Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Fried Egg]

Quite simply, is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) an example of the Orwelian concept of Doublespeak?
According to Wikipedia, “Doublespeak” is:

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs and "servicing the target" for bombing),[1] in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth.

It goes on to say:

The term "doublespeak" derives from two concepts in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, "doublethink" and "Newspeak", despite the term itself not being used in the novel.

So why do I suggest that we should view DEI as doublespeak? Because, it is a deliberate attempt to obscure and disguise the true intent and meaning of the framework that its advocates seek to establish.

They say they champion diversity but in its name seek to divide us into groups of different identities (and strengthen our awareness of such identities). They seek a diversity of representation from the various group identities whilst simultaneously seeking to silence diversity of opinion, to silence those considered to have a privileged group identity.

They speak of equity when in fact they are concerned only with equality of outcome, which necessitates deliberately treating people un-equally based on which group identity they belong to (i.e. affirmative action).

They talk of inclusion when in fact they mean exclusion of those who say things (or who’s mere presence) makes others feel unsafe or who state beliefs outside of the orthodoxy.

The words of “diversity”, “equity” and “inclusion” are all nice sounding, friendly words that are used to package up ideas and concepts (such as critical justice) in order to help them be easily accepted by the wider population, in order to claim the moral high ground and in order to claim that their detractors must be immoral (as surely you must be immoral if you oppose the concepts of diversity, equity or inclusion?) It is a movement that has attempted to put into practice ideas and philosophies quite apart from (and often in direct opposition to) the common place associations most people have with these words.

This is why I think DEI is an example of Doublespeak.

[Sy Borg]

This is a sign of the degradation of academic institutions. Once, the brief was (ostensibly) to teach people to think critically. Now critical thinking in academia is forbidden; one must follow the script or be "cancelled".

[Mounce574]

I agree that DEI is doublespeak. The fact that an unqualified person is hired based on any attribute (race, gender, religious, etc) instead of a qualified person that doesn't fit in the category is why we, in the United States at least, have so many things that are in lawsuits for negligence. I would much rather hire Bill the straight white guy who knows what he is doing instead of Muhammad from the Middle East that doesn't have a clue about what he is working on. (These are generalizations, so please don't consider this as being negative towards any one group).
In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids. DEI doesn’t elevate minorities with teaching or training to meet employment qualifications; no, DEI either reduces the employment qualifications until minorities qualify or prioritize their race over qualifications."

[Sy Borg]

In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids.

Exactly right. I worked in HR for some time and we had affirmative action programs that I agreed with. Each year, we'd gain a subsidy to hire an Aboriginal trainee, and help that young person get established in the work scene. It was a good system. However, every other position in the organisation was filled via merit, although there's always some measure of cronyism and nepotism.

That's how affirmative action should work, not as an overall hiring policy. Any deviation of merit is ultimately an act of self-sabotage.

The question is, why are the west and its corporations self-sabotaging?

[Mounce574]

In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids.

Exactly right. I worked in HR for some time and we had affirmative action programs that I agreed with. Each year, we'd gain a subsidy to hire an Aboriginal trainee, and help that young person get established in the work scene. It was a good system. However, every other position in the organisation was filled via merit, although there's always some measure of cronyism and nepotism.

That's how affirmative action should work, not as an overall hiring policy. Any deviation of merit is ultimately an act of self-sabotage.

The question is, why are the west and its corporations self-sabotaging?

The Supreme Court overturned Affirmative Action in June 2023. Biden chose to create the DEI to counter that decision. Groups like Black Lives Matter started a big protest about it. The United States is highly volatile with people protesting different things and turning them into riots. Biden stepping down is a positive but the election is going to be interesting this year between Kamala Harris and Donald Trunp.

[Sy Borg]

In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids.

Exactly right. I worked in HR for some time and we had affirmative action programs that I agreed with. Each year, we'd gain a subsidy to hire an Aboriginal trainee, and help that young person get established in the work scene. It was a good system. However, every other position in the organisation was filled via merit, although there's always some measure of cronyism and nepotism.

That's how affirmative action should work, not as an overall hiring policy. Any deviation of merit is ultimately an act of self-sabotage.

The question is, why are the west and its corporations self-sabotaging?

The Supreme Court overturned Affirmative Action in June 2023. Biden chose to create the DEI to counter that decision. Groups like Black Lives Matter started a big protest about it. The United States is highly volatile with people protesting different things and turning them into riots. Biden stepping down is a positive but the election is going to be interesting this year between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Thanks for the info. That looks like capture of the Democratic Party by identity politics. Basically the opposite of what the party is supposed to represent. Helluva choice.

As an old school lefty who believed in merit, egalitarianism and judging people by character, I find current focus on race, gender and sexuality nauseating. DEI is almost exactly the same as old school bigotry, except with new targets. The only difference is that, bigotry was more a dirty corner of society, now all of the academic institutions and media are blatantly prejudiced and bigoted, and churning out more and more young bigots every year.

[Pattern-chaser]

Among other things, I see here, quite clearly, the American dislike of government, and of any approach that could be described (by the sensationalist press?) as a 'nanny state'. Not that I am defending such an approach, I merely note an antipathy here toward it. As some are talking of misdirection — claiming one thing, but trying to do quite another — isn't this just one more misdirection?

[Sy Borg]

Among other things, I see here, quite clearly, the American dislike of government ...

Pre-emptive strike? Wrong thread? There don't seem to be any special comments on govt on here.

[LuckyR]

I agree that DEI is doublespeak. The fact that an unqualified person is hired based on any attribute (race, gender, religious, etc) instead of a qualified person that doesn't fit in the category is why we, in the United States at least, have so many things that are in lawsuits for negligence. I would much rather hire Bill the straight white guy who knows what he is doing instead of Muhammad from the Middle East that doesn't have a clue about what he is working on. (These are generalizations, so please don't consider this as being negative towards any one group).
In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids. DEI doesn’t elevate minorities with teaching or training to meet employment qualifications; no, DEI either reduces the employment qualifications until minorities qualify or prioritize their race over qualifications."

I'm not certain in what context "unqualified" candidates are selected, it would be enlightening if an example could be provided. In the cases I'm familiar with, there is an overabundance of candidates who meet the selection criteria, ie they're all "qualified". That's the standard scenario in high demand situations such as entry into medical school, law school, Ivy league universities, tenure track professorships etc. Say Blacks are 10% of the population but are 5% of qualified medical school applicants. No matter what anyone does 75% of all of these qualified applicants won't be selected. In the distant past 1% of the class was Black, later 5%, it never reached 10%. Would it be OK if it was 10%?

[Sy Borg]

How about Claudine Gay as an unqualified appointment? Her output is nowhere near what it should have been for a person in that position. Further, her doctorate was largely plagiarised - and the plagiarism is worse than reported. She based a lot of the work on the work of a single former colleague, Dr Carol Swain, who had left her tenured post due to mistreatment.

Would Claudine Gay have been given the position if not a female black activist? Not a chance.

[Lagayascienza]

Do we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of DEI? Is it all really some grand conspiracy by the radical-looney-left? Or is there a place for addressing historical injustices whilst not hindering promotion on merit?

[Fried Egg]

Do we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of DEI? Is it all really some grand conspiracy by the radical-looney-left? Or is there a place for addressing historical injustices whilst not hindering promotion on merit?

This is a good question. Has DEI merely gone too far and just needs to be reined in a little? Or is it fundamentally unsound, rooted in a misguided ideology?

I think we can all agree that systemic discrimination against groups of people is wrong and should be addressed. And even if we manage to banish present day systemic discrimination that does not address historic injustices. But then introducing systemic discrimination in favour of historically disadvantaged groups doesn't address them either. The problem here is the preoccupation / obsession with group identities. Individuals (not groups) in the past suffered injustices and cannot compensated for by bestowing benefits upon a new set of individuals (that just happen to share the same group identity). We only introduce further injustices today against those individuals that lose out (because they are judged to be of a "privileged" group identity).

It is a perfectly valid question to ask what can be done to help those today who are presently disadvantaged to give them a leg up. As long as we don't base this assessment of need on their group identity. And DEI is rooted in a paradigm that sees the world through the prism of group identity and relative power structures. So I believe it cannot be reigned in or have its excesses curbed. It is a fundamentally flawed and bad way of looking at the world and needs to be rejected wholesale.

[Fried Egg]

Among other things, I see here, quite clearly, the American dislike of government, and of any approach that could be described (by the sensationalist press?) as a 'nanny state'. Not that I am defending such an approach, I merely note an antipathy here toward it. As some are talking of misdirection — claiming one thing, but trying to do quite another — isn't this just one more misdirection?

See my post above. One can support the idea of the government doing things that helps people compete in the labour market effectively (if they are judged to be disadvantaged) whilst still opposing DEI.

Besides which, DEI has taken on a life of its own and is now a lucrative industry (projected to be worth 24.3 Billion globally by 2030). Many companies employ DEI consultants, not because the government obliges them to, but because they have bought into the idea. Therefore being opposed to DEI has very little to do with being opposed to government intervention.

[Pattern-chaser]

Among other things, I see here, quite clearly, the American dislike of government ...

Pre-emptive strike? Wrong thread? There don't seem to be any special comments on govt on here.

???

The topic itself seems to be about the imposition of overly-Liberal policies or standards being imposed by a faceless external authority, although government is not mentioned explicitly, just as DoubleSpeak is not mentioned in Orwell's novel. Look:

Quite simply, is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) an example of the Orwelian concept of Doublespeak?

...

So why do I suggest that we should view DEI as doublespeak? Because, it is a deliberate attempt to obscure and disguise the true intent and meaning of the framework that its advocates seek to establish.

They say they champion diversity but in its name seek to divide us into groups of different identities (and strengthen our awareness of such identities). They seek a diversity of representation from the various group identities whilst simultaneously seeking to silence diversity of opinion, to silence those considered to have a privileged group identity.

If I am mistaken, well, that's happened before...?

[Sy Borg]

Do we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of DEI? Is it all really some grand conspiracy by the radical-looney-left? Or is there a place for addressing historical injustices whilst not hindering promotion on merit?

If you look at the situation for all identified minorities, things had been steadily improving for them without DEI. There was no need for this accelerated affirmative action. Further, the nations where DEI divisions are most intense are the ones where such minorities are treated the best.

As a Caucasian Australian male, Lagaya, YOU need to do better. That is what you are being told. YOU are responsible for violence against women and racism against whomever. These things are all your fault. That is why, if you have a son, he will passed on for jobs based on his gender and skin colour.

The whole game is based on misrepresentations. White privilege? No, that's majority privilege - and it is vastly less ruthlessly enforced than Muslim privilege in the ME and Africa, black privilege in many African nations, Han privilege in China, Hindu privilege in India etc.

How about the gender pay gap? If you count hours worked, there is no gap. The hourly rate is the same. However, you will NEVER see a complicit media provide the proper information, just as they keep presenting charts with a non-zero axis to make false points. I worked in data analysis for a while, so I am very familiar with this stuff. I analysed such things over extended periods.

It's very simple. Merit selection. The most experiences, qualified and skilled person for the job. Subsidised traineeships for young Aboriginal workers are useful bridges for but, that too, should be competitive and awarded on merit. That is, those who who the most potential.