>But American businesses really over shot.
Did they though? There was a race to declare DEI-friendliness in the wake of Floyd, but I wonder how much was actually done and how impactful it was at most of these companies?
Did they though? There was a race to declare DEI-friendliness in the wake of Floyd, but I wonder how much was actually done and how impactful it was at most of these companies?
- not enough blacks at your company? We need to keep running the program and try harder (aka new "programs") to get more diversity.
- Have enough black/women at your company? That's wrongthink, you can never have enough diversity, and don't you dare get rid of the program, only a racist would do such a thing.
I think it was a supreme court judge who said "Where does it end? At what point do you declare victory?". The far left has no answer to that because their political existence depends on being social justice warriors. Either people need to continue suffering, or they need to extend the definition of suffering to make it appear they and their irreversible government programs are the last and only line of defense from a world full of racism.
and to answer your question, I think these policies were supposed to be impactful for us as society more so than for companies…
Well, I believe the idea was two-fold, but it would depend on who you ask. Certainly the societal benefit was a consideration. But there are also those who do genuinely believe that DEI is good for a company.
A third consideration is the PR angle. That is, I don't think it's overly cynical to say that PR was a primary driver for some of these companies, especially given the moment. And that's really what I'm asking: how much actual work was done? How much real change was there versus the headlines?