The software company, along with its subsidiary LinkedIn, is ostensibly going all in on Pride. But as they ditch DEI and LGBTQ hate speech protections, is it just pinkwashing?
While I understand feeling the need for corporate sincerity when it comes to assuring LGBTQ rights, I can't help but pragmatically, perhaps even cynically accept that our rights as a frequently maligned minority are always at high risk of erosion. It could be that Microsoft is simply trying to make money-- it could be that they are trying to play politics while sincerely maintaining a longstanding commitment to LGBTQ rights-- maybe there's elements of both. Either way, I am glad that in the face of enormous pressure they haven't abandoned their commitment to us altogether.
In the meanwhile, it sucks and is stressful, but we need to remember that in a world that is built by and for cishet people, we will probably always be on the underside of society. While we can and should fight for broader acceptance, the likelihood is that the road to it will be a very long one, with many backslides like we are experiencing under Trump, and truthfully may never be fully realized. A little grit, patience and radical acceptance as a community will help us go a long way toward weathering the orange storm.
Besides, I am not sure I *want* complete acceptance by society. So long as there's a power structure, there's a need for people to resist it-- and power is often built on the control of the deepest of human relationships and identities. Queerness by its nature serves as a tremendously powerful check on power.
and no one seems to see the compelled speech or loyalty oaths and ways DEI have been a sham, and how a woman was fired simply because women in academia have it rough and women with male partners are not likely to move with their partner to a job.
we never ask when it goes overboard and we should... because when it does, it lead to the splash back. and oh boy what a splash back.
If that's all you can say, then that doesn't exactly make a convincing argument.
But if you want an example, just one of many… go right here.
A scholar in Norway wrote an academic paper which echoes our "The Joke's on You" ‘hoax’ paper which was accepted by Hypatia. In that, we argued that humour is only legitimate when used against dominant groups. Then we conflated Critical Social Justice ideas with minority groups and argued that making fun of the former was a kind of epistemic violence against the latter. Satire, parody, mockery, irony or any kind of fun-making of the woke was unacceptable and should be penalised. We came down particularly hard against academic hoaxes.
Now, this argument seems to have been made entirely seriously. The targeted satirist sent it to me and has written a piece about it. I intend to do an interview with him.
Why are you so quick to defend it? To defend what the very rich and very white people at blackrock, state street and all the like use? Some of d e i's common sense, some of it's great, some of it actually has a lot of problems
Decrying a program just because certain people use it is called a genetic fallacy-- just because the Autobahn was Hitler's brainchild doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and just because DEI is used by rich white people doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Surprise! Sometimes I have common ground with rich white people. DEI is one of those areas. DEI is clearly very important to both company well being (their priority) and worker and minority well being (My priority). DEI initiatives very clearly translate to better worker well-being, and that's evidenced by the following data:
"DEI initiatives play a vital role in fostering inclusive workplaces that attract and retain top talent, as well as shape a brand’s external reputation and consumer trust (Georgeac & Rattan, 2023). Researchers have consistently demonstrated the benefits of diversity within teams, as companies with diverse leadership teams are more innovative, better at problem solving, and more financially successful than their less diverse counterparts (Homan et al., 2010; van Dick et al., 2008; van Knippenberg et al., 2007). Moreover, inclusive workplaces are associated with higher levels of employee engagement, loyalty, and productivity—factors that contribute directly to brand equity and to consumer perception."
Clearly this is a “What’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander” moment. DEI initiatives greatly improve both company performance and employee morale and productivity. This is clearly established by objective data. You can debate it, but you would be hard pressed to find any good data that speaks otherwise.
I agree that some programs and initiatives under the DEI umbrella don’t work or are counterproductive. That, however, is a problem with effectiveness, not with the principles and purposes of DEI itself.
When DEI ends up firing someone who said that men do not follow women were in their career takes them to another place, and they're fired for that fact, then there's a problem.
When DEI compelled REDHAT and IBM (and college employees for that matter ) to make loyalty oaths… that is a problem.
There's some of it that makes sense.There's some of it that just violates the civil rights act and Title VII.
It's an investment strategy at best and ends up shooting the good cause in the foot on the regular.
M n d e I ends up firing.Someone who said that men do not follow women were in their career takes them to another place.. and they're fired for that fact, then there's a problem.
There's some of it that makes sense.There's some of it that just violates the civil rights act and Title VII.
It's an investment strategy at best and ends up shooting the good cause in the foot at worst.
Fact correction-- Autobahn was not Hitler's brainchild, it originated before the 3rd Reich. It was enthusiastically taken over and massively expanded by his administration, however.
I'm sorryin advacebut i think DEI itself is pink washing. compelled statements and was a neat idea that went way out of scope and even diversity consultants get punished for questioning the cracks or some issues.
especially when the most wealthy of the wealthy can't stop talking about it. As an investment strategy at best a shibboleth at worst.
Identity Politics and the like have made a terrible thing that has gone away from a liberal society and even speech chilling.. only for the right to react and take over with their own regressive and oppressive policies... the same thing they complain the woke to be doing.
Some of it makes logical sense. some of it not so much. Instead of engaging with critics and helping them to understand... some were absolutely trashed and even harassed for questioning such policies and even loyalty oaths and self flagellation and the humiliation... struggle sessions. All for a way for cis het whites to center themselves as universality and engage in surplus enjoyment.
The negative actions in the name of good cause a reaction... and other negative people were able to exploit that.
There were illiberal individuals... people reacted and other illiberal individuals are riding that reaction. steering it.
While I understand feeling the need for corporate sincerity when it comes to assuring LGBTQ rights, I can't help but pragmatically, perhaps even cynically accept that our rights as a frequently maligned minority are always at high risk of erosion. It could be that Microsoft is simply trying to make money-- it could be that they are trying to play politics while sincerely maintaining a longstanding commitment to LGBTQ rights-- maybe there's elements of both. Either way, I am glad that in the face of enormous pressure they haven't abandoned their commitment to us altogether.
In the meanwhile, it sucks and is stressful, but we need to remember that in a world that is built by and for cishet people, we will probably always be on the underside of society. While we can and should fight for broader acceptance, the likelihood is that the road to it will be a very long one, with many backslides like we are experiencing under Trump, and truthfully may never be fully realized. A little grit, patience and radical acceptance as a community will help us go a long way toward weathering the orange storm.
Besides, I am not sure I *want* complete acceptance by society. So long as there's a power structure, there's a need for people to resist it-- and power is often built on the control of the deepest of human relationships and identities. Queerness by its nature serves as a tremendously powerful check on power.
It shows that this whole d e I thing, is the corporate sale of indulgences on a good day
and no one seems to see the compelled speech or loyalty oaths and ways DEI have been a sham, and how a woman was fired simply because women in academia have it rough and women with male partners are not likely to move with their partner to a job.
we never ask when it goes overboard and we should... because when it does, it lead to the splash back. and oh boy what a splash back.
DEI has been a sham? Lol. Try again.
If that's all you can say, then that doesn't exactly make a convincing argument.
But if you want an example, just one of many… go right here.
A scholar in Norway wrote an academic paper which echoes our "The Joke's on You" ‘hoax’ paper which was accepted by Hypatia. In that, we argued that humour is only legitimate when used against dominant groups. Then we conflated Critical Social Justice ideas with minority groups and argued that making fun of the former was a kind of epistemic violence against the latter. Satire, parody, mockery, irony or any kind of fun-making of the woke was unacceptable and should be penalised. We came down particularly hard against academic hoaxes.
Now, this argument seems to have been made entirely seriously. The targeted satirist sent it to me and has written a piece about it. I intend to do an interview with him.
https://www.scup.com/doi/10.18261/tfk.50.1.5
Why are you so quick to defend it? To defend what the very rich and very white people at blackrock, state street and all the like use? Some of d e i's common sense, some of it's great, some of it actually has a lot of problems
Decrying a program just because certain people use it is called a genetic fallacy-- just because the Autobahn was Hitler's brainchild doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and just because DEI is used by rich white people doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Surprise! Sometimes I have common ground with rich white people. DEI is one of those areas. DEI is clearly very important to both company well being (their priority) and worker and minority well being (My priority). DEI initiatives very clearly translate to better worker well-being, and that's evidenced by the following data:
"DEI initiatives play a vital role in fostering inclusive workplaces that attract and retain top talent, as well as shape a brand’s external reputation and consumer trust (Georgeac & Rattan, 2023). Researchers have consistently demonstrated the benefits of diversity within teams, as companies with diverse leadership teams are more innovative, better at problem solving, and more financially successful than their less diverse counterparts (Homan et al., 2010; van Dick et al., 2008; van Knippenberg et al., 2007). Moreover, inclusive workplaces are associated with higher levels of employee engagement, loyalty, and productivity—factors that contribute directly to brand equity and to consumer perception."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681325000370
See also this:
https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/learning-culture/diversity-workplace-statistics-dei-importance
Clearly this is a “What’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander” moment. DEI initiatives greatly improve both company performance and employee morale and productivity. This is clearly established by objective data. You can debate it, but you would be hard pressed to find any good data that speaks otherwise.
I agree that some programs and initiatives under the DEI umbrella don’t work or are counterproductive. That, however, is a problem with effectiveness, not with the principles and purposes of DEI itself.
It's flawed by its very design despite its noble goals. It should be decried on those merits. We should call things wrong when they're wrong
When DEI ends up firing someone who said that men do not follow women were in their career takes them to another place, and they're fired for that fact, then there's a problem.
When DEI compelled REDHAT and IBM (and college employees for that matter ) to make loyalty oaths… that is a problem.
There's some of it that makes sense.There's some of it that just violates the civil rights act and Title VII.
It's an investment strategy at best and ends up shooting the good cause in the foot on the regular.
Good Lord, what do you actually know?
M n d e I ends up firing.Someone who said that men do not follow women were in their career takes them to another place.. and they're fired for that fact, then there's a problem.
There's some of it that makes sense.There's some of it that just violates the civil rights act and Title VII.
It's an investment strategy at best and ends up shooting the good cause in the foot at worst.
Fact correction-- Autobahn was not Hitler's brainchild, it originated before the 3rd Reich. It was enthusiastically taken over and massively expanded by his administration, however.
Social justice, however, was it was a way to stop Jewish people. There's publications that we're saying jews are plotting to stop Social Justice.
Hypocrites! Microsoft I mean.
I'm sorryin advacebut i think DEI itself is pink washing. compelled statements and was a neat idea that went way out of scope and even diversity consultants get punished for questioning the cracks or some issues.
especially when the most wealthy of the wealthy can't stop talking about it. As an investment strategy at best a shibboleth at worst.
Identity Politics and the like have made a terrible thing that has gone away from a liberal society and even speech chilling.. only for the right to react and take over with their own regressive and oppressive policies... the same thing they complain the woke to be doing.
Some of it makes logical sense. some of it not so much. Instead of engaging with critics and helping them to understand... some were absolutely trashed and even harassed for questioning such policies and even loyalty oaths and self flagellation and the humiliation... struggle sessions. All for a way for cis het whites to center themselves as universality and engage in surplus enjoyment.
The negative actions in the name of good cause a reaction... and other negative people were able to exploit that.
There were illiberal individuals... people reacted and other illiberal individuals are riding that reaction. steering it.