Facts vs. alternate reality. It still amazes me why people readily abandon facts to promote their narrative. No ethical backbone to truth. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the latest incident with Boeing is, once AGAIN, due to cost-cutting and a lack of FAA oversight. And I'll reiterate why Musk is on this DEI must DIE train. He despises regulation. (In reality, he doesn't care about diversity either way; a colored trans slave is still a good slave.) He aims to maintain total control over his workforce with no oversight or regulations. Currently, he's involved in a lawsuit to completely dismantle the NLRB (an independent federal government agency that enforces US labor laws), arguing that the agency is unconstitutional. He's banking on conservative judges ruling in his favor, effectively putting an end to the enforcement of all US labor laws that protect workers. DEI serves as a convenient political vehicle in pursuit of his goal to shift cultural, social, and legal adjustments in his favor. The unwitting populists on the right blindly follow him, not realizing that he is eroding protections for the majority of them. Loose bolts open door to racism - by Tesnim Zekeria (popular.info) On January 5th, a Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft operated by Alaska Airlines was forced to make an emergency landing after a door panel flew off mid-air. As the investigation unfolds, however, far-right pundits and news outlets are ignoring the facts and focusing on theories rooted in racism and sexism. In a video uploaded to X, right-wing blogger Matt Walsh suggested that “diverse mechanics” employed at Spirit AeroSystems, the company that manufactures the Max 9 door panel, were to blame for the incident. Walsh claimed, without evidence, that incompetent “diverse mechanics” were hired instead of “experienced” mechanics. “DEI is destroying the airline industry, and lots of people will die because of it,” Walsh told his 2.6 million followers. In a different post, Walsh criticizes women engineers at Spirit AeroSystems, saying, “What they lack in skill and engineering capability they make [sic] for in sass!” Others have also decided to blame the Boeing blowout on diversity policies and, more explicitly, people of color and women. Right-wing commentator Ian Miles Cheong said, “The 737 MAX was put together by a team of 'diverse' engineers. Boeing is hiring based on DEI. No surprise that they’re falling apart.” And Wall Street Silver, a popular far-right account, claimed that “DEI is going to result in a crash costing the lives of hundreds of people.” Elon Musk amplified these claims on X. The tech billionaire promoted a post on “Boeing and DEI” from James Lindsay, a right-wing figure who has peddled “white genocide” conspiracy theories. Musk wrote to his 169.3 million followers, “Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening.” These arguments quickly migrated onto Fox News. "Attention Boeing executives, DEI must die, not passengers on your plane," Fox Business host Sean Duffy announced. "This is a dangerous business when you’re focused on DEI and maybe less focused on engineering and safety." But this narrative has no basis in fact. Both Boeing and its supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, are not particularly diverse. Boeing reports that in 2022, minorities made up 35% of the workforce. At Spirit AeroSystems, minority representation was at 26% in 2022. This number shrinks as you move up the corporate ladder: less than 17% of the managers at Spirit AeroSystems are minorities. At Boeing, the number of minority executives dropped in 2022 compared to 2021. Spirit and Boeing also employ three times more men than women. The Max’s troubled history also predates DEI efforts at either of these companies. Following the Max crashes of 2018 and 2019 that killed a total of 346 people, numerous reports have highlighted the flawed design and rollout of the Max, which first flew in 2017. A 2020 House Committee on the Max crashes concluded that “Boeing failed in its design and development of the Max, and the FAA failed in its oversight of Boeing and its certification of the aircraft.” And yet despite all this, somehow diversity policies—which mostly emerged after the 2020 social justice protests—are the culprit. This isn’t the first time far-right personalities and outlets have resorted to this line of attack. Last year, a Republican lawmaker blamed the Ohio train derailment on Norfolk Southern’s “focus on DEI.” Right-wing media figures also blamed the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on its “woke” policies. Both claims were swiftly debunked by experts. While the specific cause is still to be determined, the facts suggest the Boeing incident was related to poor quality control standards, not diversity efforts. Long before the door flew open, workers had alerted their bosses of safety problems — but their warnings went unheeded.
It's also not like non diverse work forces haven't had issues of quality control or engineering issues. The US auto industry was far less diverse in the 1970's and took some big lumps. Companies like Zenith weren't very diverse and they couldn't innovate and compete and aren't around. The idea that having a bunch of white guys in short sleeves and ties like in Apollo 13 means great engineering is a nice story but we know that behind those men where several black women who were working as humans computers to make much of the Apollo program work. Diversity in and of itself doesn't mean bad engineering nor does it mean good engineering. What matters is standards. You can have an all white male workforce that can be inefficient and uncreative just as you can have a very divorce workforce that is efficient and innovative. There is even a good argument that a non-diverse workforce is less innovative because they are more prone to group think.
There absolutely is. There are years of substantial research that backs this up. A diverse workforce innovates better. Companies don't pursue diversity just for the sake of it. They do it because it's not only morally and ethically right, but also beneficial for their company. That's why companies actively promote diversity. Political attacks on it might slow that trend down a bit, but ultimately, they will do what's best for the company, not for politicians (unless, of course, politicians have significant coercive control over them - as we've seen in attempts like FL, which so far have failed).
Political slogans are for those who can't make actual arguments. And, of course, when the facts aren't on their side, slogans away.
I'd like to emphasize another point. Individuals who completely disregard facts and truth are acting unethically. Such disregard is generally not tolerated in any profession. While it may be more prevalent in the political sphere, contributing to the negative perception of politicians, I argue that by the same logic, any person who readily pushes a narrative and disregards facts is demonstrating unethical behavior.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/statutes/civil-rights-act-of-1964 excerpt: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. more at the link
Facts and truth. DEI is discrimination. Merit-based decisions instead of racial segregation are what's needed.
United airlines spent more money on stock buybacks thus last decade than any other airlines and the same morons blaming DEI have no issue with corporations literally spending tens of billions of real money on artificially inflating their stocks. Unbelievable. It's just amazing to see how culture wars destroy people's brains into pieces. Makes the smartest people's into complete utter dipshits. DEI must die but stock buybacks which we spend 100x more than salary can totally stay! It's Unbelievable how effin stupid the right is
here's an interesting one De Piero v. Pa. State Univ., Civil Action 23-2281 (E.D. Pa. Jan 11, 2024) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/65a363614aacbf7ab8690273 Memorandum Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former writing instructor at Penn State University’s Abington campus, brought discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims against the University and multiple officials after he complained publicly about required antiracism and educational equity trainings, and then resigned when he was issued a performance expectations notice for disrupting another training. In dismissing plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim, the court held that reduced performance evaluations and the performance expectations notice were insufficient to support his claim of constructive discharge. Though the court noted that “[t]raining on concepts such as ‘white privilege,’ ‘white fragility,’ implicit bias, or critical race theory can contribute positively to nuanced, important considerations about how to form a healthy and inclusive working environment,” it permitted his hostile work environment claim to proceed, finding that his detailed assertions regarding multiple trainings he was allegedly required to attend in which race was discussed “with a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language” were sufficient to allege pervasive harassment. In dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that plaintiff’s challenges to the facilitators of the workshop for which he was issued a performance expectations notice were unprotected personal complaints rather than protected speech on matters of public concern.
no, actually 100% correct. In-house counsel, who is the employment attorney for an organization with 18,000 employees, has to constantly remind her clients that discrimination by race etc. has been illegal since 1964. Hard stop. Period. wishful thinking doesn't make it otherwise
I don't know what you've been reading, but here's a news flash: discrimination is illegal, and employers are trained not to discriminate. Well, perhaps I'll adjust my evaluation a bit: 80% strawman, 20% confusion.
and yet employers routinely break the law when hiring. News flash: in-house counsel is constantly reminding her clients that their own hiring practices violate the law.
Wow. Had no idea that white grievance was his schtick now. (Not that I keep up with many comedians.) Interesting. Thanks for posting. Whichever ways I feel about DEI and this thread, that standup bit was not very funny. But I'm not sure he was ever known for his stand up exactly.
