Hundreds of American companies have admitted to deliberately shunning white men for jobs due to DEI policies amid pressure to make workplaces more diverse, according to a survey. The Telegraph has more.
A poll of 1,216 of American businesses with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies found that one in 10 avoid hiring white men altogether and six in 10 human resource (HR) managers put diversity over qualifications when selecting candidates.
The study, conducted by website Resume Builder, also found that one in three HR managers believe that “reverse discrimination” occurs because of DEI policies. Three-quarters suspect that these policies were introduced “in part for appearances”.
The survey comes after Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders that banned federal agencies and businesses with Government contracts from having DEI policies.
Last month, the Trump administration sent letters to France and other EU countries warning that the DEI ban applied to companies outside of America if they had US contracts.
Many male Trump voters believe that US society discriminates against them, recent studies show – despite white men being disproportionately represented in every state in high-paying jobs.
Although the UK branches of businesses such as McDonald’s and Deloitte have kept their DEI policies in place – despite their US counterparts scrapping them – HR advisers say similar tensions are evident in the British recruitment market.
Some diversity schemes have faced a public backlash in recent weeks amid concerns that white workers are being blocked from certain jobs.
The Conservatives this month proposed plans that could force bosses to justify “racist” hiring practices for white workers, after West Yorkshire Police temporarily blocked applications from white British candidates for its police constable entry programmes.
NHS England has also come under scrutiny after documents showed that managers were having to justify hiring white British citizens.
Under an amendment to Angela Rayner’s Employment Rights Bill, Conservative peers say that employers should be required to give those who lost out a chance to anonymously ask questions about the process.
Bosses would then be required by law to respond to the questions, justifying their decision.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
In response to alleged anti-black discrimination, footballers, police officers and politicians go down on bended knee, public monuments are defaced and statues are chucked in harbours.
In response to documented anti-white, anti-male discrimination, government, law-enforcement and judiciary do nothing.
Doesn’t get more blatantly two-tier than that.
All lives matter.
“despite white men being disproportionately represented in every state in high-paying jobs.” (What!!!???)
That’s like saying:
“despite Ethnic African men being disproportionately represented in high-paying jobs in every African country.”
Or “despite Ethnic Oriental men being disproportionately represented in high-paying jobs in China, Japan and all Oriental countries.”
Or “despite Ethnic Indian Subcontinental men being disproportionately represented in high-paying jobs in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka”.
Indeed it’s only certain forms of “disproportionate representation” that they are bothered about. I wonder why that is?
Spot on. So much of this facile DEI nonsense reduces to distorting facts for the purpose of pure opportunism. Mix in a high degree of cronyism from several of the DEI cultures being most pushed and we have the status quo. As I regularly comment, guess what, when I do business in Japan I find that most employees and senior people are, er, Japanese. The same outcome in eg India, China, Egypt, Brazil, Nigeria and even most of Europe (yes, I have done business in these places). Who would have guessed it?
Exactly. Like this video of a Muslim immigrant in Finland complaining that there are too many Finns in Finland! She regards it as a problem to be solved by more mass immigration from the Third World.
Immigrant says there are too many Finns in Finland
“Reverse discrimination”? What on earth is that supposed to mean? In my book, it’s discrimination, regardless of its direction of operation.
Reverse infers such discrimination is always a one way street
It means that when lefties do it, it’s OK.
Employers cannot lawfully refuse to interview white men simply because they are white and male. That would also be a form of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, because race and sex are both protected characteristics.
That said, here’s where confusion sometimes arises: in certain, very limited circumstances, employers can take what’s called positive action—but not positive discrimination. Here’s the difference:
Positive Action (Legal)
Under the Equality Act, employers can take steps to help disadvantaged or underrepresented groups—if:
Even then, positive action is not the same as giving someone a job just because of their race or gender. When it comes to hiring:
Positive Discrimination (Illegal)
Choosing not to interview or hire someone because they’re white or male—regardless of their qualifications—is unlawful. It’s the same kind of discrimination the law is meant to prevent, just in a different direction.
So in summary: refusing to interview white men just because they are white men is illegal in the UK. Employers must assess candidates fairly, based on merit, while being allowed to encourage diversity through positive action, not discrimination.
Presumably (hopefully) the supreme court will issue a judgement to that effect.
To us it’s obvious but to the hard of thinking in the government it’s really really hard, like sums or sumpfink.
But the reality is that hiring is so ambiguous with so many parties involved that it is near impossible to pin this down in a given hiring scenario. Vested interests cover their tracks and mix in all sorts of spin. I have encountered teams in Corporate and Banking clients where almost everyone hired is eg South Asian, or other large teams where it reduces to a game of ‘spot the white British male’ as a challenge, but nobody says anything about this blatant cronyism and discrimination. Whenever this has arisen, I have never seen this challenged and addressed in any British firm with which I have had dealings. For any individual openly raising it then it would surely be game over at the next round of redundancies. It is high time that this nonsense was addressed via the law and by independent auditors, although no doubt the auditors will have the same nonsense going on in their firms.
Whilst it is apparent Blackrock have recently acted as if to dial back their own DEI/ESG goals the effect of their pushing such targets onto businesses they invest in is yet to be openly rescinded and the effect is bound to endure.
https://thatparkplace.com/blackrock-ditches-dei/
This is rife in British institutions, corporates, banks, professional services. Managers clamouring to hire a ‘person of colour’ or ‘LGBTQ+’ to bolster their promotion prospects. I have witnessed some truly ridiculous hires to fill some facile DEI quota. Mediocre or just plain hopeless people reaching really senior levels on accelerated promotions due to some identity politic quota. It is always the same groups being pushed, namely South Asians, Africans, Islamics, and LGBTQ+. The entire rest of the world hardly ever features. I recall one firm I had dealings with that had half its business in East Asia but, at the corporate HQ in London, there were almost no East Asians but the place was packed with the above listed groups. Redundancies would come around and, you guessed it, white ethnicity, straight, males were in trouble. My LinkedIn network is awash with such characters, who cannot even obtain an jnterview and, if they are over fifty years of age, then it is game over. Blatant discrimination and victimisation.