Um, I don’t think Bart was anything close to resembling a DEI hire or even affirmative action. Bart was chosen because he was seen as an almost guaranteed failure as the town would unanimously reject him for being black and decide to leave town, allowing Hedley Lamarr and his goons to scoop up Rock Ridge for pennies on the dollar for their railroad (due to the quicksand they encountered at the very beginning of the movie). They nearly did reject him in the beginning, only to start warming up to him once he showed an effective prowess at dealing with all the curveballs Lamarr threw at him (ie Mongo). They promoted the idea of Bart as a progressive choice on the surface (dare I say, a cabinet post!), but the underlying reason was to play on the citizens of Rock Ridge’s racism and coerce them to leave town.
So I’d say that maybe it was meant to be seen as an inclusive and progressive choice (in modern parlance), but the underlying reason was anything but (in the context of the movie).
I mean, I guess? Every argument I’ve heard against DEI, and affirmative action for that matter, is that it promotes hand picking and placing people that aren’t white/straight into positions of leadership only for the sheer fact that they aren’t white and straight, ignoring merit and qualification. Yeah, much of the salt is them seeing someone they perceived as being lesser than them given special advantage for promotion. I absolutely believe we need some way to help ensure everyone is given an equal shot at fulfilling upper level roles. That said, promoting a person for an important role to “fill the quota” (as it were) as opposed to the best person for the job regardless of race/sex/orientation/etc is how we build the strongest teams for important departments in both government and business, but how to counteract systemic racism and bigotry is another story.
TL:DR: I dunno. And I’m a straight white guy, so I’m probably the wrong person to ask.
My take is that it does nothing to address the underlying problems of generational inequality and in fact needs to perpetuate them in order to keep DEI consultants in a job.
“Affirmative action” is literally just recording metrics. It’s wild to me how many Americans think it’s a quota or DEI hiring program or something.
Basically if a company receives over x dollars per year in federal contract money (there are different thresholds for veterans, disability, and race) they have to keep some voluntary data (applicants, interviewees, offers given, accepted, promotions) on file for 5 years. If your business doesn’t take enough federal money you do nothing. This data is not reported to any government agency or anything, it sits in a dusty binder in HR. If nobody ever files a discrimination lawsuit, it just gets shredded.
If somebody does sue claiming discrimination the dusty binder is retrieved so the judge can look at it. The plaintiff still has to prove their discrimination case in court, and the AA data could just as easily exonerate the company in court too. This benefits veterans, people with disabilities, as well as racial minorites.
This is honestly a pretty weak program, people being discriminated against usually can’t afford to sue a company, which is why some states took it a bit further. The extreme hate right wingers have for these few data points is also interesting to me. They have done a good job marketing their talking points to the left too.
Source: former corporate AA/EEOC compliance specialist, apparently you all hate that this job exists.
Eh the idea behind it is benevolent, and it’s certainly a good attempt. I think the problem lies in when administrators try to measure effectiveness of any given program, which they do via metrics, which inevitably become quotas for something so subjective to quantify, and then the entire intent behind the program(s) become a required number to hit. It’s such a difficult thing to measure, and eventually you will have overzealous managers making boneheaded hiring/promotion decisions to show their “inclusiveness,” ultimately to further their own careers. But, again, it is necessary to promote these ideals within the government, at least so people just look at each other as people, so I dunno. It’s a sticky topic.
Blazing Saddles is literally about how a DEI hire was the best choice and improved everyone’s lives.
My God.
Um, I don’t think Bart was anything close to resembling a DEI hire or even affirmative action. Bart was chosen because he was seen as an almost guaranteed failure as the town would unanimously reject him for being black and decide to leave town, allowing Hedley Lamarr and his goons to scoop up Rock Ridge for pennies on the dollar for their railroad (due to the quicksand they encountered at the very beginning of the movie). They nearly did reject him in the beginning, only to start warming up to him once he showed an effective prowess at dealing with all the curveballs Lamarr threw at him (ie Mongo). They promoted the idea of Bart as a progressive choice on the surface (dare I say, a cabinet post!), but the underlying reason was to play on the citizens of Rock Ridge’s racism and coerce them to leave town.
So I’d say that maybe it was meant to be seen as an inclusive and progressive choice (in modern parlance), but the underlying reason was anything but (in the context of the movie).
Isn’t that what racists think DEI is all about?
I mean, I guess? Every argument I’ve heard against DEI, and affirmative action for that matter, is that it promotes hand picking and placing people that aren’t white/straight into positions of leadership only for the sheer fact that they aren’t white and straight, ignoring merit and qualification. Yeah, much of the salt is them seeing someone they perceived as being lesser than them given special advantage for promotion. I absolutely believe we need some way to help ensure everyone is given an equal shot at fulfilling upper level roles. That said, promoting a person for an important role to “fill the quota” (as it were) as opposed to the best person for the job regardless of race/sex/orientation/etc is how we build the strongest teams for important departments in both government and business, but how to counteract systemic racism and bigotry is another story.
TL:DR: I dunno. And I’m a straight white guy, so I’m probably the wrong person to ask.
My take is that it does nothing to address the underlying problems of generational inequality and in fact needs to perpetuate them in order to keep DEI consultants in a job.
“Affirmative action” is literally just recording metrics. It’s wild to me how many Americans think it’s a quota or DEI hiring program or something.
Basically if a company receives over x dollars per year in federal contract money (there are different thresholds for veterans, disability, and race) they have to keep some voluntary data (applicants, interviewees, offers given, accepted, promotions) on file for 5 years. If your business doesn’t take enough federal money you do nothing. This data is not reported to any government agency or anything, it sits in a dusty binder in HR. If nobody ever files a discrimination lawsuit, it just gets shredded.
If somebody does sue claiming discrimination the dusty binder is retrieved so the judge can look at it. The plaintiff still has to prove their discrimination case in court, and the AA data could just as easily exonerate the company in court too. This benefits veterans, people with disabilities, as well as racial minorites.
This is honestly a pretty weak program, people being discriminated against usually can’t afford to sue a company, which is why some states took it a bit further. The extreme hate right wingers have for these few data points is also interesting to me. They have done a good job marketing their talking points to the left too.
Source: former corporate AA/EEOC compliance specialist, apparently you all hate that this job exists.
Eh the idea behind it is benevolent, and it’s certainly a good attempt. I think the problem lies in when administrators try to measure effectiveness of any given program, which they do via metrics, which inevitably become quotas for something so subjective to quantify, and then the entire intent behind the program(s) become a required number to hit. It’s such a difficult thing to measure, and eventually you will have overzealous managers making boneheaded hiring/promotion decisions to show their “inclusiveness,” ultimately to further their own careers. But, again, it is necessary to promote these ideals within the government, at least so people just look at each other as people, so I dunno. It’s a sticky topic.
I don’t doubt their heart is in the right place but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.