I might be kidding myself, but is it possible to have a genuine discussion on this topic?

I’ll be the first to admit that most of what I’ve heard about DEI comes filtered through the MAGA outrage machine, which, after eight years of watching them peddle lies and bullshit, I have every reason to distrust. I had a general understanding of how DEI works in reality, but as a straight white man, I’ve never needed to know more, so I didn’t bother. Not very woke of me, I know.

From what I do understand, at least in the US, DEI policies don’t mandate a minimum number of diversity hires, at least not at the federal level. There are no laws requiring companies to hire a set number of people based on race, gender, or any other characteristic.

Most DEI initiatives are about ensuring fair hiring processes, improving workplace inclusion, and increasing opportunities for groups that have historically been locked out, not handing out jobs to random people based on identity alone. You still have to be qualified for the job, right?

That’s what I always understood DEI to be: breaking down barriers that have kept marginalised people out, ensuring they’re judged on their actual merit rather than being overlooked due to systemic bias, whether that bias is outright discrimination or structural issues like workplace accessibility, medical barriers, or networking disadvantages.

And given that strict hiring quotas based on race or gender would likely violate US anti-discrimination laws, I always assumed they didn’t exist. Affirmative action is a separate thing, and even that is about setting goals, not enforcing quotas.

I always thought it was about removing barriers, not lowering standards.

So with that in mind, isn’t DEI a good thing? If it’s about making sure anyone, regardless of race, gender, or background, is employed based on their ability, then what’s the issue?

Yet if you listen to Trump and the MAGA crowd, they paint DEI as some dystopian nightmare where air traffic control is run by the mentally impaired, and every time a non-white, non-male person holds a position of responsibility, it must be because they were gifted the job at the expense of a more deserving white person and when anything negative happens, it's because of DEI.

So am I missing something here? Or is the real problem simply that some people can’t accept the idea that anyone outside their demographic could possibly have merit?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6^th, 2025 at 4:23pm:


You mean like, Pete Hegseth?

And when Ivanka & Jared were working in the White House - that was meritocracy in action?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 6^th, 2025 at 4:23pm:


put up a quota

Although art isn’t about winning awards, it’s illustrative that at the 2023 APRA Music Awards there were complaints from activists because fifteen of the seventeen awards went to men. Dean Lewis, a white man, won two awards all by himself! No fair-minded person would look at the super-woke arts industry and conclude it’s got a misogyny problem. In almost every facet, from casting to recording to publishing, women and non-whites are the only game in town. But this one awards night didn’t sufficiently bow to the left-wing narrative and so many in the arts community were outraged.

You’re not just in trouble if you, the artist, don’t conform with these activists’ expectations; your art is also in trouble unless it promotes what activists care about. Instead of making good art for its own sake, simply because you want to tell the truth about the world we live in or a good story, Australia’s arts establishment prioritises work that is about a cause. Art that exists be-cause of your gender. Or be-cause of your culture. Or be-cause of your race, or be-cause of your sexuality.

Colin Lillie*

* I came from Scotland to Australia; I call myself a proud Scozzie. I believe in the Australian spirit and the “fair go” attitude of our country. I’m a musician and an artist, and I wear my heart, and my opinions, on my sleeve.
I’m a proud dad and I’m married to a woman who last year, suddenly, became one of Australia’s most prominent individuals: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.

In the US, as in Australia, the demographic that has exponentially benefitted from DEI is middle- to upper-middle-class, tertiary-educated, Anglo-/European-descent white women.

DEI, among other things, includes ensuring gender balance. so favouring the hiring from the demographic above means the employer's DEI quota box is ticked without crossing ethnicity or other minority categories.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2025 at 4:19pm:

Yep. That's it.


ProudKangaroo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2025 at 4:19pm:

Yep, that's it.

It seems to me, the Right-Wingers just want the right to discriminate on the basis of sexuality/Race/gender/religion/etc.  They don't like the idea that they aren't any longer allowed to discriminate against people just based on the look of them.  Something most people don't agree with.  This will come back to haunt them, they will pay when people become fed up with being discriminated against.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

This is just my two cents. I think that DEI has its place, but it shouldn't be applied everywhere. I'm speaking through experience. When I was a young jobseeker, I would more often than not get through the application process to the point of the interview and then no further. On paper, I looked great. I was qualified and experienced with a great track record. But I had/have a hearing impairment.

Keep in mind that this is going back to the late 1990's and early 2000's when community attitudes to people with hearing impairment (or virtually any disability) was quite different to what it is today. As I said, I looked great on paper and then when it came time to attend the interview, the response would be "oh, we didn't realise you're deaf" and then it would be all downhill from there no matter what I said. It took a long time to get my foot in the door and overcome this discrimination - and yes, that's exactly what it was. Going back further to the early 1980's, my parents had to fight the education department, because the department wanted me enrolled in a "special" school, not a mainstream one. I'm glad my parents persisted and got me into a mainstream school.

I think that certain DEI programs can do good. It's hard enough for a person with a disability or from a racial or religious minority to get a job these days. Creating certain positions for people of a particular race or religion or disability isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as they are qualified (or can be trained) and are competent in the role. But there are also instances where DEI programs cannot legitimately work, such as in certain industries where a disability will hinder the ability of the person to do the job safely - such as a completely deaf person applying to be a Qantas pilot. In a perfect world, people will be selected for a role based solely on merit. As we know, our world is far from perfect and so in a lot of cases, DEI programs can and do do some good.