People against DEI are just racist and sexist?

[Anonymous]

People have no idea how bad it has gotten. DEI is killing people.

People who look like me with a 3.8 GPA, publications, awards, top 15 percent MCAT, can barely get a look.

Meanwhile, 2.7 GPA, no publications, no awards, and lower 50 percent of MCAT will be neurosurgeons. https://t.co/9ZYGF0jnOD

— Andrew Zywiec, M. D. (@AndrewZywiecMD) February 27, 2026

This white male uses this woman's post to make the claim that all non-white male, in a highly skilled professions, do not deserve it; this includes women. In his ideal world, doctors, lawyers, engineers, CEOS, STEM programs etc should mostly be filled by white men and sprinkle of Asian men. Isn't this racist? He's not alone in his thinking as 403k+ people saw this, 13k liked it and there are 600 comments all in support of him.

Updates

4 mo

For people saying they want to remove DEI, you realize it means mass discrimination against minorities? Before DEI was put in place, if your name was not white passing, you wouldn't be hired for a job. Employer bias would also be full effect, where non-white candidate would less likely to be hired for a job because of their race.

Updates

4 mo

because Chazmatrazz269 is a racist that blocks people when his views are challenge.

Again you show your ignorance. DEI doesn't let an organization determine who gets the job based on gender and race alone.

DEI is basically trying to widen that pool and make evaluation more consistent. Things like structured interviews and broader recruiting. Companies that switch to more structured methods usually end up with better hires, not worse ones. It’s not lowering standards. It’s removing randomness

[SmokinAces2000]

Mostly racist. We saw how they all made it about black people despite the fact that white women benefited the most

[Snowman84]

Yes they definitely are. It’s mostly white men living in fear of losing their privilege.

[darkcloud1945]

@Snowman84 Democratic stupidity reigning supreme!

[Snowman84]

My point exactly, a deflection using ad hominem.

[Kaneki05]

You have way too much faith in companies if you think DEI is a positive it's more Tokenism puts up in power for making a company look more diverse. So they can virtue signal how great they're.
Even replacing and swapping races of known characters in fiction whether a show/film or game or even book for the sake of it. Funny how everyone would change their tune quickly if it was announced that Nelson Mandela is about to be played by a white dude in a upcoming film but apparently race swapping Cleopatra that's normal and in fact combating racism somehow?

It would be great if everyone was based on who's simply right for the job role but reality is a lot of pushes are artificial and racist within themselves.
To deny this is denying reality that's plain to see.

[exitseven]

No, they believe in equal rights for all. I went to an urban college where there were a lot of inner city minorities. There was even a Black Student Union, a place where white people were not welcome. Most were on some sort of scholarship and they had access to tutors and other study aids that the paying customers did not get. I always suspected that the faculty and administrators would pass them anyway.
fast forward 30 years and I am teaching at an urban college and they have "retention officers" who identify students at risk of failing and send me an e-mail requesting that I reach out to the student and provided extra help and guidance. I even get a stipend for doing it. 90% of these kids are minorities.

[Anonymous]

That's not what he's saying at all, he's saying you have to be careful because DEI has put unqualified people into high stakes jobs where incompetence could cost you your life.

It's the DEI people who are racist and sexist, insisting that people should be placed in certain jobs only based on their race or sex, and not on merit. That's dangerous to everyone.

No one cares if there are a billion black or Asian or Hispanic surgeons or pilots or whatever career, if they're the best at what they do. But that's not what they're doing with this programs, they're letting people in who do not have the objective credentials to be capable of doing what is needed for the job.

[Chazmatazz269]

DEI is systemic racism and sexism. If the selection process is about anything other than merit, it’s guaranteed to fail. The best person for the opening, period. No lowering qualifications or prerequisites. No softened standards. Everyone is held to the highest standards and the best person for the position fills it. THAT is the only system guaranteed to result in success.

[Asker]

DEI isn't a racial quota system. Companies can't legally do that. Title VII doesn’t let a company reject someone for being white or male, and it doesn’t let them set fixed quotas. If they tried, they’d get sued almost immediately. So the “quota” part of your concern doesn’t line up with what the law allows.

What DEI usually touches is the early part of hiring, not the final decision. The resume studies are the clearest example. Same resume, different names, and the callback rate changes a lot. That’s been shown in multiple studies over twenty years. Asian applicants often need more experience just to get the same interest. That’s not a qualification issue. It’s about who gets attention in the first place.

Referrals also drive a huge portion of hiring. Roughly half of all hires come from them, and people tend to refer people like themselves or from their own circles. Since most people’s social circles aren’t very diverse, the applicant pool ends up skewed even when no one is trying to discriminate. That’s a pipeline issue, not a merit issue.

DEI is basically trying to widen that pool and make evaluation more consistent. Things like structured interviews and broader recruiting. Companies that switch to more structured methods usually end up with better hires, not worse ones. It’s not lowering standards. It’s removing randomness.

[Chazmatazz269]

Strawman much? I never used the word quota. Go be willfully ignorant somewhere else.
DEI is 100% racist and sexist. It allows people and organizations to decide who gets positions based upon gender and race alone. That is why it is failing far and wide.
Additionally, lawsuits HAVE been filed AND won. Your choice to ignore them doesn’t make them disappear.
You’re talking straight out of your ass, and that’s why you went anonymous. You know your nonsense doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because you have zero facts supporting your FEELINGS. You’re on the wrong side of yet another issue. Grow up and try actually contributing something to the world. Instead of mooching and b*tching that people aren’t handing you everything you want on a silver platter for no effort or investment of your own.

[strateguy632]

I want to remove DEI, it doesn't mean "mass discrimination against minorities" as one minority engineer explained: Before diversity he was hired... Ta da they could get jobs without diversity rules. These diversity laws are racist against whites who are not treated equal.

[strateguy632]

In fact a famous minority was the black engineer who even in slave times, was the engineer of washington D. C. City planning named carver.

[Asker]

It does mean mass discrimination against minorities as before DEI, many white employers would have an innate bias to pick white employees over minorities. In addition, many qualified non-whites would be discriminated and not even get an interview if there name wasn't white passing.

DEI isn't a racial quota system. Companies can't legally do that. Title VII doesn’t let a company reject someone for being white or male, and it doesn’t let them set fixed quotas. If they tried, they’d get sued almost immediately. So the “quota” part of your concern doesn’t line up with what the law allows.

What DEI usually touches is the early part of hiring, not the final decision. The resume studies are the clearest example. Same resume, different names, and the callback rate changes a lot. That’s been shown in multiple studies over twenty years. Asian applicants often need more experience just to get the same interest. That’s not a qualification issue. It’s about who gets attention in the first place.

Referrals also drive a huge portion of hiring. Roughly half of all hires come from them, and people tend to refer people like themselves or from their own circles. Since most people’s social circles aren’t very diverse, the applicant pool ends up skewed even when no one is trying to discriminate. That’s a pipeline issue, not a merit issue.

DEI is basically trying to widen that pool and make evaluation more consistent. Things like structured interviews and broader recruiting. Companies that switch to more structured methods usually end up with better hires, not worse ones. It’s not lowering standards. It’s removing randomness.

[WindAtMyBack]

DEI hires people based on their race. That is pure racism. You are claiming that being against racism is racist?

And all along I thought the goal was to be color blind and gender blind. Funny how the people who want a color blind society are the ones constantly bringing up race. If the goal is a color blind society, then it should be color blind.

[Asker]

DEI doesn't hire based on race. Stop getting your information from X.

[WindAtMyBack]

I've never read X in my life. This has been going on since long before you were born, and long before X existed, and long before the web existed.

DEI by definition means they were hired for some other reason than qualifications. If it was only based on qualifications, the entire idea of DEI would not exist.

Those programs are ENTIRELY about race and gender.

[Asker]

DEI doesn't determine who a company hires. So your understanding of it is flawed either way.

[WindAtMyBack]

Yes it does affect who is hired. It also affects firing people once they are hired, even if they are completely incapable of doing their job. It affects college admission as well. It affects who gets government contracts.

Apparently you are the one with a flawed understanding. It's even been through the courts which have upheld using minority status as a criteria for hiring, college admissions, etc.

[Asker]

do you know that this is illegal right?

[WindAtMyBack]

Did you read where I said the courts have upheld it? No it's not illegal. The Supreme Court has specifically said that minority status can be used. It said that it can't be the ONLY criteria, but it can be given preferential treatment.

Where do you think this whole thing comes from? Why do you think it's been controversial for the last 50-60 years? It's controversial because it uses racism and sexism to combat racism and sexism. It's controversial because people who are less qualified get hired, or get contracts. That IS the way it works and the courts have upheld it.

[Asker]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” That means you can’t hire someone based on any of those attributes.

This essentially makes your entire argument hollow. Again, you have been warped in your understanding on what DEI actual does when it comes to hiring. Stop listening to right, wing conservatives and racist misinforming you.

[WindAtMyBack]

You are going by a bunch of theory that is NOT how it works in practice.

Title VII is also at the heart of reverse discrimination. It's at the heart of anti-DEI. Title VII means that race, color, sex and national origin can not be used AT ALL during the hiring process, awarding government contracts, college admissions, etc.

But those criteria HAVE been used, which is why so many of those programs are slowly being dismantled.

Look up Grutter v. Bollinger, or Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

You are too young to remember bussing. Look that up as well.

Have you ever worked at a EOE company where there is a disproportionately high number of protected groups who were hired just to increase the numbers?

Have you ever worked at a government facility where someone who couldn't even do the job could not be fired because they are in a protected group?

This is not misinformation, it's absolute fact. The courts are starting to overrule some of these practices because they violate Title VII. They can't be overruled unless it was happening in the first place.

The idea of using discrimination to combat discrimination is absurd. But that is exactly what has been done.

[Asker]

Except those criteria have not been used. Again Title VII makes it illegal for employees to discriminate against someone base on race, gender, sex. You literally just stated that.

DEI does not determine who gets picked for a job. It just puts in place checks and balances to ensure that minorities aren't discriminated for job opportunities. If DEI wasn't in place, it would come down to employers bias and referrals for jobs. White employers would more likely hire white workers 90% of the time due to familiar social circles and internal bias that all humans have. A perfect example of this was shown in past studies, where well qualified individuals were discriminated for jobs for not having white passing names.

[Miristheiss]

Hire ONLY on skill and merit.

Hire the MOST qualified.

This is basic COMMON SENSE.

[Asker]

And that is still being done.

[LC75LC71]

I always insist on the right person for the job.

[FunkyMonkee]

No, they're fucking smart!! Only assholes will hire based on skin colour and sex!!

[Asker]

DEI doesn't let an organization determine who gets the job based on gender and race alone.

Let me explain to you how DEI actually works through an example given you don't understand and get your information from dangerous right wing sources on X.

say an employer posts a job opening and there are two equally qualified resumes. The sad truth is, due to current practices, if one resume belongs to a John and the other a Jamal, John is much more likely to get the job over Jamal. DEI policies say that is illegal and needs to be fixed. This doesn't mean that you HAVE to hire Jamal over John, and that is the most common misconception here. What DEI says is you must CONSIDER Jamal EQUALLY with John.

The difficulty is, how do you prove that Jamal WAS considered equally? We can't open up the hiring manager's brain and go, "A-ha! This manager didn't hire Jamal because they are racist!" So, they look at ratios of employment. If local demographics are 60% white, 20% black, and 20% Hispanic, then logic dictates that the work force should also approximate those ratios. So when you have a company that is 90% white, 7% Hispanic, and 3% black, and that ratio has been that way for the past 20 years, its indicative that they are not considering the Jamal applications.

This can lead to a review of their hiring practices, which may show discrimination against minorities. Or, it might show that in that region, for whatever reason, minorities simply aren't applying for those jobs and that nothing wrong has occurred.

What it does NOT mean is that the company needs to lay off X number of white workers and immediately replace them with whatever Hispanic or black person that comes their way, regardless of their qualifications.

[FunkyMonkee]

I haven't been to Twitter since a couple years BEFORE Elon bought it and changed it X and, even if I was, at least THEY unlike YOU and the lefty media, tell THE TRUTH!!! Yeah, I know! That's a dirty word, to you!!
As for your explanation, it's all bullshit, too!

[Asker]

So because I am explaining to you in how things actually work and not sharing in your paranoia, "I am not telling the truth". I see having a discussion with you is pointless.

[FunkyMonkee]

I'm not paranoid. I see how things work! You see how the media WANTS YOU to see how things work!
Yeah, back at ya!!

[KostasKouvalis]

No, quite the opposite actually

[beefcakebradybatson]

Ninety percent of them.