0:00

How do you like to listen to

0:02

Explain it to me without any

0:04

ads? Vox members now get ad-free

0:07

podcasts. Members get all kinds of

0:09

cool benefits as a thank you

0:11

for supporting our work. Stuff like

0:13

unlimited reading on our website and

0:15

exclusive newsletters. Go to vox.com/members right

0:18

now to sign up. I

0:23

can't prove, and neither can anyone else,

0:26

that a computer is alive or not,

0:28

or conscious or not, or whatever. I

0:30

mean, all that stuff is always going

0:33

to be a matter of faith. But

0:35

what I can say is that

0:37

this emphasis on trying to make

0:39

the models seem like they're freestanding

0:41

new entities does blind us to some

0:44

ways we could make them better. So

0:46

how can we make artificial

0:48

intelligence better? That's this week

0:50

on the gray area. New

0:53

episodes every Monday.

0:55

White people are the

0:57

largest group of

0:59

people that believe

1:01

that they're discriminated

1:04

against. Everyone was

1:06

like, this is

1:09

a meritocracy. I

1:11

never quite felt

1:13

that I was

1:16

a beneficiary of

1:18

the so-called meritocracy.

1:21

I'm John Gwen Hill and

1:23

this is Explain It to

1:25

Me. Your hotline for the

1:27

questions that matter most to

1:29

you. You've reached the Explain

1:32

It to Me Hotline. You've

1:34

got questions. We've got answers.

1:37

Hi, my name is M

1:39

and when I hear about

1:41

workplace and government BI initiatives

1:44

being under attack by the

1:46

Trump administration. I, as a

1:48

clear person, feel deeply conflicted.

1:51

On the one hand, I

1:53

believe that it's incredibly important

1:56

that structural inequalities in workplaces

1:58

should be resolved. But I

2:00

also feel deeply othered

2:03

by companies with ostensibly

2:05

strong DEI programs and

2:07

policies. I found that

2:09

the programs are often performative

2:11

and may result in organizations that

2:14

save the right things instead of

2:16

doing the right things. So how

2:18

is San Nicole my being? To

2:21

get an answer to this question,

2:23

I knew just who to talk

2:25

to. Abdelafayad. I'm a writer at Vox.

2:27

and I write a lot about race and

2:29

class. Okay, let's talk through what we

2:32

mean when we talk about DEI.

2:34

I think we should stay focused

2:36

on private companies instead of the

2:38

federal sector because that could be

2:40

its own conversation, but yeah, what

2:42

exactly are we talking about? Well,

2:44

it's interesting because, you know, the

2:46

history of this really does start

2:49

with federal workers or at least

2:51

federal contractors, starting in the 1960s.

2:55

It's much easier to integrate

2:57

a lunch counter than it

2:59

is to guarantee a livable income

3:02

and a good solid job. I

3:04

shall ask the Congress of the

3:06

United States to ask. To make

3:09

a commitment it is not fully

3:11

made in this century to the

3:13

proposition that race has no place

3:16

in American life or law. A

3:18

lot of people now think of

3:20

DEAI just because it's a buzzword.

3:22

DEA reverses the things it's intended

3:25

to do. In the name of

3:27

ending racism you get anti-racism which

3:29

basically means you're just discriminating against

3:32

another group because they used to

3:34

discriminate. It's become part of the

3:36

culture wars, you know, a big

3:39

part of the Republican crusade in

3:41

this Trump administration is to attack

3:43

DEAI. But it really goes back

3:45

many decades when President Kennedy signed

3:48

an executive order that required federal

3:50

to actively not discriminate in their

3:52

hiring process? That was followed by

3:55

an actual tangible law passed by

3:57

Congress, the Civil Rights Act of

3:59

1964. which required all companies of

4:01

a certain size to make sure

4:03

that they do not discriminate against

4:05

their employees or people they might

4:08

hire. This Civil Rights Act is

4:10

a challenge to all of us,

4:12

to go to work in our

4:14

communities and our states, in our

4:16

homes and in our hearts, to

4:18

eliminate the last vestiges of injustice.

4:20

You know, and this eventually evolved

4:22

into the EI as we know

4:25

it today. Private companies really took

4:27

it and ran with it. We

4:29

started seeing companies in the 1960s,

4:31

late 1960s, early 1970s, not just complying

4:33

with the law, but going a little

4:35

bit further. So at first, you know,

4:38

these all look similar to what we

4:40

know now, you know, anti-harassment training, things

4:42

like that were you know, essentially targeted

4:45

at making sure that employees and companies

4:47

complied with the law so that they're

4:49

not liable. But there were companies like

4:51

IBM that, you know, took it a

4:54

step further, maybe it was to avoid

4:56

bad press, maybe it was to get

4:58

good press, this idea that this wasn't

5:01

just something that we have to do

5:03

in order to comply with the law,

5:05

but it's a matter of corporate social

5:07

responsibility. And so, you know, that's kind

5:10

of the DE that we know it

5:12

today came from that origin. Yeah, what

5:14

does it actually look like? You

5:16

know, I feel like it's a

5:19

buzzword that gets thrown around.

5:21

I mean, we saw Kendrick

5:23

Lamar perform at the Super

5:25

Bowl halftime show. And there

5:27

were people who reacted and said,

5:29

this is a D.I. halftime show.

5:32

And That is not what we're

5:34

talking about when it comes

5:36

to these businesses. How does

5:38

DEA manifest in companies today? Well,

5:40

yeah, I mean, DEA, like you

5:43

noted, I mean, it's become a

5:45

slur. It's become oftentimes a racial

5:47

or sexist slur. Anytime there is

5:49

a woman in a position that's

5:52

higher position. You know, it's said

5:54

to be a DEA hire. It's

5:56

a non-white person. It's a DEA

5:58

hire, what about... any other

6:00

group. Just when you go down

6:03

that route, you take mediocrity and

6:05

that's what they have. On the

6:07

right, we keep hearing this repeated

6:09

talking point that these are DEI

6:11

hires, but DEI as it is

6:13

today in companies takes many forms.

6:15

Most notable is, you know, things

6:18

that have been around for a

6:20

really long time. So anytime you

6:22

start a new job at a

6:24

company, chances are you have to

6:26

sit through these trainings about harassment

6:28

in the workplace, be it sexual

6:31

harassment, racism, implicit bias training. And

6:33

then we see other initiatives as

6:35

well that companies take on. You

6:37

know, celebrations of certain heritage months

6:39

and heritage events and things like

6:41

that. But another major part of

6:43

the EI is just to make

6:46

sure that your recruitment process is

6:48

fair. It's not a matter of,

6:50

oh, we need quotas or we

6:52

need to make sure that there

6:54

are only a certain amount of

6:56

white men in management or in

6:59

certain parts of a company. A

7:01

lot of the EI is to

7:03

make sure that we have an

7:05

equal employment opportunities opportunities. You know,

7:07

these companies have chosen to diversify

7:09

even though they weren't required to.

7:11

What's the reason they give for

7:14

going above and beyond when it

7:16

comes to these initiatives? I think

7:18

this kind of really evolved out

7:20

of the 1980s, you know, when

7:22

companies started to see diversity in

7:24

hiring and just diversity more broadly

7:27

as not just a moral thing

7:29

to do, but that it was

7:31

actually good for your bottom line

7:33

as well. You know, I don't

7:35

know that there are many studies

7:37

that show that a diverse workforce,

7:39

you know, creates more profits necessarily.

7:42

But where that really came from

7:44

was, you know, in 1987, there

7:46

was a report from a think

7:48

tank called the Hudson Institute. The

7:50

report was called Workforce 2000. This

7:52

came out in 1987 and it

7:55

kind of took the corporate world

7:57

by storm. It went viral at

7:59

the time if that's how it

8:01

was used then. They're a version

8:03

of viral. a report that every

8:05

major company was reading and it

8:07

essentially was making predictions for what

8:10

the American workforce was going to

8:12

look like in the year 2000.

8:14

And it was telling these companies

8:16

that the workforce is diversifying at

8:18

a really rapid rate both by

8:20

gender and by race. immigrant status

8:22

and the like. And essentially companies

8:25

really took that to heart because

8:27

they wanted to remain competitive. And

8:29

to remain competitive, you had to

8:31

be competitive among the workforce, not

8:33

just consumers. But if you wanted

8:35

a higher good talent and the

8:38

workforce was changing, these companies really

8:40

tried to change their policies in

8:42

order to adapt to this new

8:44

world that was being created in

8:46

the US for a more diverse

8:48

workforce. That's the kind of business

8:50

argument. That's where it started from.

8:53

Yeah, you know, it's interesting. M

8:55

was curious, you know, in saying,

8:57

am I being too cynical? Like,

8:59

is this just about business? Is

9:01

this just saying, okay, this is

9:03

the best way to be profitable?

9:06

Or is it kind of like,

9:08

oh, out of the goodness of

9:10

our hearts, we want to better

9:12

represent America in our business? What's

9:14

the thought process behind these decisions?

9:16

Well, I think M is not

9:18

too far off. I happen to

9:21

agree with a lot of what

9:23

they said. which is a lot

9:25

of the DEAI initiatives that we

9:27

have seen at many major companies

9:29

at academic institutions, have largely been

9:31

performative. And that's why what we

9:34

see oftentimes and why there's a

9:36

lot of criticism of DEA programs,

9:38

not just from the right, but

9:40

from the left as well. It's

9:42

just corporate PR. They want good

9:44

vibes. And also they want to

9:46

cover their ass. You bring in

9:49

a speaker a one-time thing or

9:51

you do anti-harassment trainings and implicit

9:53

bias trainings that study after study

9:55

have shown have been largely ineffective

9:57

and some studies have actually shown

9:59

them cause antagonism they have been

10:02

antagonizing some people in management but

10:04

the reason we do it is

10:06

because in large part because companies

10:08

are performing for their employees showing

10:10

them that they are you know

10:12

saying the right things but it

10:14

doesn't always mean that they're doing

10:17

the right things. You know one

10:19

of the best examples of this

10:21

is that you know we see

10:23

pay discrimination at company after company

10:25

after company and no matter what

10:27

the law is we have not

10:29

seen this get corrected. Okay so

10:32

there are these instances where DUI

10:34

policies are in place but they

10:36

aren't all that effective. We've talked

10:38

a little bit about this pendulum

10:40

swing from DUI and it's happened

10:42

both on the right and on

10:45

the left. Did we start to

10:47

see that pendulum swing back on

10:49

DUI? How did we go from

10:51

like, you know, this peak moment

10:53

in 2020 to where we are

10:55

now? In the 2000s, the 2010s,

10:57

with the rise of movements like

11:00

Black Lives Matter, the Me Too

11:02

movement, you know, we saw a

11:04

lot of companies take a more

11:06

active PR stance, so they all,

11:08

you know, wanted to say the

11:10

right things. We have been a

11:13

collective of individuals. Different kinds of

11:15

people from different kinds of places.

11:17

When we open the door to

11:19

new worldviews, groundbreaking ingenuity can enter

11:21

the room. Where maybe... This had

11:23

reached a peak right after the

11:25

George Floyd protest when a lot

11:28

of companies were doing a lot

11:30

of work to quickly diversify or

11:32

to double down on the programming

11:34

that they had and to do

11:36

these listening tours with employees and

11:38

all of these kinds of initiatives.

11:41

And we saw companies all across

11:43

the board do this from fashion

11:45

brands to fast food companies. And

11:47

since then, you know, there has

11:49

been a careful... slow and deliberate

11:51

attack on DUI from the right,

11:53

that has gained traction. The US

11:56

Supreme Court today dealt a major

11:58

blow to affirmative action in higher

12:00

education, striking down race-conscious admissions programs

12:02

at Harvard University. and the University

12:04

of North Carolina. That was a

12:06

huge deal and now we're seeing

12:09

schools become less diverse in enrollment

12:11

as a result. Obviously DEA in

12:13

affirmative action are not the same

12:15

thing but they are rooted in

12:17

the same history and they have

12:19

the same ideals essentially the same

12:21

goals. I want you to stay

12:24

close because I have a few

12:26

more questions for you. But first,

12:28

we're going to take a second

12:30

to talk with an innovator in

12:32

the world of diversity, equity, and

12:34

inclusion about where DEI fall short.

12:36

That's coming up next on Explain

12:39

it to me. If

12:51

you've been online this week, you've

12:53

probably seen an unending flood of

12:56

those beautiful animated Studio Ghibli-style images

12:58

of everything from happy families being

13:00

together to beloved cartoon characters committing

13:02

unspeakable acts of violence against each

13:04

other. That, my friends, is the

13:06

AI world we live in, and

13:08

it's not going to get less

13:11

complicated. That is what we were

13:13

talking about this week on the

13:15

Vergcast, along with the future of

13:17

robot vacuums, what's happening with car

13:19

tariffs, and everything else going on

13:21

in the AI world. All that,

13:23

on the Vergcast, wherever you get

13:25

podcasts. How much time do you

13:28

spend doom-scrolling every day? 20 minutes,

13:30

an hour? Or do you have

13:32

no idea because time tends to

13:34

melt into nothingness when you fall

13:36

into the vortex of reading terrible

13:38

anxiety-inducing news? But what if you

13:40

could limit your news consumption to

13:43

just 15 minutes a day and

13:45

stay informed? If you'd like to

13:47

reclaim your attention without falling out

13:49

of the loop, you might want

13:51

to consider listening to NPR... Up

13:53

First podcast. Up First is a

13:55

daily show that covers the three

13:58

most important stories of the day

14:00

in just 15 minutes. So you

14:02

can learn what you need to

14:04

know and then move on with

14:06

your day. Every episode gives you

14:08

what you need to be informed

14:10

without compromising your sanity. They cover

14:13

topics like international conflict, the new

14:15

administration, and so much more. I

14:17

listen to Up First every morning

14:19

and it definitely prepares me to

14:21

start my day. If you're looking

14:23

for more news and less noise,

14:25

you can listen to the Up

14:28

First podcast from NPR today. This

14:36

explains it to me. We're back.

14:38

And today we're getting to what

14:40

all the hella-balloo around DEI means.

14:42

We reached out to Eric Ellis.

14:44

He's the CEO and president of

14:46

a corporate coaching organization called Integrity

14:48

Development. Basically, a lot of his

14:50

job is to help companies meet

14:52

their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals.

14:54

Right now, in 2025, those feel

14:57

like buzzwords. But Eric's been in

14:59

the game a long time. When

15:01

I started doing this work in

15:03

the 90s, I thought my job

15:05

was to be a diversity ghostbuster.

15:07

Just like going to organizations that

15:09

gunned down the racist sexes, pigging

15:11

in home folks. And I had

15:13

a formula. You know, I was

15:15

going to lose a third of

15:18

the class because I was going

15:20

to be calling him a name,

15:22

you know. So I felt like

15:24

God called me to the principal's

15:26

office and said, Eric, what are

15:28

you doing? Like, why are you

15:30

losing so many people? I believe

15:32

that bias is a human condition.

15:34

And then secondly, creating an environment

15:36

that was safe enough that people

15:38

could be honest. I want to

15:41

take us to the now, you

15:43

know, earlier in the show, we

15:45

talked with my colleague, Abdullah Fayyad,

15:47

and he walked us through, you

15:49

know, this backlash against the EII

15:51

and how it predates Trump. But

15:53

since coming into office, President Trump

15:55

has instituted a lot of big

15:57

changes in the federal workplace and

15:59

also at universities, because you know,

16:02

federal. grants. Have you seen a

16:04

major change in how for-profit companies

16:06

are responding to this in the

16:08

wake of the Trump administration? People

16:10

are afraid. And I would say

16:12

there are three categories of organizations

16:14

that I've worked with and that

16:16

I see. There are some that

16:18

are closing up the tent and

16:20

they're saying, hey, we're done. We're

16:22

out of here. There are some

16:25

that are pausing or pivoting. And

16:27

then there's some that are staying

16:29

the course and doubling down. And

16:31

I would say that organizations have

16:33

to do what they believe is

16:35

in their best interest. One of

16:37

the things that I don't think

16:39

that we should do is force

16:41

organizations to do DEAI when it's

16:43

against their own values. If they

16:45

don't believe in this, then they

16:48

ought to walk away. For organizations

16:50

that are just afraid and concerned

16:52

and don't want to get run

16:54

over by that political big megaphone

16:56

of the president, then I understand

16:58

people pivoting and I don't have

17:00

a problem with that. You know,

17:02

it's really interesting to think of,

17:04

I don't know. the values companies

17:06

hold because you know we saw

17:09

all these black squares in 2020

17:11

all of these and now it's

17:13

just such a reversal I'm like

17:15

just the pendulum has been swinging

17:17

back and forth and it's kind

17:19

of like okay well what is

17:21

it you actually think and believe

17:23

I believe that bias is a

17:25

human condition that all people have

17:27

bias and we have to we

17:29

have to really work on that

17:32

the largest group of people that

17:34

I've trained over the last three

17:36

decades have been white men And

17:38

that means I've not only trained

17:40

them, but I've learned from them.

17:42

And many times, many of the

17:44

things that they said to me,

17:46

Eric, this doesn't feel fair? I

17:48

said, I agree. You know, they

17:50

would say to me, Eric, why

17:52

are only the biases of white

17:55

guys? People are only concerned about

17:57

those. Everybody else got prejudices and

17:59

nobody ever talks about that. I

18:01

said, you're right. And so I

18:03

started making sure that we were

18:05

meaningfully, including the voices of white

18:07

men. and understanding some of the

18:09

challenges that they were facing and

18:11

standing alongside them when that was

18:13

appropriate. Okay, I'm glad you brought

18:16

up White Guys, because speaking of

18:18

White Guys, we need to talk

18:20

about where a lot of the

18:22

stems from. You know, recently, a

18:24

New York Times podcast interviewed the

18:26

conservative activist Chris Rufo. He played

18:28

a major role in rolling back

18:30

affirmative action, and he also came

18:32

up with a lot of the

18:34

anti-DI policies that the Trump administration

18:36

is implementing right now. I want

18:39

to play a quick clip from

18:41

that for you. The argument that

18:43

I favor is to say, no,

18:45

the right needs to have its

18:47

own interpretation of civil rights law,

18:49

and it needs to take over

18:51

enforcement of civil rights law to

18:53

have essentially an alternative vision that

18:55

is kind of Spartan system of

18:57

color blind equality. There is no

18:59

reward or punishment based on ancestry.

19:02

And if you do that in

19:04

admissions, hiring, you should pay just

19:06

as heavy a price as if

19:08

someone was, you know, segregating the

19:10

lunch counters in the past. And

19:12

I think my position in 2021

19:14

is now the majority position on

19:16

the right. Okay, admittedly, you know,

19:18

when I hear that, especially comparisons

19:20

to lunch counters, like my initial

19:23

gut reaction is to eye roll.

19:25

And I'm kind of curious what

19:27

you think about this idea on

19:29

the right that there should be

19:31

this kind of quote unquote color

19:33

blind equality. Well, I love that.

19:35

It's just nobody's living that way.

19:37

The thing that I loved is

19:39

when I saw that the president's

19:41

executive order was named ending illegal

19:43

discrimination. I was like, what? Oh

19:46

my goodness, thank you for that

19:48

gift. I will also end the

19:50

government policy of trying to socially

19:52

engineer race and gender into every

19:54

aspect of public and private life.

19:57

We will forge a

20:00

society that is color

20:02

blind and merit-based. If

20:04

the president, in fact,

20:06

seeks to end illegal

20:08

discrimination, you can't just

20:10

focus on the discrimination

20:13

that happens to the

20:15

dominant culture. You've got

20:17

to also make sure

20:19

that you're putting mechanisms

20:21

in place to end

20:23

illegal discrimination against all

20:26

of those protected classes

20:28

as well. Let's

20:32

look at what was taking place

20:34

during the civil rights legislation when

20:36

you had white drinking fountains and

20:38

colored drinking fountains. And so we

20:41

eliminated that. And so then we

20:43

started with this thing that says

20:45

that we want people to not

20:47

be discriminated against based upon their

20:49

protected class. What happened is that

20:52

when people saw that even when

20:54

a company had some affirmative action

20:56

responsibilities and obligations they still weren't

20:58

hiring women or they still weren't

21:01

hiring people of color and so

21:03

they started naming things and I

21:05

think that's one of the weaknesses

21:07

in DEI initiatives is that they

21:09

are named women people of color.

21:12

LGBTQ, Q, neural diversity. So it's

21:14

easy to go into an organization

21:16

to say, hey, that's wrong, that's

21:18

wrong, because it's got a name,

21:21

it's got a label, and it's

21:23

leaving other people out. Is this

21:25

just gonna kind of be a

21:27

rebrand? Like, we're just gonna find

21:29

different words to use for these

21:32

programs? Not sure, but I know

21:34

that the government has said that

21:36

they are going to be keeping

21:38

a keen eye out for that.

21:41

So I think if you're just

21:43

trying to do a rebrand, that's

21:45

probably not the right thing to

21:47

do. What I see them doing

21:49

most is that they're maintaining their

21:52

messages internally, they're changing what they

21:54

do externally. If a company is

21:56

big enough, then it sometimes will

21:58

stay the core. or if they

22:01

have a customers that are widely

22:03

diverse, where it would harm them

22:05

to move away, it would harm

22:07

their brand, it would harm their

22:09

reputation, then companies understand the course

22:12

with some of the DEA work.

22:14

So I just think people have

22:16

to kind of do right now

22:18

what they feel is in their

22:21

best interest in their best interests

22:23

of their customers and their brand.

22:30

So that's what companies have

22:32

to do. But was it

22:34

mean for you if you

22:36

work at a company rolling

22:38

back its DEI initiatives? That's

22:40

after the break. It's explained

22:42

it to me. We're back

22:44

with another question from our

22:46

caller M. What do the

22:48

EI policies and programs actually

22:50

do in workplaces and how

22:52

effective are they? I would

22:54

say to you that training

22:56

alone is insufficient to bring

22:58

about change. Ultimately, you have

23:00

to engage in structural change.

23:02

I think one of the

23:04

things that the Supreme Court's

23:06

decision around affirmative action sort

23:08

of brought to the surface.

23:10

was that oftentimes organizations are

23:12

trying to have their cake

23:14

and eat it too. They

23:16

don't want to admit to

23:18

structural inequities, but they then

23:20

want to implement DEA initiatives.

23:22

I don't think you can

23:24

have it both ways. And

23:26

then when you do that,

23:28

it should be based upon

23:30

our work, fairness, equity, around

23:32

the work, not simply identity,

23:34

politics. Okay, so our caller

23:36

M also had another question

23:38

that I want to play

23:40

for you. What companies are

23:42

doing? So we're working with

23:44

a client right now Louisville

23:46

Water. They're an outstanding company

23:48

in Louisville, Kentucky. So we

23:50

work organizations through a four.

23:52

phase process. So we start

23:54

off sort of like by

23:56

educating the executives around what

23:58

inclusion is, then we educate

24:00

the work floors so that

24:02

we can create this top-down

24:04

bottom-up kind of strategy. So

24:06

there are a number of

24:08

organizations like NASDAQ and the

24:10

NFL, McKenzie, that are doubling

24:12

down their commitments around DEA.

24:14

What it looks like when

24:16

they get it right is

24:18

that they really are studying

24:20

this and making this a

24:22

business imperative. I want to

24:24

play you a question from

24:26

another caller. His name is

24:28

Chang, and I'd love to

24:30

know what you think about

24:32

this question. One of the

24:34

reasons that was explained to

24:36

me about why do I

24:38

initiatives over the last couple

24:40

of years haven't really produced

24:42

any substantive progress is because

24:44

there's simply not enough talent

24:46

in the pipeline. And this

24:48

is something that's always... troubled

24:50

me because I often find

24:52

myself as one of the

24:54

few minorities in any of

24:56

the workplaces that I've been

24:59

a part of, even though

25:01

our organization would love to

25:03

improve the diversity of our

25:05

workforce. So I'm just wondering,

25:07

how much validity is there

25:09

to this argument? Well, I

25:11

would start with this statement.

25:13

A bold statement. And I

25:15

would say that meritocracy in

25:17

many ways has been a

25:19

myth. In other words, we

25:21

were hiring and promoting the

25:23

right people all along and

25:25

then diversity came along and

25:27

sort of made us dump

25:29

down our standards. So when

25:31

I do focus groups in

25:33

organizations that I work with,

25:35

oftentimes when I meet with

25:37

women, when they describe inequity

25:39

that they experience. Oftentimes it's

25:41

sexism. When I talk to

25:43

people of color about the

25:45

inequity that they face, they

25:47

often use the language of

25:49

racism. When I talk to

25:51

why males about the inequity

25:53

they face, it's favoritism. Another

25:55

words, we're all white. If

25:57

we're all white guys, I

25:59

ask how many of you

26:01

have seen people get promoted

26:03

who were not the most

26:05

qualified to do the job,

26:07

raise your hand. All hands

26:09

go up because favoritism has

26:11

been at play. In other

26:13

words, too often people are

26:15

making decisions about who they

26:17

hire and who they promote

26:19

based upon subjective judgment. And

26:21

that's the real culprit in

26:23

the workplace. Okay, so what

26:25

does all of this mean

26:27

for employees? Should people be

26:29

worried about their jobs right

26:31

now? Let's go back to

26:33

vox.com policy correspondent, Abdulafayad. I

26:35

think that's a great question

26:37

that is on a lot

26:39

of people's minds right now.

26:41

We've seen companies like Meta,

26:43

companies like McDonald's, Amazon, Target,

26:45

a lot of companies essentially

26:47

pull back on their DUI

26:49

programming and roll it back.

26:51

And people should be worried.

26:53

Obviously what that means for

26:55

a lot of people of

26:57

minority backgrounds and employees is

26:59

that they might not have

27:01

the kind of support system

27:03

that they have come to

27:05

rely on in a lot

27:07

of workplaces. That's why it's

27:09

on everybody at these companies,

27:11

every member of the workforce,

27:13

to hold their companies and

27:15

their own bosses accountable. So

27:17

I'm curious what you think

27:19

about this idea of using

27:21

business practices to create more

27:23

equity in the world. You

27:25

know, people quote Audrey Lord

27:27

a lot, the master's tools

27:29

can never dismantle the master's

27:31

house. Is it naive to

27:33

think that this is a

27:35

way to enact change and

27:37

create a more equitable workplace?

27:39

I don't think it's naive.

27:41

I think people's, you know,

27:43

intentions are good and in

27:45

the right place. And I

27:47

do think a lot of

27:49

tangible change can come of

27:51

it. It is naive, though,

27:53

to just think that having

27:55

one DEA officer, you know,

27:57

in a prom... position is

27:59

going to fix everything, or

28:01

that representation is a solution

28:04

to anything. So if a

28:06

company is kind of standoffish

28:08

about what's working and what's

28:10

not, then chances are it's

28:12

not really interested. You know,

28:14

I think part of this

28:16

is why there is so

28:18

much criticism about the the

28:20

D.I. quote-unquote industry as a

28:22

whole it has been dubbed

28:24

the D.I. Industrial complex by

28:26

some because there have been

28:28

a lot of consultants hired

28:30

without the actual intent to

28:32

make any tangible changes and

28:34

you know that's to the

28:36

tune of billions of dollars

28:38

companies do spend billions of

28:40

dollars collectively on D. E.

28:42

I programming. They're just not

28:44

spending it on the right

28:46

things like equity. All

28:48

right, Abdullah, thank you so much

28:50

for explaining this to us. Of

28:53

course, thanks so much for having

28:55

me on. Okay, that's it for

28:57

us this week, y'all. After last

28:59

week's episode on Men and dating,

29:01

a lot of you wrote in

29:04

to ask us to talk about

29:06

women's perspectives. Well, we heard you,

29:08

and we are. Next week, we'll

29:10

be talking about the women of

29:12

Gen X and whether or not

29:14

they're really having the best sex

29:17

of their lives right now. Let

29:19

us know what you think about

29:21

this week's episode. And if you

29:23

have a question you want answered,

29:25

something you want us to explore,

29:28

give us a call. The number

29:30

is 1,800, 618, 845, or you

29:32

can send a voice memo to

29:34

AskVox at vox.com. This episode was

29:36

produced by Hottie Milwaukee. It was

29:38

edited by Miranda Kennedy, fact checked

29:41

by Melissa Hirsch, with sound designed

29:43

by Patrick Boyd. I'm your host,

29:45

Jean Glenn Hill. Thanks so much

29:47

for listening. Talk to you soon.

29:49

Bye!