% more likely to be rejected. SAME qualifications. This also holds true when the "Black sounding" named applicants are MORE qualified. White recruiters STILL choose the less qualified "White sounding" applicant. This study has been done multiple times over the past 30 years and the results don't change. White recruiters, managers, HR reps are RACIST. They don't want us even when and sometimes ESPECIALLY when we are qualified. DEI is a policy linked to the 1964 Civil Rights Acts which enforces nondiscrimination because fundamentally, no matter how hard you work, White people will choose White people for positions because they are uncomfortable with us, especially when we are put into positions of power.
NobodyReally
Superstar
White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds
April 11, 20245:00 AM ETBy
Joe Hernandez
A sign seeking job applicants is seen in the window of a restaurant in Miami, Florida, on May 5, 2023.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Twenty years ago, two economists responded to a slew of help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers using a set of fictitious names to test for racial bias in the job market.
The watershed study found that applicants with names suggesting they were white got 50% more callbacks from employers than those whose names indicated they were Black.
Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Chicago recently took that premise and expanded on it, filing 83,000 fake job applications for 11,000 entry-level positions at a variety of Fortune 500 companies.
Their working paper, published this month and titled "A Discrimination Report Card," found that the typical employer called back the presumably white applicants around 9% more than Black ones. That number rose to roughly 24% for the worst offenders.
The research team initially conducted its experiment in 2021, but their new paper names the 97 companies they included in the study and assigns them grades representing their level of bias, thanks to a new methodology the researchers developed.
"Putting the names out there in the public domain is to move away from a lot of the performative allyship that you see with these companies, saying, 'Oh, we value inclusivity and diversity,'" said Pat Kline, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who worked on the study. "We're trying to create kind of an objective ground truth here."
America Reckons With Racial Injustice
From Jobs To Homeownership, Protests Put Spotlight On Racial Economic Divide
The names that researchers tested include some used in the 2004 study as well as others culled from a database of speeding tickets in North Carolina. A name was classified as "racially distinctive" if more than 90% of people with that name shared the same race.Applicants with names such as Brad and Greg were up against Darnell and Lamar. Amanda and Kristen competed for jobs with Ebony and Latoya.
What the researchers found was that some firms called back Black applicants considerably less, while race played little to no factor in the hiring processes at other firms.
Dorianne St Fleur, a career coach and workplace consultant, said she wasn't surprised by the findings showing fewer callbacks for presumed Black applicants at some companies.
"I know the study focused on entry-level positions. Unfortunately it doesn't stop there. I've seen it throughout the organization all the way up into the C-suite," she said.
St Fleur, who primarily coaches women of color, said many of her clients have the right credentials and experience for certain jobs but aren't being hired.
"They are sending out dozens, hundreds of resumes and receiving nothing back," she said.
What the researchers found
Much of a company's bias in hiring could be explained by its industry, the study found. Auto dealers and retailers of car parts were the least likely to call back Black applicants, with Genuine Auto Parts (which distributes NAPA products) and the used car retailer AutoNation scoring the worst on the study's "discrimination report card.""We are always evaluating our practices to ensure inclusivity and break down barriers, and we will continue to do so," Heather Ross, vice president of strategic communications at Genuine Parts Company, said in an email.
AutoNation did not reply to a request for comment.
The companies that performed best in the analysis included Charter/Spectrum, Dr. Pepper, Kroger and Avis-Budget.
Life Kit
Workplace Diversity Goes Far Past Hiring. How Leaders Can Support Employees Of Color
Several patterns emerged when the researchers looked at the companies that had the lowest "contact gap" between white and Black applicantsFederal contractors and more profitable companies called back applicants from the two racial groups at more similar rates. Firms with more centralized human resources departments and policies also exhibited less racial bias, which Kline says may indicate that a standardized hiring workflow involving multiple employees could help reduce discrimination.
When it came to the sex of applicants, most companies didn't discriminate when calling back job-seekers.
Still, some firms preferred one sex over another in screening applicants. Manufacturing companies called back people with male names at higher rates, and clothing stores showing a bias toward female applicants.
What can workplaces — and workers — do
Kline said the research team hoped the public would focus as much on companies doing a bad job as those doing a good one, since they have potentially found ways to remove or limit racial bias from the hiring process."Even if it's true, from these insights in psychology and behavioral economics, that individuals are inevitably going to carry biases along with them, it's not automatic that those individual biases will translate into organizational biases, on average," he said.
St Fleur said there are several strategies companies can use to cut down on bias in the hiring process, including training staff and involving multiple recruiters in callback decisions.
Companies should also collect data about which candidates make it through the hiring process and consider standardizing or anonymizing that process, she added.
St Fleur also said she often tells her job-seeking clients that it's not their fault that they aren't getting called back for open positions they believe they're qualified for.
"The fact that you're not getting callbacks does not mean you suck, you're not a good worker, you don't deserve this thing," she said. "It's just the nature of the systemic forces at play, and this is what we have to deal with."
Still, she said job candidates facing bias in the hiring process can lean on their network for new opportunities, prioritize inclusive companies when applying for work and even consider switching industries or locations.
Of course a Coli c00n finds this funny
Black folks still into disabled American, vets and alphabet. Their main goal for removing these programs was to hurt black people and native Americans.
The way evil cacs think, they will drive themselves into poverty to hurt those two groups..... seeing as we (rightfully) hold the most disdain for non-allied Whites
Gritsngravy
Superstar
I think the main issue is they got black folks front and center trying to defend dei
When really I haven’t heard one white woman stand up for dei
When really I haven’t heard one white woman stand up for dei
Gritsngravy
Superstar
I think that’s op point, it needs to be understood that dei is not a black thing
Yeah "DEI" was a total failure across the board. While I don't think we should be cheering it's downfall, we aren't doing any favors to ourselves fighting for it the way we are. Let the others fight for it. The returns we got from the initiatives nowhere near justify the current fight I see folks waging for it.
It honestly seems like the only things that are actually being accomplished by our "DEI" fight is that "DEI" is somehow looking like a black program and now "DEI" is being weaponized to remove actual programs that benefits us.
It honestly seems like the only things that are actually being accomplished by our "DEI" fight is that "DEI" is somehow looking like a black program and now "DEI" is being weaponized to remove actual programs that benefits us.
Tribal Outkast
Veteran
The question is
If white women benefit the most from DEI then why do they want it gone so badly? Get some infighting going on with them.
If white women benefit the most from DEI then why do they want it gone so badly? Get some infighting going on with them.
