Talk:Diversity, equity, and inclusion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katumassd, Spicyeggwhites, LiamG17 (article contribs).

--EDI?== In Canada this is the dominant term (same words, different order) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.248 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge back to Diversity training?

There's a lot of talking about doing DEI, and a lot of talking about criticizing DEI, but much less about what DEI actually is and does. Perhaps there isn't enough for an article separate from Diversity training and it should just be a section there? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I dunno... It kind of seems to be a separate concept. Like, diversity training is part of DEI, but DEI also involves other efforts too. Still, any article on this topic is going to be a massive pain and be plagued by POV pushing on either side; and I for one can't commit much more time to this sort of topic unfortunately. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of what DEI is, in detail, as disclosed from over 100 leaked videos (not for public viewing) from the virtual workshops held by the National Association of Independent Schools' People of Color Conference can be found in "Inside the Woke Indoctrination Machine" by Andrew Gutmann and Paul Rossi on page A13 of the 2022/02/12-13 Wall Street Journal. Yes, it is a thing - very highly-directed and specific. The elements laid out therein should be included in this article and, in fact, the inclusion should go in the opposite direction, with the article on Critical Race Theory (one of the applications of the DEI initiative) subsumed under this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA4D:C5B8:0:3361:EAF8:97B7 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Tagged for POV issues

This article is written in a promotional, non-encyclopedic way. It reads more like the intro to a training manual than a neutral article. It ignores the fact that DEI has broader applications than organizational training initiatives. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There exists a pretty strong debate over DEI, what it means and how it is impacting various institutions, especially universities (with the recent Hamline U outrage, this criticism is more lively than ever). Everyone is entitled to agreeing or disagreeing with the criticism -- at the end of the day it is largely a question of personal philosophy and ideology, not right or wrong -- but it is slightly absurd to not discuss it. A NPOV perspective would discuss the ideological/philosophical background in a neutral manner, and cover the establishment and spread of DEI in organizational culture in historical terms. Finally a portion that sought to provide arguments by prominent advocates and critics, could conclude the article. If nobody opposes it, I might start looking at how it could be made more NPOV and with a more international perspective.--Euor (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

No criticism section huh? No mention of the fact that this is a controversial philosophy being forced down everyone’s throats 2601:283:4B81:9EE0:E991:8F59:94AB:A28C (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good manners are a thing only mothers and fathers can inculcate in people; only they have the requisite authority to demand that someone be kind and considerate of others. This manifests the replacement of fathers and mothers with "professionals" as a child's principle teacher of morality and sociability. When half the country seems unaware that honesty is an essential human value, then diversity, inclusion, and equity are irrelevant. 2603:7080:B53F:D6C:30CB:C189:CF9C:8999 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This space isn’t for people to grind axes, which I think is a fair characterization of what you’re doing here — especially with the rather naked talking point at the end. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@2601:283:4B81:9EE0:E991:8F59:94AB:A28C this article is a propaganda piece. I adjusted it. Fantastical farce (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the tone or the politics of the other poster, but I think it would make sense for this article to have a criticism section. Both sides of the political spectrum have criticized DEI, the right for DEI's progresive policies and the left for being a shield against accountability for big businesses. --81.196.3.4 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree the article needs significant expansion to reflect the way DEI is discussed and criticized, but for those that are curious: more modern Wikipedia articles tend to eschew "Controversies" or "Criticism" sections for more specific section titles e.g. "Backlash to corporate DEI initiatives". You can read more in an influential essay (meaning NOT official WP policy) at WP:CSECTION, that gets up a lot. Suriname0 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

DEI needs a history section

DEI needs a history section that describes it either as an HR innovation that legitimates particular organizations, or a chronology of the organizational entities that first set them up, how it spread, etc. There are no dates, places or persons mentioned in the article. 50.4.132.185 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)