Walmart becomes latest and biggest company to roll back its DEI policies

[QueenBeyoncé]

1 hour ago, Magic_boXX said:

Target was one of the first company to remove pride merchandise back earlier this year.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1251355534/target-scales-back-pride-month-merchandise-2024

Welp cancel them too 

[BowWow]

4 hours ago, Sannie said:

i mean, they were never serious about it to begin with but it's insane and scary how easy these companies cave to the right. it's not like they would suffer financially if they just ignored the right wingers lol.

It because the people running these companies politically align with the cultural views of the right. They are run by predominantly rich white wealthy men so

[Marianah Adkins]

Super unpopular opinion in this forum but DEI policies and affirmative action policies seem to be more of a stop gap measure instituted by liberals to feel good about themselves, rather than an actual attempt to uphold minorities.

The solution should have focused on changing the educational or institutional structure itself that perpetrates the racial/class inequality in the first place but I guess thats too much for these liberals who only want the media acclaim but not its hard and stressful aspect. 

Also, it only further breeds division and contempt among the population. At the very core of this problem is class based and yet these policies would have you believed that poor white men/women or asian men/women are unfairly hogging all the spots. As we have seen with this election, the backlash against that perception may be deeper than that. 

[Communion]

While many of these actions lacked a class element, the kind of negative reaction to them often misses a class element itself.

 

Which is why a leftist may take pause throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Centrists are screaming about "The Groups", but it's their elite insulation that makes them think the average person listens to elite activist groups to begin with or that these people ever had power to influence Dems to begin with. Anything that Dems responded to was not due to grasstops but grassroots movements.

 

If "The Groups" had power, it wouldn't have been Warren in 2020 who burned out after specifically courting the leaders and figureheads of non-profits and advocacy groups. But it was indeed Warren who failed to claim the progressive lane because, while she had the figureheads on her side, it was the actual workers and volunteers of these groups, and the very people these groups claim to represent, who wanted Bernie's authentic populism over her highly academic, wishy-washy idea of progressivism.

 

In the space where organized labor faded, non-profits have tried to step up and provide both representation and policy antagonism for sects of working class people.

 

It's not that these ideas are bad - Sanders advocates for both social and economic leftism, but such exposes nothing compares to competent governance.

 

Racial healing and sensitivity seminars and corporate advocacy committees that argue for land acknowledgements at pride parades on floats by oil companies can't replace something like the federal government codifying workplace anti-discrimination policies.

 

That more working class people of color may benefit from forcing corporations to pay a living wage by raising the minimum wage vs demanding corporations commit to allowing high-income individuals of some marginalized identity some managerial leverage over their more privileged elite co-workers to advocate ideas that ultimately range from limited-in-reach at best to personal grifting at worst.

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Communion

[Communion]

On 11/26/2024 at 12:18 PM, BTS said:

Is there much difference between the American DEI and European equal opportunity? 

American workplaces have their own EEO for anti-discrimination practices. DEI has always been a cultural, industry trend that advocated not for innate protections but proactive advocacy, ie: challenging corporations to have full-fledge wings in their corporate structure dedicated to how their own company was tackling racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.

 

These aims being largely well-intentioned but this showing for-profit corporations only jumped onto the idea of anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc. if it viewed it as profitable.

[Bloo]

On 11/26/2024 at 11:59 AM, LegaMyth said:

Although Blacks have not ultimately benefited from these programs, in their mind, we do. That's why they want to get rid of it.

 

Just like Affirmative Action.  We do not benefit from those programs. 

This isn’t true. CA abolished affirmative action decades ago and the admission of Black and Brown students is still underwater from when it was when they had AA in place. Do White women benefit most from these policies? Sure. But to say there’s no benefit from them for racially diverse people is just false. 
—

OT: These corporations have never been on our side. Any “support” they provided was symbolic. That’s it. The less liberals worry about seeming too radical on social issues, the more quickly we can counteract this. But there’s so much obsession with axing protection for certain marginalized people within liberal spaces, that it should surprise no one that corporations would react this way. 

[LegaMyth]

5 minutes ago, Bloo said:

This isn't true. CA abolished affirmative action decades ago and the admission of Black and Brown students is still underwater from when it was when they had AA in place. Do White women benefit most from these policies? Sure. But to say there's no benefit from them for racially diverse people is just false. 
—

OT: These corporations have never been on our side. Any "support" they provided was symbolic. That's it. The less liberals worry about seeming too radical on social issues, the more quickly we can counteract this. But there's so much obsession with axing protection for certain marginalized people within liberal spaces, that it should surprise no one that corporations would react this way. 

You are looking at it as individual cases. On an overall spectrum, White women have benefited the most from AA and many other policies that deal with inclusion. Black women are the most educated group of women in this country, so I'm not sure what you mean by "underwater." With that said, Black women are also the the least paid. They just banned AA from the Ivy League colleges, because of the lie that Blacks were stealing spots from Asian students. A study just came out showing that there was a decrease in acceptance for Asian students, but an increase for Black students.

[Bloo]

25 minutes ago, LegaMyth said:

You are looking at it as individual cases. 

Please explain how me highlighting how admission numbers for the most populous state is an individual case? Affirmative action was abolished in CA and its recruitment of Black and Brown students immediately plummeted and recovery efforts haven’t met numbers before its abolition. That’s a fact. Claiming AA had no impact on Black and Brown students is counter-factual. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185226895/heres-what-happened-when-affirmative-action-ended-at-california-public-colleges
 

Regardless, AA was never not just about race. Women have also been marginalized in many ways in society. AA benefiting them isn’t an inherently bad thing. While it’s true it disproportionately benefited White Women, you can say that without spouting misinformation about the policy.