A solid Ted Talk here-where inclusion can lead to a diversification of ideas. My biggest problem with DEI is its premise of fighting systematic racism with more racism. It’s exchanging a set of problems with the same set of problems-it doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, as a Blackman, I wouldn’t want the uncomfortable spotlight of DEI placed on me in the workplace. Fortunately, I’ve worked at the same place for seven years and I can definitively say that all of the perks I earned on my job was because of the hard work I’ve put in over the years-not because I was a “model minority” that they decided to throw a bone to. When you in a workplace, where everyone have a singular objective, it should be about the quality of talent more than anything.
How is it racism? This premise honestly baffles me. How is including more marginalized people in a company a threat to the less marginalized? And please don't say anything about "merit." How many highly qualified women, minorities, LGBTQ candidates, etc., have been turned away over the course of history, in favor of a white, male, and/or straight person who is less qualified?...
@@airenmarie1250 Because by hiring someone on the basis of their skin color, you’re missing out on “more qualified” individuals across the board-regardless of race. Don’t get it twisted, I understand that “some” companies who employed predominately white people been doing preferential hiring for years. But the best way to counter that is by showing your talents and speaking out when you feel like you’re being undervalued. But the moment you do under-represented or minority based hiring, that means giving preferential treatment to a group of people at the expense of others. It opens up the possibility for racism and discrimination to continue-only in reverse. My skin color and ethnicity “should” be merely a cultural marker. I shouldn’t jump in front of the line of anyone who are more qualified than me to do a job. When it comes to a job like “Counter-Terrorism”for the Pentagon, I’d rather have the job because I take the safety of the nation seriously and I’m qualified to handle a job as critical as that one. That’ll make me more confident in my abilities than being a “minority hire” that they just threw in the position-but I don’t have a single clue in what I’m doing. DEI is reversed discrimination and racism no matter how you slice it.
@@airenmarie1250 Just to be clear, "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews are disproportionately forced to give up their seats under race-conscious policies -- in spite of the long history of discrimination they have faced. It's quite literally institutional racism and antisemitism against minorities.
@@airenmarie1250 Just to be clear, "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews are disproportionately forced to give up their seats under DEI and affirmative action policies -- in spite of the long history of discrimination they have also faced. How is it not racism, or antisemitism?
@@airenmarie1250 In practice, "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews are usually the hardest-hit under DEI and affirmative action policies, in spite of the long history of discrimination they have also faced. How is that not racism?
Respectfully, no this is not.What DEI gets wrong is the idea that the most important qualities of a worker are their skin color, gender, or sexuality instead of their sense of hard work, business savvy, and intelligence. When people hear that airlines are hiring pilots based on their skin color and not on their ability to fly an airplane, it makes consumers "push back" as he said.
This concept makes the same problem every single DEI promotor makes, and that is that it entirely ignores merit from the discussion. You CANNOT force diversity and sustain merit based performance if merit based performance is not the goal. DEI completely ignores the scientific, biological fact that everyone is NOT possible of performing the same job or at the same level. And yes, i watched the entire video.
It does not, in fact, do that. It also doesn't make the mistake of assuming every place is 90% white or asian because those are the best for the job or the highest level.
Bro, you take 3 people who met the required level of merit. One of them is black, choose the black one. No one is just outright disqualifying merit? How can you possibly ignore the fact that ALL THREE MEN would have to meet a merit requirement??
Did I hear him correctly? If 10 people working on marketing optimization, the same company should have 300 working on DEI?! I need someone to make this make sense to me. Yes, I did watch the full video
I am also curious if this means like 300 dedicated people to just DEI? Or if it means, like, all employees have some aspect of actively working on it? I need more clarification.
It’s an absolute joke. Imagine all the people running around policing and micromanaging every action comment and thought. It sounds like an absolute nightmare.
His point is that dismantling practices that promote exclusion should concern everyone in a company, instead of being just a task of a DEI officer. It's not different from safety. Companies do have a safety officer, but detecting and fixing unsafe situations is a responsibility of every employee.
I don't think he meant those numbers literally...he's point is simply you should be investing in people more than you invest in marketing cause in the end its the people that will build the products, services and company as a whole.
There's an implication that if you include your team in the process of remove barriers, they can exercise their full potential. Assessing merit needs to come once you've stopped getting in the way, as a manager.
@@andy_fs1 talk about it as much as you want. I have zero issues with talking about it. My problem is this "fix" of giving jobs to the people who check the boxes, instead of to the best qualified people, actually makes things worse.
@meanderinoranges Diversity, equity and inclusion is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. It also covers people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, skills and expertise.
I'm going to tell this guy and anyone who has a company, how to make more money. It's called "meritocracy" and it should always come first. That is how you get the best results: by hiring the best person for the job. Color/race, gender and sexual preference should always come last, period. Now, of course, often times, meritocracy is also a bit of an idealistic and naive way of viewing things because it does get bypassed by the biases bosses have towards a certain person; because people sleep with their bosses and get the job, etc and "the best person for the job" may be subjective, but i still know certain places where the most qualified get the job. Or at the very least the one who makes the most effort in the work place. Meritocracy, just like any other system of hiring is not and will never be perfect, but at least it's the most fair. I would hate to be hired because of the color of my skin. It would actually be offensive and demeaning to me. It would not be rewarding in the least. I hope my comment isn't gone soon. You know how in todays world you can't disagree with something/someone without getting censored or labeled a racist, mysogonist or homophobe; even when you do it with logic, facts and respectfully.
If diversity was that beneficiary to companies, it wouldn't need to be forced, it would happen naturally. Asians are ridiculously over represented in Silicon Valley companies compared to the national average and I'm sure there's DEI at play there too, but at this point it's working against them, they're there because they earned it.
DEI does go too far with its focus on equal outcomes. But the notion that we live or have ever lived in a meritocracy wherein the best person gets the job solely on the basis on their education and experience, is laughable. Pure msrirocracies do not exist. They never have. They are a romantic notion and nothing more.
I don't think the guy in the video would inherently disagree with u, what he's saying is that it should be ensured all employees are treated fairy and equaly, in order not to lose opportunity on a basis of trivial qualities.
@@igorsenayoutube Because when people are hired for reasons related to DEI, they aren't getting the job because they deserve it and are the best person for the job. It's usually based upon things that are completely IRRELEVANT to the job at hand 🤷♂️ DEI = Didn't Earn It
You might think you're funny, but all your comment tells me is that you don't know the demographics of Harlem and/or didn't pay attention to that sign behind the speaker.
He started off good by recognizing DEI is artificially forcing the presentation of the desired goal instead of fixing the root issue, so the system produces the desired goal. He uses analogy of lighting a match and holding it near a thermostat to show a rise in temperature instead of actually heating the building to cause correct temperature reading. However, he continues and demonstrates a logical error which is common amongst DEI activists. This error is seen often enough that it's hard not to think it is intentional trick to reinforce his claims. He presents stats about demographic representation at different levels of company showing that the longer the career and more senior there are fewer women and non-white people are at those positions. At around 7:00 he claims this decrease is CAUSED by the company not being inclusive and makes it appear as if it is the ONLY cause. This is also based on the measurement of inclusion which is indirectly inferred by measuring exclusion. It is true that lack of inclusion may be contribute to people leaving. However, there are other factors such difference in women's interests or difference in abilities from prior experience or education that are also significant factors. Some women go into the workforce because that's what society told them they should want only to later realize that have more interest in people and their family, so they opt to leave. For other non-white males he recognizes that many were artificially added to the entry level positions to present the desired representation, and therefore they are less likely to be seen at the higher levels because the competition increases the higher you go up and they may not be able to perform at the level of their peers, thus choose to leave for a better fitting role
No. The problem is that the E of equity is only measured in terms of results (usually in terms of percentage of people of a particular gender, melanin level, background etc.) when we should focus on equity of opportunities. Give all candidates a test representative of the job that they'd have to fill and get the best ones.
Just remember- anything you do that adds some value or happiness or love to society is going to be regarded, via the test of time- as GOOD. No matter what people may say or think in the current moment, the test of time is the real result. The taking away from, the causing of hurt, the inflicting of pain, even acting punitively in the course of “righting of a wrong”, doesn’t actually “right” any “wrong”, and is just as EVIL. Good will only ever add - it’s ACCRETIVE universally- to all of us. Anything else? Anything else is just EVIL hiding as GOOD…. My friends and loved ones, that is evil’s entire career - and the only way it survives despite the efforts of kind and loving people - it will always be masquerading around in “good’s” clothing… you never see it until you’ve enabled the evil to where it hurts everyone equally.
I'm a simple creature but let me ask a question. If the problem has been that some people get an unfair advantage and others are unfairly disadvantaged, why is there such a push for the groups to switch places as supposed justice and payback, instead of just removing the unfairness which would actually be fair and balanced?
The simple answer is because the imbalance has been so profound and so out of balance for so long it's going to take purposeful actions to create that balance that was lacking from the beginning. Once you actually get to equity and not "equality" then there is no more need for specific policies. But that is not America and has never been America except for those already favored.
This is sort of addressed in the video and sort of not, but a lot of companies grow and that growth should fill in gaps in knowledge, "diversify the portfolio". If you think it's about payback, you didn't watch the video.
@@ajwalker4416 Let's consider that some people are inflating their victimization, and put them aside. Now we have actual victims and actual victimizers through, humor me, 'applied privilege'. Is it better to now give the applied privilege to the victims to use against their victimizers, or remove the ability to apply privilege in the first place? Shouldn't we be removing policies that do this instead of adding new ones that just do the same thing in reverse proportions?
@@ajwalker4416 That's a very simplistic, almost Black vs. White way of looking at the issue. It becomes much more complex when you consider the impacts to other groups. For example, it's usually "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews that are disproportionately impacted by DEI/AA policies -- in spite of the long history of discrimination those groups have also faced. If White men are used as the benchmark for success, then we're effectively penalizing any minorities that happen to outperform the benchmark. It doesn't really make sense.
The problem I see in human relations and organization is affinity bias and hierarchy. External differences are easy to see and shuffle, but what about who people are personality wise? Look at distributions in hierarchy. Once we get above a certain level we see a preponderance of dark triad spectrum. Having minorities in those positions doesn't make the difference one might think. We need to promote people into leadership that aren't on that spectrum. Robert Sapolsky has made discoveries in this with a natural experiment he stumbled upon. Changing this transforms culture. Diversity needs to take into account temperament/personality. Unfortunately those at the top perpetuate who fills those positions. They don't want people that aren't like them at some level.
The problem with DEI, which I believe the speaker did not clarify, is that DEI initiatives and policies became a haven for Violent Activists. If these Activists can't get their act together, then expect further decline with job growth in the company. Hiring people based on Merits should be the basics to keep the business afloat.
This mans content echoes what I have witnessed in the tech sector: Many women, POC are hired - only to find out the job isn't nearly as interesting or rewarding as they anticipated. Even though it is incredibly easy for a woman or POC to win a job over their white male "enemy". They've become disengaged to the point where it's harder to find them & fill the company quota than it was a few years ago. No one in the companies I've worked in *ever* offered subtle hints of disapproval towards women or POC. If anything, everyone was additionally patient / careful not to interrupt and more. During meetings, the white guys had no problems taking shots at each other, but steered clear of any conflict when it came to other genders & races. That itself is awkward and unbalanced. Another thought: Imagine entering a workforce under the umbrella of DEI. An individual who was already combatting imposter syndrome might feel even more like an imposter. DEI is simply terrible. Performance is simply wonderful.
Watched it all the way through, and I have to agree that if DEI was applied in a way similar to this, a lot of the backlash (some justified and some not-justified) could be avoided. Solid Ted-talk. Highly recommend watching all the way through before forming an opinion.
Watched through it. Its incredibly idealistic. Talks about the price of people not as likely to stay leaving will cost much for businesses while not really realizing that theres more cost to trying to pander to each thing those people would want/need. Cost-benefit ratio for companies do not compute. Just hire the right person for the job regardless of background/race. If it turns into a diverse company, then thats great.
@@tri-edge4309 it was definitely idealistic but most think pieces like this are. I think there is definitely some positives to be garnered from this approach while also hiring the best person for the job and nurturing/developing the staff that you have. I feel the positive messaging of DEI has been lost in translation (as is often the case) in part by poor explanation, lack of clarity, hyperbole and bad faith actors on all-sides of the conversation. I hope we can reach a happy middle ground eventually.
@@RAWTAGSFXT Positives from DEI are lost when going from theory to reality. That reality is they look more at what a person can't change, like skin color, instead of what they can, like skills.
Exactly! When we look at job market statistics and see that white men get an extremely disproportionate share of the best jobs, we can't help but conclude that there's an "entire system created to get people hired based on their skin color or gender instead of their resume and character". It is past time to dismantle this system and start hiring people based on merit.
Exactly! When you look at the job market stats and see that people of a certain skin color and gender get a disproportionate amount of the best jobs you can't help concluding that there is an entire system created for that. It is past time for us to dismantle that system and ensure people start being hired for merit.
@@generalnawaki , hmm... All data clearly shows that in the current system, white men are disproportionally favoured. They get better jobs or are paid more for the same job when compared to non-whites, women, LGBTQ, etc, even when qualifications and experience are similar... I thought you were against a system that hires people based on their skin color and gender... I guess I got that wrong...
@@kidscancode8895 I am, though because its a system you approve of I must seem quite the enemy. That I do not talk about it benefitting white people ( bit of nebulous terms that by the way ) because so many other people already are, so I will skip the obvious preamble about how white people benefit from it too and go to the major problem that is DEI which gets people who are in no way shape or form qualified for jobs hired to them simply because a quota needs to be met.
Starting with "what is a white, cisgender, heterosexual, fully privileged guy doing talking about diversity and inclusion?" is a great way to make me stop this video.
Those examples of things that people said are good examples of an underlying issue with those people's attitudes. I do see an inherent problem with measuring 'inclusivity' though. There are more variables determining the position people hold in a company than demographics. The only thing race or gender could factor into is a choice not to hire or promote them or to include them, but there are numerous other factors determining whether they are even there to begin with. Like nobody has ever asked me to dance, but I don't go to dances so there would be no possible way I could be asked. Its not discrimination that I have never been asked. I have worked in highly inclusive work environments where half the mid-level leadership were women and 1/5 were of color, precisely proportional to the local demographics, but they had a really hard time meeting those goals due to a lack of applicants. In my 10+ years there I worked with three different office administrators, all female, and all three of them studied for human resources and later worked in HR. The only men in that role were temporary hired hands for when the regular girls needed a vacation. One guy worked in an HR team of 5 over 10 years and was studying for something else so he eventually moved on. Its not due to lack of diversity or inclusion on part of the company that no men ever applied for those positions. This is a phenomena in all fields, I was in service desk and we had lots of men but only one woman over the course of a decade. We had plenty of men of color but no women of color. That problem can't be solved internally. I have also worked in a government organization that is 95% women and all levels of leadership up to the national director are women. This is in provincial health laboratories where the manager and site director of the lab, the district manager and the provincial health director are all women. How does that happen? Discrimination is not the only reason a role or profession might be disproportionally one race or gender, and so you aren't measuring 'inclusivity' that way, you are just measuring proportionality which might have other causes besides inclusivity.
And DEI makes sure ppl of color who qualify by merit are given an opportunity. Without it, very qualified ppl are over looked based on their skin color.
right, but how does one judge merit? DEI is an idea that arises from the belief that the system isn't actually based on merit, and that privleged groups such as white men, have advantages that don't allow people from these underrepresented communties to be actually judged on their merit. If a company is 90% white men, do you really believe everyone is their based on thier merit, becuase if you do that means you believe white men are just inherently the smartest(zero studies support a genetic link between intelligence and race/gender). DEI is not a quota system, it's policies to improve the ability for companies to hire based on merit, while factoring in the fact that the current system is not equitable.
I agree with him to a certain extent. I think he’s right when he says that companies that prioritize DEI today tend to focus only on the D. Which doesn’t produce good results. And in a workplace, it obviously makes sense that you shouldn’t be discriminated against. But I still think that DEI is tends to produce racism. When you think back to Martin Luther King’s speech where he said that people shouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, I can’t see how DEI agrees with that statement. You should get the job because you’re hardworking, capable, efficient, talented and so on, not because you happen to have a different skin tone that makes you part of a minority.
Dude this whole video is about him agreeing with that statement… his point is that diversity itself isn't the issue. There are plenty of qualified minority candidates for these jobs, but they often feel excluded in their work, causing them to leave and that’s why you get an disproportionate amount of straight white males at the top of company’s. The solution isn't to hire a large number of less qualified but diverse candidates, but rather to create an inclusive and valuing environment for the qualified ones already there, so they choose to stay. Seriously, just watch the video before you speak lmao
And here is yet another example of people using that ONE quote wildly out of context to prop up their own misunderstanding about race in America and what this guy said in the TedTalk 🙄🙄 I really wish people would stop misquoting Dr. King and only using that one quote to deny a serious look at the issues and lasting effects of racism in America.🤬🤬
Before MLK said that he also said “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” & “We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one” & neither police brutality or classism have been systemically confronted or substantially addressed in law.
Hmm. Seems my previous comment disappeared. At any rate, Dr. King continues to be one of the most misquoted people when people are trying to deny or downplay the racial disparities that DEI is trying to correct. Could and should it be done differently? Absolutely, but to drag one quote into the debate as a way to dismiss the entire debate, especially when Dr. King had so much more to say even around that specific quote is being purposely disingenuous. Dr. King's "dream" of not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is a dream that was not realized when he said that part of his speech and has not been realized since. So to speak as if it has already happened because he said it is the part that is purposely disingenuous on your part. That dream has clearly not yet been realized and one should not speak as if it has.
Diversity is ok when it means variety however that isnt what people really mean when they push DEI initiatives. What they really mean is favoring anything that is non cis male as those are considered the oppressive class within Western society. If you want variety then it should be based on quality not quantity. Leading us next to Equity being that instead of allowing individuals to able to flourish or fail on their own merits that we should interfere on the behalf of fairness. Best example is participation rewards replacing being rewarded for actually winning. When companies and groups are left with Diversity hires that dontt merit being there. Equity is applied. Inclusion the desire that they are meeting all the checkboxes and that they are seen as allies. Its cultural marxism disguised as being progressive. Racism, Sexist etc decorated with a pretty bow.
What goes wrong is instead of avoid excluding qualified individuals from opportunities because of their race, gender, cultural background, the system entitles unqualified individuals with opportunities because of their race, gender, cultural background.
this is exactly what he's talking about. Anything that a company that causes someone to feel excluded because of their personal characteristics is shooting themselves in the foot. When you say people are entitled and unqualified there's something wrong in the company culture that's not making those employees you're talking about feel included.
I think some corporations get so big that they think they are too big to fail, and they can get away with lowering their hiring standards. But this is wrong, no one is too big to fail. Disney thought that no matter who they hired, everyone would still watch their brands like Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar. But billions on losses later, they are going to be forced to make changes because even their massive amount of money will run out eventually. As long as we are in a capitalist economy, businesses need to be competitive to survive, and DEI makes them less competitive. It isn’t any different than a sports team, if a team recruited based on identity instead of talent, they would never stand a chance against other teams
One needs only to observe nature to realize that diversity is a strength; or read our constitution to realize that equality is written in to it; or to follow the moral compass within any decent human being whose azimuth points to inclusion.
Those who discriminate will suffer the consequences of passing up on more qualified candidates. Those who do not will succeed. Since this is the case these efforts are useless. Simply hire the best person for the job. That is all.
When I hear a company is taking up the DEI policies, I know from past experience to no longer shop with them or use your services, because the quality will no longer be to a high standard
I dont understand why LGBTQ has to be included in DEI. It's a sexualized characteristic. Should we also ask straight, women, etc. What their sexual preference is?
Because LGBTQ people also are excluded in the workplace. Overlooked for hiring and advancement just like any other group that isn't a white male protestant. Like the guy said, if you're straight, you don't know what being gay is like and how we can be excluded and targeted in the workplace. So how about offering grace and not trying to exclude yet another group because you aren't in that group so can't possibly understand that kind of exclusion in the workforce?
You can’t legislate decency. How many candidates are rejected based on their name or gender or color. I’ve seen many cases where people with less qualifications are hired over a minority with skills. Meritocracy is a myth. People who are well connected or family members get positions over qualified individuals. DEI is about giving people access and opportunities. A level playing field. The other myth, is that people with fewer qualifications are getting a position just because of DEI. Nonsense. Nobody does that. The people against DEI believe something else that they don’t admit.
Hiring people who are less qualified is the basis of this. Let's say there is a job opening and the most qualified person happens to be white. The diversity initiative doesn't like this because they want to hire a non-white person for the sake of increasing diversity. To do this, they would have to value diversity over merit and hire the less qualified minority instead of this white person. How else do you think it works?
@AL-lh2ht the fact that D.E.I. policies want people to discriminate against white people, I'll pass in trying to make dei any better and call it for what it is... Racism
He is making valid points that have nothing to do with reverse racism that DEI drives but with retention of workers by being sensitive to their diverse backgrounds. The same goes with inclusiveness. His points are valid but have nothing to do with the reverse racism that DEI promotes. Even the word equity is misleading within DEI. Reverse racism to correct previous racism is clearly inequitable but equity under DEI considers it acceptable. He is assuming that all of these employees were the best qualified to get that job in the first place but left due to poor diversity awareness and poor inclusiveness, which should be addressed! DEI does not do this but promotes reverse racism. Fortunately, reverse racism is illegal in most multi-racial democracies....with the exception of Canada.
DEI is one of those things which people do in good spirit, but reality is its actually harmful. Those who benefit from that harm don't want it removed.
As a fellow Ashkenazi Jew, I think we are overrepresented in positions in opportunity that could go to African Americans. There is so much disparity of manual labor positions between us, we need to take a step in their shoes more than we need to give them shoes beneath our positions.
Two things. One there is no proposal of what should be done. Second, instead of constantly talking about skin color and gender how about we don’t put our race and gender on applications and don’t see skin color and instead see the people for who they are and what they can do. The way to eliminate racism is by not talking about it and just seeing people for what they are and not what they look like. By talking about dei you only further establish the difference of skin color in race instead of eliminating stereotypes and unfair treatment.
I think it interesting that yet again many only think black people when discussing DEI. But also, most black folk working today did not create this ideology and many prefer not to even have it given the attacks, condemnation and assumptions. But, you folks get to make fallacious statements as if black people created DEI.
Selling your product in a TED talk, congrats. This didn't teach me anything I didn't know already. Diversity should happen naturally, not (en)forced. When you select people on the basis of diversity alone, and not skills it's wrong. Always, it gives of the impression that these people can't do things on there own, and need a (white) savior to help them as there skills aren't enough. Which plays in nicely with the postmodernist claim about systems of power, and victim hood. So lets exclude the popular majority (which is still discrimination) while ignoring personal dynamics, and give it a fancy name. Inclusion means inclusion of ideas and letting everyone have a say, in DEI it means you must respect everyone even if there opinion ignores science or fact. You must agree trans women are women otherwise you are being exclusive, and that as a white person you are privileged. Equality is always used (for DEI) as equality of outcome, while the input isn't same. You are playing the Marxist game, and this led to the death of over 100.000,000 people! Women make less than men because they work less hours, this has been discussed to death, a female economist did some heavy research into this and even received a nobel price for her work. Bias has been confirmed NOT to be a factor in selection, the statical majority of people are people of color, women are surpassing the men in college degrees. And creating a more diverse team has actually shown to be less effective as there is cohesion in the group, humans always form there own groups in a natural way, the more this is forced the less effective the result.
Educational Inequality: Is it true that Black Americans must prove Educational worthiness for every job applied and immigrants or foreign migrants can be employed As Is.
I did not recognise the acronym DEI even though I am a gay man, so I very nearly passed over this excellent talk. I clicked, partly to find out what the acronym meant and even then it was not immediately apparent. Thank you for hosting this subject. It means a lot to me. Don't let your audience slip away with a title that excludes them.
DEI, Someone of Majority descent, 35 y/o male, who did have Not any experiences, was Hired to manage a Group of majority women and people of color, due to his political affiliation.
Do DEI right by hiring his company to evaluate your company and give the speaker more money. Got it. I was expecting so much more from the talk based on the start. This talk was still all just lip service to appease the same DEI agenda. They want equality of results above equality of opportunity. I can give everyone, regardless of race, the secret to success: Keep your head down, work harder than your coworkers, stop whining when things don't go your way, and find another job if you aren't happy. Nobody owes you anything, and you are in control of your destiny. Companies want to promote the best person for the position, and the best person isn't necessarily you. If not, take a good look inwards and fix what is keeping you back. Blaming the company is a copout. There's my Ted Talk, and I'm not selling you anything.
Interestingly enough, just because I'm black, doesn't mean I agree with DEI nor did I create it. Yet you sit here and insult me and millions of other black folk who have absolutely nothing to do with this program. I think it also interesting you only focus on black folk when the alphabet folks are included if not more so. Good for you, you got thumbs up on the insult.
I'd just like to note that the fact you can just ignore a message from a guy talking about his privilege and diversity issues is, well, your white male privilege in action. It's okay that you felt that urge/disgust! But maybe next time you're faced with a challenge you should push through it! ❤
It really isn't difficult to understand in business terms. If 35-40% of the country are racial "minorities" and you want to market and sell products to this segment of the population to grow your business, then you're going to want a workforce that includes people who can best help you sell your stuff to people you want to purchase. In 2024, there are plenty of exemplary "diverse" candidates to fill most any role a company has and if hiring them meets the company's objectives, then so be it. 1965 is over. People need to get over it.
all you NEED to KNOW about (DEI) is to UNDERSTAND it was structured back in (1964) by the LEFT, the same year known as the beginning-point of the NEW LEFT
It's not the 1980s anymore, it is year 2024 and people are into diversity. So no matter if it is DEI, the world needs (diversity). The workplace needs diversity and people need it. reply
DIVERSITY EQUITY AND INCLUSION IS WHAT WE REALLY NEED AS A HUMAN SOCIETY HOWEVER TED DOESN'T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH AMERICA HAS SPOKEN WE NEED MORE VIDEOS ON THE BEAUTY OF THE VAGINA THE VAGINA GOD'S GREATEST CREATION
@@tri-edge4309 assets are replaceable, and depreciable. In fact if you aren't replacing top of the line assets regularly they aren't going to stay top of the line.
@@airenmarie1250 Yes i do and it's silly. Because it assumes that only black people experience racism or discrimination. Discrimination and racism are a human thing; a bad, evil human thing; not a white thing or black thing.
God loves you and cares for you so that this message reaches you. God is the one who created this large universe and controls it completely. The greatest loss a person loses in this life is that he lives without knowing God who created him and knowing the Messenger of Muhammad, the last of the messengers, and the Islamic religion, the last of the heavenly religions. Great intelligence, before you believe in something or not, is to read it, study it, and understand it well, and after that you have the choice to believe in it or not to believe in it. I advise you to do this now, before you no longer have time to do so. Life is very short. It is just a test, just a passage to eternal life. Great advice to those who... Understands
A solid Ted Talk here-where inclusion can lead to a diversification of ideas. My biggest problem with DEI is its premise of fighting systematic racism with more racism. It’s exchanging a set of problems with the same set of problems-it doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, as a Blackman, I wouldn’t want the uncomfortable spotlight of DEI placed on me in the workplace. Fortunately, I’ve worked at the same place for seven years and I can definitively say that all of the perks I earned on my job was because of the hard work I’ve put in over the years-not because I was a “model minority” that they decided to throw a bone to. When you in a workplace, where everyone have a singular objective, it should be about the quality of talent more than anything.
How is it racism? This premise honestly baffles me. How is including more marginalized people in a company a threat to the less marginalized? And please don't say anything about "merit." How many highly qualified women, minorities, LGBTQ candidates, etc., have been turned away over the course of history, in favor of a white, male, and/or straight person who is less qualified?...
@@airenmarie1250 Because by hiring someone on the basis of their skin color, you’re missing out on “more qualified” individuals across the board-regardless of race. Don’t get it twisted, I understand that “some” companies who employed predominately white people been doing preferential hiring for years. But the best way to counter that is by showing your talents and speaking out when you feel like you’re being undervalued. But the moment you do under-represented or minority based hiring, that means giving preferential treatment to a group of people at the expense of others. It opens up the possibility for racism and discrimination to continue-only in reverse. My skin color and ethnicity “should” be merely a cultural marker. I shouldn’t jump in front of the line of anyone who are more qualified than me to do a job. When it comes to a job like “Counter-Terrorism”for the Pentagon, I’d rather have the job because I take the safety of the nation seriously and I’m qualified to handle a job as critical as that one. That’ll make me more confident in my abilities than being a “minority hire” that they just threw in the position-but I don’t have a single clue in what I’m doing. DEI is reversed discrimination and racism no matter how you slice it.
@@airenmarie1250 Just to be clear, "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews are disproportionately forced to give up their seats under race-conscious policies -- in spite of the long history of discrimination they have faced. It's quite literally institutional racism and antisemitism against minorities.
@@airenmarie1250 Just to be clear, "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews are disproportionately forced to give up their seats under DEI and affirmative action policies -- in spite of the long history of discrimination they have also faced. How is it not racism, or antisemitism?
@@airenmarie1250 In practice, "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews are usually the hardest-hit under DEI and affirmative action policies, in spite of the long history of discrimination they have also faced. How is that not racism?
Respectfully, no this is not.What DEI gets wrong is the idea that the most important qualities of a worker are their skin color, gender, or sexuality instead of their sense of hard work, business savvy, and intelligence. When people hear that airlines are hiring pilots based on their skin color and not on their ability to fly an airplane, it makes consumers "push back" as he said.
That’s exactly the point the speaker is making. The focus is too centered around diversity and not equity (a fair system for everyone)
You should look at the caste system in India.
@crtp47 why?
Thats why Merit exist
This is why every other country china India succeed
Melanin is neither a virtue nor a vice. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk
This concept makes the same problem every single DEI promotor makes, and that is that it entirely ignores merit from the discussion.
You CANNOT force diversity and sustain merit based performance if merit based performance is not the goal.
DEI completely ignores the scientific, biological fact that everyone is NOT possible of performing the same job or at the same level.
And yes, i watched the entire video.
It does not, in fact, do that. It also doesn't make the mistake of assuming every place is 90% white or asian because those are the best for the job or the highest level.
In America being white is merit.
@@niccolea2086thats racist!
Bro, you take 3 people who met the required level of merit. One of them is black, choose the black one.
No one is just outright disqualifying merit? How can you possibly ignore the fact that ALL THREE MEN would have to meet a merit requirement??
@@scorogarolaIQ statistics prove it
Did I hear him correctly? If 10 people working on marketing optimization, the same company should have 300 working on DEI?! I need someone to make this make sense to me. Yes, I did watch the full video
I am also curious if this means like 300 dedicated people to just DEI? Or if it means, like, all employees have some aspect of actively working on it? I need more clarification.
It’s an absolute joke. Imagine all the people running around policing and micromanaging every action comment and thought. It sounds like an absolute nightmare.
His point is that dismantling practices that promote exclusion should concern everyone in a company, instead of being just a task of a DEI officer. It's not different from safety. Companies do have a safety officer, but detecting and fixing unsafe situations is a responsibility of every employee.
It doesn't make sense. This is why companies are now shifting away from it. It took a while the people are figuring out that it was a ESG scam.
I don't think he meant those numbers literally...he's point is simply you should be investing in people more than you invest in marketing cause in the end its the people that will build the products, services and company as a whole.
"What DEI gets wrong?" - Absolutely everything ☠️
DEI, correctly pronounced DIE 😂
Gee you're not entitled much
@@sjames1955How so?
I suspect that you have a lot of advantages that you take for granted. Maybe I was a little harsh.
Seems like you feel entitled@@sjames1955
didn't mention merit once ..weird
There's an implication that if you include your team in the process of remove barriers, they can exercise their full potential. Assessing merit needs to come once you've stopped getting in the way, as a manager.
@@JakeMGolle dafuq u talkin bout
Yes he did... is this an ESL issue? Most of the talk is about merit. Find the synonyms.
@@scorogarola no, i don't think any of the talk was about merit. he talks about how feeling included boosts performance and retention.
@@andy_fs1you don't consider performance a merit? Do you know what synonym means? Just asking.
You end racism by ending racism. Not by perpetuating it.
This is a comment on the internet.
not talking about it does not make it go away
@@andy_fs1 talk about it as much as you want. I have zero issues with talking about it. My problem is this "fix" of giving jobs to the people who check the boxes, instead of to the best qualified people, actually makes things worse.
@@meanderinorangesYou mean like Jim crow
@meanderinoranges Diversity, equity and inclusion is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. It also covers people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, skills and expertise.
DEI? = Lets see... Why are so much more blacks in the NBA DEI wants diversity there too?
I'm going to tell this guy and anyone who has a company, how to make more money. It's called "meritocracy" and it should always come first. That is how you get the best results: by hiring the best person for the job.
Color/race, gender and sexual preference should always come last, period.
Now, of course, often times, meritocracy is also a bit of an idealistic and naive way of viewing things because it does get bypassed by the biases bosses have towards a certain person; because people sleep with their bosses and get the job, etc and "the best person for the job" may be subjective, but i still know certain places where the most qualified get the job. Or at the very least the one who makes the most effort in the work place.
Meritocracy, just like any other system of hiring is not and will never be perfect, but at least it's the most fair.
I would hate to be hired because of the color of my skin. It would actually be offensive and demeaning to me. It would not be rewarding in the least.
I hope my comment isn't gone soon. You know how in todays world you can't disagree with something/someone without getting censored or labeled a racist, mysogonist or homophobe; even when you do it with logic, facts and respectfully.
If diversity was that beneficiary to companies, it wouldn't need to be forced, it would happen naturally. Asians are ridiculously over represented in Silicon Valley companies compared to the national average and I'm sure there's DEI at play there too, but at this point it's working against them, they're there because they earned it.
@CaptainFordo21 How so? I'm not being confrontrational; just curious.
DEI does go too far with its focus on equal outcomes. But the notion that we live or have ever lived in a meritocracy wherein the best person gets the job solely on the basis on their education and experience, is laughable. Pure msrirocracies do not exist. They never have. They are a romantic notion and nothing more.
I don't think the guy in the video would inherently disagree with u, what he's saying is that it should be ensured all employees are treated fairy and equaly, in order not to lose opportunity on a basis of trivial qualities.
@@igorsenayoutube Because when people are hired for reasons related to DEI, they aren't getting the job because they deserve it and are the best person for the job. It's usually based upon things that are completely IRRELEVANT to the job at hand 🤷♂️
DEI = Didn't Earn It
That audience doesn't look diverse enough to me.
You might think you're funny, but all your comment tells me is that you don't know the demographics of Harlem and/or didn't pay attention to that sign behind the speaker.
@@I.am.SnailCake wow you are so inspiring for protecting minorieties. Thank you sir!
So why isn't Harlem more diverse?
He started off good by recognizing DEI is artificially forcing the presentation of the desired goal instead of fixing the root issue, so the system produces the desired goal. He uses analogy of lighting a match and holding it near a thermostat to show a rise in temperature instead of actually heating the building to cause correct temperature reading. However, he continues and demonstrates a logical error which is common amongst DEI activists. This error is seen often enough that it's hard not to think it is intentional trick to reinforce his claims. He presents stats about demographic representation at different levels of company showing that the longer the career and more senior there are fewer women and non-white people are at those positions. At around 7:00 he claims this decrease is CAUSED by the company not being inclusive and makes it appear as if it is the ONLY cause. This is also based on the measurement of inclusion which is indirectly inferred by measuring exclusion. It is true that lack of inclusion may be contribute to people leaving. However, there are other factors such difference in women's interests or difference in abilities from prior experience or education that are also significant factors. Some women go into the workforce because that's what society told them they should want only to later realize that have more interest in people and their family, so they opt to leave. For other non-white males he recognizes that many were artificially added to the entry level positions to present the desired representation, and therefore they are less likely to be seen at the higher levels because the competition increases the higher you go up and they may not be able to perform at the level of their peers, thus choose to leave for a better fitting role
No. The problem is that the E of equity is only measured in terms of results (usually in terms of percentage of people of a particular gender, melanin level, background etc.) when we should focus on equity of opportunities. Give all candidates a test representative of the job that they'd have to fill and get the best ones.
Just remember- anything you do that adds some value or happiness or love to society is going to be regarded, via the test of time- as GOOD.
No matter what people may say or think in the current moment, the test of time is the real result.
The taking away from, the causing of hurt, the inflicting of pain, even acting punitively in the course of “righting of a wrong”, doesn’t actually “right” any “wrong”, and is just as EVIL.
Good will only ever add - it’s ACCRETIVE universally- to all of us. Anything else? Anything else is just EVIL hiding as GOOD…. My friends and loved ones, that is evil’s entire career - and the only way it survives despite the efforts of kind and loving people - it will always be masquerading around in “good’s” clothing… you never see it until you’ve enabled the evil to where it hurts everyone equally.
I'm a simple creature but let me ask a question.
If the problem has been that some people get an unfair advantage and others are unfairly disadvantaged, why is there such a push for the groups to switch places as supposed justice and payback, instead of just removing the unfairness which would actually be fair and balanced?
The simple answer is because the imbalance has been so profound and so out of balance for so long it's going to take purposeful actions to create that balance that was lacking from the beginning. Once you actually get to equity and not "equality" then there is no more need for specific policies. But that is not America and has never been America except for those already favored.
This is sort of addressed in the video and sort of not, but a lot of companies grow and that growth should fill in gaps in knowledge, "diversify the portfolio". If you think it's about payback, you didn't watch the video.
@@scorogarola Sort of does and sort of doesn't, are not a difference. I did watch the video, though.
@@ajwalker4416 Let's consider that some people are inflating their victimization, and put them aside. Now we have actual victims and actual victimizers through, humor me, 'applied privilege'. Is it better to now give the applied privilege to the victims to use against their victimizers, or remove the ability to apply privilege in the first place?
Shouldn't we be removing policies that do this instead of adding new ones that just do the same thing in reverse proportions?
@@ajwalker4416 That's a very simplistic, almost Black vs. White way of looking at the issue. It becomes much more complex when you consider the impacts to other groups. For example, it's usually "over-represented" minorities like Asian-Americans and Jews that are disproportionately impacted by DEI/AA policies -- in spite of the long history of discrimination those groups have also faced.
If White men are used as the benchmark for success, then we're effectively penalizing any minorities that happen to outperform the benchmark. It doesn't really make sense.
Bring back Coleman Hughes
The problem I see in human relations and organization is affinity bias and hierarchy. External differences are easy to see and shuffle, but what about who people are personality wise? Look at distributions in hierarchy. Once we get above a certain level we see a preponderance of dark triad spectrum. Having minorities in those positions doesn't make the difference one might think. We need to promote people into leadership that aren't on that spectrum. Robert Sapolsky has made discoveries in this with a natural experiment he stumbled upon. Changing this transforms culture. Diversity needs to take into account temperament/personality. Unfortunately those at the top perpetuate who fills those positions. They don't want people that aren't like them at some level.
The problem with DEI, which I believe the speaker did not clarify, is that DEI initiatives and policies became a haven for Violent Activists.
If these Activists can't get their act together, then expect further decline with job growth in the company. Hiring people based on Merits should be the basics to keep the business afloat.
This mans content echoes what I have witnessed in the tech sector: Many women, POC are hired - only to find out the job isn't nearly as interesting or rewarding as they anticipated. Even though it is incredibly easy for a woman or POC to win a job over their white male "enemy". They've become disengaged to the point where it's harder to find them & fill the company quota than it was a few years ago.
No one in the companies I've worked in *ever* offered subtle hints of disapproval towards women or POC. If anything, everyone was additionally patient / careful not to interrupt and more. During meetings, the white guys had no problems taking shots at each other, but steered clear of any conflict when it came to other genders & races. That itself is awkward and unbalanced.
Another thought: Imagine entering a workforce under the umbrella of DEI. An individual who was already combatting imposter syndrome might feel even more like an imposter.
DEI is simply terrible. Performance is simply wonderful.
Watched it all the way through, and I have to agree that if DEI was applied in a way similar to this, a lot of the backlash (some justified and some not-justified) could be avoided. Solid Ted-talk. Highly recommend watching all the way through before forming an opinion.
Watched through it. Its incredibly idealistic. Talks about the price of people not as likely to stay leaving will cost much for businesses while not really realizing that theres more cost to trying to pander to each thing those people would want/need. Cost-benefit ratio for companies do not compute. Just hire the right person for the job regardless of background/race. If it turns into a diverse company, then thats great.
@@tri-edge4309 it was definitely idealistic but most think pieces like this are. I think there is definitely some positives to be garnered from this approach while also hiring the best person for the job and nurturing/developing the staff that you have. I feel the positive messaging of DEI has been lost in translation (as is often the case) in part by poor explanation, lack of clarity, hyperbole and bad faith actors on all-sides of the conversation. I hope we can reach a happy middle ground eventually.
@@RAWTAGSFXT Positives from DEI are lost when going from theory to reality. That reality is they look more at what a person can't change, like skin color, instead of what they can, like skills.
Privilege is when an entire system is created to get people hired based on their skin color or gender instead of their resume and character.
Exactly! When we look at job market statistics and see that white men get an extremely disproportionate share of the best jobs, we can't help but conclude that there's an "entire system created to get people hired based on their skin color or gender instead of their resume and character". It is past time to dismantle this system and start hiring people based on merit.
Exactly! When you look at the job market stats and see that people of a certain skin color and gender get a disproportionate amount of the best jobs you can't help concluding that there is an entire system created for that. It is past time for us to dismantle that system and ensure people start being hired for merit.
@@kidscancode8895 exactly! that's why DEI has got to go, its not about merit its about skin color and gender.
@@generalnawaki , hmm... All data clearly shows that in the current system, white men are disproportionally favoured. They get better jobs or are paid more for the same job when compared to non-whites, women, LGBTQ, etc, even when qualifications and experience are similar... I thought you were against a system that hires people based on their skin color and gender... I guess I got that wrong...
@@kidscancode8895 I am, though because its a system you approve of I must seem quite the enemy. That I do not talk about it benefitting white people ( bit of nebulous terms that by the way ) because so many other people already are, so I will skip the obvious preamble about how white people benefit from it too and go to the major problem that is DEI which gets people who are in no way shape or form qualified for jobs hired to them simply because a quota needs to be met.
Starting with "what is a white, cisgender, heterosexual, fully privileged guy doing talking about diversity and inclusion?" is a great way to make me stop this video.
This was my question too.
Those examples of things that people said are good examples of an underlying issue with those people's attitudes. I do see an inherent problem with measuring 'inclusivity' though. There are more variables determining the position people hold in a company than demographics. The only thing race or gender could factor into is a choice not to hire or promote them or to include them, but there are numerous other factors determining whether they are even there to begin with. Like nobody has ever asked me to dance, but I don't go to dances so there would be no possible way I could be asked. Its not discrimination that I have never been asked. I have worked in highly inclusive work environments where half the mid-level leadership were women and 1/5 were of color, precisely proportional to the local demographics, but they had a really hard time meeting those goals due to a lack of applicants. In my 10+ years there I worked with three different office administrators, all female, and all three of them studied for human resources and later worked in HR. The only men in that role were temporary hired hands for when the regular girls needed a vacation. One guy worked in an HR team of 5 over 10 years and was studying for something else so he eventually moved on. Its not due to lack of diversity or inclusion on part of the company that no men ever applied for those positions. This is a phenomena in all fields, I was in service desk and we had lots of men but only one woman over the course of a decade. We had plenty of men of color but no women of color. That problem can't be solved internally. I have also worked in a government organization that is 95% women and all levels of leadership up to the national director are women. This is in provincial health laboratories where the manager and site director of the lab, the district manager and the provincial health director are all women. How does that happen? Discrimination is not the only reason a role or profession might be disproportionally one race or gender, and so you aren't measuring 'inclusivity' that way, you are just measuring proportionality which might have other causes besides inclusivity.
Who determines what's equitable?
There’s only _one_ way to do it right. By merit.
And DEI makes sure ppl of color who qualify by merit are given an opportunity. Without it, very qualified ppl are over looked based on their skin color.
right, but how does one judge merit? DEI is an idea that arises from the belief that the system isn't actually based on merit, and that privleged groups such as white men, have advantages that don't allow people from these underrepresented communties to be actually judged on their merit. If a company is 90% white men, do you really believe everyone is their based on thier merit, becuase if you do that means you believe white men are just inherently the smartest(zero studies support a genetic link between intelligence and race/gender). DEI is not a quota system, it's policies to improve the ability for companies to hire based on merit, while factoring in the fact that the current system is not equitable.
I agree with him to a certain extent. I think he’s right when he says that companies that prioritize DEI today tend to focus only on the D. Which doesn’t produce good results. And in a workplace, it obviously makes sense that you shouldn’t be discriminated against. But I still think that DEI is tends to produce racism. When you think back to Martin Luther King’s speech where he said that people shouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, I can’t see how DEI agrees with that statement. You should get the job because you’re hardworking, capable, efficient, talented and so on, not because you happen to have a different skin tone that makes you part of a minority.
Dude this whole video is about him agreeing with that statement… his point is that diversity itself isn't the issue. There are plenty of qualified minority candidates for these jobs, but they often feel excluded in their work, causing them to leave and that’s why you get an disproportionate amount of straight white males at the top of company’s. The solution isn't to hire a large number of less qualified but diverse candidates, but rather to create an inclusive and valuing environment for the qualified ones already there, so they choose to stay. Seriously, just watch the video before you speak lmao
The idea is to include all people in the applicant pool and choose the right one without prejudices.
And here is yet another example of people using that ONE quote wildly out of context to prop up their own misunderstanding about race in America and what this guy said in the TedTalk 🙄🙄 I really wish people would stop misquoting Dr. King and only using that one quote to deny a serious look at the issues and lasting effects of racism in America.🤬🤬
Before MLK said that he also said “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” & “We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one” & neither police brutality or classism have been systemically confronted or substantially addressed in law.
Hmm. Seems my previous comment disappeared. At any rate, Dr. King continues to be one of the most misquoted people when people are trying to deny or downplay the racial disparities that DEI is trying to correct. Could and should it be done differently? Absolutely, but to drag one quote into the debate as a way to dismiss the entire debate, especially when Dr. King had so much more to say even around that specific quote is being purposely disingenuous.
Dr. King's "dream" of not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is a dream that was not realized when he said that part of his speech and has not been realized since. So to speak as if it has already happened because he said it is the part that is purposely disingenuous on your part. That dream has clearly not yet been realized and one should not speak as if it has.
Diversity is ok when it means variety however that isnt what people really mean when they push DEI initiatives. What they really mean is favoring anything that is non cis male as those are considered the oppressive class within Western society. If you want variety then it should be based on quality not quantity.
Leading us next to Equity being that instead of allowing individuals to able to flourish or fail on their own merits that we should interfere on the behalf of fairness. Best example is participation rewards replacing being rewarded for actually winning. When companies and groups are left with Diversity hires that dontt merit being there. Equity is applied.
Inclusion the desire that they are meeting all the checkboxes and that they are seen as allies.
Its cultural marxism disguised as being progressive. Racism, Sexist etc decorated with a pretty bow.
What goes wrong is instead of avoid excluding qualified individuals from opportunities because of their race, gender, cultural background, the system entitles unqualified individuals with opportunities because of their race, gender, cultural background.
this is exactly what he's talking about. Anything that a company that causes someone to feel excluded because of their personal characteristics is shooting themselves in the foot. When you say people are entitled and unqualified there's something wrong in the company culture that's not making those employees you're talking about feel included.
I think some corporations get so big that they think they are too big to fail, and they can get away with lowering their hiring standards. But this is wrong, no one is too big to fail. Disney thought that no matter who they hired, everyone would still watch their brands like Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar. But billions on losses later, they are going to be forced to make changes because even their massive amount of money will run out eventually. As long as we are in a capitalist economy, businesses need to be competitive to survive, and DEI makes them less competitive. It isn’t any different than a sports team, if a team recruited based on identity instead of talent, they would never stand a chance against other teams
DEI is today's version of systemic racism and sexism.
One needs only to observe nature to realize that diversity is a strength; or read our constitution to realize that equality is written in to it; or to follow the moral compass within any decent human being whose azimuth points to inclusion.
Those who discriminate will suffer the consequences of passing up on more qualified candidates. Those who do not will succeed. Since this is the case these efforts are useless. Simply hire the best person for the job. That is all.
When I hear a company is taking up the DEI policies, I know from past experience to no longer shop with them or use your services, because the quality will no longer be to a high standard
I dont understand why LGBTQ has to be included in DEI. It's a sexualized characteristic. Should we also ask straight, women, etc. What their sexual preference is?
Clueless
@sjames1955 I'm always open for correction. Please enlighten me since you're not clueless.
Because LGBTQ people also are excluded in the workplace. Overlooked for hiring and advancement just like any other group that isn't a white male protestant. Like the guy said, if you're straight, you don't know what being gay is like and how we can be excluded and targeted in the workplace. So how about offering grace and not trying to exclude yet another group because you aren't in that group so can't possibly understand that kind of exclusion in the workforce?
People are discriminated against for not being heteronormative. "Inclusion" demands taking actions to dismantle discriminatory cultures and practices.
@@RenatoCarvalhoS but would it make more sense to not include it and hire people that can do the task regardless of orientation?
You can’t legislate decency. How many candidates are rejected based on their name or gender or color. I’ve seen many cases where people with less qualifications are hired over a minority with skills. Meritocracy is a myth. People who are well connected or family members get positions over qualified individuals. DEI is about giving people access and opportunities. A level playing field. The other myth, is that people with fewer qualifications are getting a position just because of DEI. Nonsense. Nobody does that. The people against DEI believe something else that they don’t admit.
THANK YOU!
Hiring people who are less qualified is the basis of this. Let's say there is a job opening and the most qualified person happens to be white. The diversity initiative doesn't like this because they want to hire a non-white person for the sake of increasing diversity. To do this, they would have to value diversity over merit and hire the less qualified minority instead of this white person. How else do you think it works?
Before video starts: DEI - Driving Extremely Intoxicated?
"Didn't Earn It"
Right... because racism is the solution to racism.
I look someone who didn’t watch the video made a comment.
@AL-lh2ht the fact that D.E.I. policies want people to discriminate against white people, I'll pass in trying to make dei any better and call it for what it is... Racism
Maybe watch the video first
@@AL-lh2htthese types just like to talk lol
He is making valid points that have nothing to do with reverse racism that DEI drives but with retention of workers by being sensitive to their diverse backgrounds. The same goes with inclusiveness. His points are valid but have nothing to do with the reverse racism that DEI promotes. Even the word equity is misleading within DEI. Reverse racism to correct previous racism is clearly inequitable but equity under DEI considers it acceptable. He is assuming that all of these employees were the best qualified to get that job in the first place but left due to poor diversity awareness and poor inclusiveness, which should be addressed! DEI does not do this but promotes reverse racism. Fortunately, reverse racism is illegal in most multi-racial democracies....with the exception of Canada.
DEI is one of those things which people do in good spirit, but reality is its actually harmful. Those who benefit from that harm don't want it removed.
It's not in good spirit. It's a grift
In the end, it creates more racism, not less
There is NO way to get racism right. DEI is racism by definition.
As a fellow Ashkenazi Jew, I think we are overrepresented in positions in opportunity that could go to African Americans. There is so much disparity of manual labor positions between us, we need to take a step in their shoes more than we need to give them shoes beneath our positions.
Two things. One there is no proposal of what should be done. Second, instead of constantly talking about skin color and gender how about we don’t put our race and gender on applications and don’t see skin color and instead see the people for who they are and what they can do. The way to eliminate racism is by not talking about it and just seeing people for what they are and not what they look like. By talking about dei you only further establish the difference of skin color in race instead of eliminating stereotypes and unfair treatment.
The best way to do DEI is to not.
Fonz doing lectures?
I think it interesting that yet again many only think black people when discussing DEI. But also, most black folk working today did not create this ideology and many prefer not to even have it given the attacks, condemnation and assumptions. But, you folks get to make fallacious statements as if black people created DEI.
Selling your product in a TED talk, congrats. This didn't teach me anything I didn't know already.
Diversity should happen naturally, not (en)forced.
When you select people on the basis of diversity alone, and not skills it's wrong. Always, it gives of the impression that these people can't do things on there own, and need a (white) savior to help them as there skills aren't enough. Which plays in nicely with the postmodernist claim about systems of power, and victim hood.
So lets exclude the popular majority (which is still discrimination) while ignoring personal dynamics, and give it a fancy name.
Inclusion means inclusion of ideas and letting everyone have a say, in DEI it means you must respect everyone even if there opinion ignores science or fact.
You must agree trans women are women otherwise you are being exclusive, and that as a white person you are privileged.
Equality is always used (for DEI) as equality of outcome, while the input isn't same. You are playing the Marxist game, and this led to the death of over 100.000,000 people! Women make less than men because they work less hours, this has been discussed to death, a female economist did some heavy research into this and even received a nobel price for her work.
Bias has been confirmed NOT to be a factor in selection, the statical majority of people are people of color, women are surpassing the men in college degrees.
And creating a more diverse team has actually shown to be less effective as there is cohesion in the group, humans always form there own groups in a natural way, the more this is forced the less effective the result.
Educational Inequality: Is it true that Black Americans must prove Educational worthiness for every job applied and immigrants or foreign migrants can be employed As Is.
It’s still segregation even if you call it separation by choice
lmao I love that his whole spiel was just to sell a product. This is essentially what DEI is
Equity = discrimination.
Equality = equality.
The black skin Americans only make up 13% of the country the math is impossible
I did not recognise the acronym DEI even though I am a gay man, so I very nearly passed over this excellent talk. I clicked, partly to find out what the acronym meant and even then it was not immediately apparent. Thank you for hosting this subject. It means a lot to me. Don't let your audience slip away with a title that excludes them.
Don't do that at the first place. This is the only way to save face
Comments here should be quite nuanced and educated.
So i need a guard dog 🐕
For the farm
And i also want to be dei cus its fashionable
So im thinking of getting a persian cat they identifies as a pug 😁
Did we factor in that a greater number of women may choose to leave the workplace to bear or raise children?
He lost me with "reverse discrimination", Discrimination is discrimination, doesn`t matter if is white on black, black on white or blue on purple.
He didn't apologize enough for being white
show this to Ubisoft and sweet baby inc.
The top will never be diversified, because the ones with power will never give it ip
Power is taken, never given.
DEI, Someone of Majority descent, 35 y/o male, who did have Not any experiences, was Hired to manage a Group of majority women and people of color, due to his political affiliation.
No, what they should do.. is GROW UP and get on with life
DEI (or DE&I) stands for diversity, equity and inclusion.
You dare to question DEI? How dare you?! You are hereby cancelled! 😂😂😂😂😂
This is moving the needle in the right direction
Do DEI right by hiring his company to evaluate your company and give the speaker more money. Got it. I was expecting so much more from the talk based on the start. This talk was still all just lip service to appease the same DEI agenda. They want equality of results above equality of opportunity. I can give everyone, regardless of race, the secret to success: Keep your head down, work harder than your coworkers, stop whining when things don't go your way, and find another job if you aren't happy. Nobody owes you anything, and you are in control of your destiny. Companies want to promote the best person for the position, and the best person isn't necessarily you. If not, take a good look inwards and fix what is keeping you back. Blaming the company is a copout.
There's my Ted Talk, and I'm not selling you anything.
Just like Sweet Baby Inc
It’s almost like 14% of the population can’t have an equal amount of employment because I can do 1st grade math.
Your first grade teacher failed you
Interestingly enough, just because I'm black, doesn't mean I agree with DEI nor did I create it. Yet you sit here and insult me and millions of other black folk who have absolutely nothing to do with this program. I think it also interesting you only focus on black folk when the alphabet folks are included if not more so. Good for you, you got thumbs up on the insult.
Hey almost got it. Almost understood why dei is not good and then just lost it... probably be cause he gets paid for it
I turned off the video when he said "fully priveleged guy".
Wow. Thank goodness you saved yourself from hearing an opinion you disagree with.
I'd just like to note that the fact you can just ignore a message from a guy talking about his privilege and diversity issues is, well, your white male privilege in action.
It's okay that you felt that urge/disgust! But maybe next time you're faced with a challenge you should push through it! ❤
You won't make it far in life
DEI bec the outcome is bad and only focus on selecting woke ideals.
Oh boy first big think now TED the war on science is doing well
It really isn't difficult to understand in business terms. If 35-40% of the country are racial "minorities" and you want to market and sell products to this segment of the population to grow your business, then you're going to want a workforce that includes people who can best help you sell your stuff to people you want to purchase. In 2024, there are plenty of exemplary "diverse" candidates to fill most any role a company has and if hiring them meets the company's objectives, then so be it. 1965 is over. People need to get over it.
You diversify assets to hedge risk.
DEI -> Didn't Earn It
all you NEED to KNOW about (DEI) is to UNDERSTAND it was structured back in (1964) by the LEFT, the same year known as the beginning-point of the NEW LEFT
Well stated bullshit is still bullshit.
DEI devides and is pretty racist .
lol no one’s in the audience
Utterly ridiculous.
You spelled DIE wrong.
Grifter.
98 views in 2 minutes?
How to do it right ? You don`t do it at all :D
Not worth the pixels
Ted talk gone downhill so much. This is embarrassing.
Of course we need more DEI with all the "new citizens" in North America now 🙄🤦♂️
There is no right way to be anti-Wyte!
Notice how he didn’t once mention hiring people based on skill level🤡
Big sigh. It's d e I b!!!!!!!!! No one discusses belonging!!!!!!! Why have any thing and not belong.
belonging? You mean forcing people to hang out with you?
@@chocomalkmore like firing people who won't associate with coworkers because their coworkers are "too diverse".
How would you define and measure the feeling of belonging?
It's not the 1980s anymore, it is year 2024 and people are into diversity. So no matter if it is DEI, the world needs (diversity). The workplace needs diversity and people need it. reply
DIVERSITY EQUITY AND INCLUSION IS WHAT WE REALLY NEED AS A HUMAN SOCIETY HOWEVER TED DOESN'T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH AMERICA HAS SPOKEN WE NEED MORE VIDEOS ON THE BEAUTY OF THE VAGINA THE VAGINA GOD'S GREATEST CREATION
How Caucasian. 😡
Imagining seeing people as assets smh
I mean, they are. In a business' perspective. You are. And that is exactly why they should take care of you. As an asset. Not as a replaceable object.
@@tri-edge4309 assets are replaceable, and depreciable. In fact if you aren't replacing top of the line assets regularly they aren't going to stay top of the line.
I see a lot of haters to the Ted talk. Wait until it happens to them.
Now lets do this presentation, but with a Black professor. With 400 yrs of experience.....
Do you know anyone who has lived for 400 years? I would like to know that person.
I'll admit I did let out a huge sigh when it looked like a white guy was giving this talk from the thumbnail LOL
@@igorsenayoutube you know what they mean.
@@airenmarie1250 Yes i do and it's silly. Because it assumes that only black people experience racism or discrimination. Discrimination and racism are a human thing; a bad, evil human thing; not a white thing or black thing.
@@igorsenayoutube no one is saying that.
First 5 minutes... Total Gibberish... No solution or new thought ... I am out
Minute 6: focus on metric for Inclusion, instead of surface-level fixing “Diversity” metrics, and go for the root cause fixes
You didnt watch the video or your comprehension is low, why lie lol
Just because a ban wasn't among the list of solutions, that doesn't make it "gibberish."
God loves you and cares for you so that this message reaches you. God is the one who created this large universe and controls it completely. The greatest loss a person loses in this life is that he lives without knowing God who created him and knowing the Messenger of Muhammad, the last of the messengers, and the Islamic religion, the last of the heavenly religions. Great intelligence, before you believe in something or not, is to read it, study it, and understand it well, and after that you have the choice to believe in it or not to believe in it. I advise you to do this now, before you no longer have time to do so. Life is very short. It is just a test, just a passage to eternal life. Great advice to those who... Understands
Didn’t Earn It