DNC: we don’t want to recruit any cis gendered white males

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22939/exclusive-dnc-official-discriminates-against-elliott-hamilton

Nice hiring practices lol no wonder the DNC is a wreck.

Quote:EXCLUSIVE: DNC Official Says She Doesn't Want To Recruit 'Cisgender Straight White Males'

They don't want more individuals in the "majority" having jobs within the party...

Elliott HamiltonOctober 30, 2017

Employees within the Democratic National Committee are looking for new employees in the Technology Department. However, the DNC is apparently not interested in your resume if you happen to be a white male.

In an email issued to DNC insiders on Monday, Data Services Manager Madeleine Leader announced that the Technology Department is looking to fill several positions and asked interested parties to forward the openings to their colleagues.


She included the following caveat:

I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they're already in the majority.

In response to this email, an anonymous DNC source told Daily Wire the following:

Clearly the DNC is doubling down on the failed strategy of oppression olympics that has alienated staffers and voters alike. We want to be judged based on the quality of our work, not on identity politics. How can we trust the leadership of the DNC if they don’t even trust us?

Daily Wire contacted Ms. Leader about the contents of her email, but she declined to comment.

After the latest scandals to plague the Democratic National Committee during the 2016, the new leadership under Tom Perez and Keith Ellison (D-MN) seek to rebrand the party as a more inclusive and welcoming community. Unfortunately, this email doesn't exactly help their case.

Follow Elliott on Twitter and Facebook.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2017, 06:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.dailywire.com/news/22939/exclusive-dnc-official-discriminates-against-elliott-hamilton

Nice hiring practices lol  no wonder the DNC is a wreck.  

Don't worry Lucy.  If they act "too fruity" I'm sure they will be reprimanded.

[BmorePat87]

I hope they have binders full of women

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2017, 07:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't worry Lucy.  If they act "too fruity" I'm sure they will be reprimanded.

I think cis gender is just basically normal. So it seems they want fruity lol

Maybe one of you could shed some light

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2017, 12:32 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe one of you could shed some light

Pretty sure he was commenting on the gay people they would hire, making light of your ridiculous past statements of not liking "fruity" gay employees by assuring you that the DNC wouldn't allow these non-straight hires to be "too fruity".


As for the story, a private group wants diversity hires to represent a broader group of people. That's their choice and, despite what that clearly fake quote from not a source said, I don't think diversity hires for a single department hurts them or their message. If their goal is to reach a multitude of voters, the department in charge of them reaching more people should have a diverse group of people to help them better craft their message or strategy towards individual groups.  

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 08:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pretty sure he was commenting on the gay people they would hire, making light of your ridiculous past statements of not liking "fruity" gay employees by assuring you that the DNC wouldn't allow these non-straight hires to be "too fruity".


As for the story, a private group wants diversity hires to represent a broader group of people. That's their choice and, despite what that clearly fake quote from not a source said, I don't think diversity hires for a single department hurts them or their message. If their goal is to reach a multitude of voters, the department in charge of them reaching more people should have a diverse group of people to help them better craft their message or strategy towards individual groups.  

Why is it ridiculous that I do not want to hire someone who can’t condict themselves in a professional manner in the office? Employees represent the business and I certainly do not want employees prancing around my office.

As for diversity hiring..... it’s terrible. And only set people up for failure.

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 10:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why is it ridiculous that I do not want to hire someone who can’t condict themselves in a professional manner in the office?   Employees represent the business and I certainly do not want employees prancing around my office.

What is ridiculous is someone thinking a homosexual can't be professional if they are "too gay".

(10-31-2017, 10:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: As for diversity hiring..... it’s terrible.    And only set people up for failure.

Not if the person is also qualified for the job. Or the employer is willing to train them to give them a leg up.

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2017, 10:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why is it ridiculous that I do not want to hire someone who can’t condict themselves in a professional manner in the office?   Employees represent the business and I certainly do not want employees prancing around my office.

As for diversity hiring..... it’s terrible.    And only set people up for failure.

It's ridiculous to (1) only be concerned with if gay people are capable of being professional, to (2) believe something about gay people justly causes this concern, and (3) describe any personality of a gay person as "fruity". No one is "prancing" around an office. 

But we both know this, so let's move past Dino's joke.


I think the best people to consult from marketing or lobbying towards a group of people are members of that group. Apparently you disagree or were you comments only on diversity hires unrelated to a goal involving their diversity?

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not if the person is also qualified for the job.  Or the employer is willing to train them to give them a leg up.

BmorePat87 Wrote:As for the story, a private group wants diversity hires to represent a broader group of people. That's their choice

I think it is unfair when a group of people are openly omitted from employment consideration because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. How about you guys?

[Benton]

(10-30-2017, 07:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I hope they have blenders full of women

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 10:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it is unfair when a group of people are openly omitted from employment consideration because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. How about you guys?

Where are they openly omitted? I saw "prefer" in there. That word does not imply cisgender straight white males will not be considered. Granted, my eyesight is bad enough that I didn't see the line in the email image originally, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in this wording.

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2017, 10:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it is unfair when a group of people are openly omitted from employment consideration because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. How about you guys?

That's why I said "to represent a broader group of people". If your goal is to increase outreach towards one community, there's nothing wrong with hiring exclusively from that community. 

If the job doesn't require that, I'd disagree with it.

No doubt the rest of my post that you left out would have made that clear...

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 10:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where are they openly omitted? I saw "prefer" in there. That word does not imply cisgender straight white males will not be considered. Granted, my eyesight is bad enough that I didn't see the line in the email image originally, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in this wording.

Yes, but they didn't say the prefer diversity, they said they would prefer (like better than the other) NOT to hire folks because of their race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. That's a whole different message than we prefer diversity hires.

But do not worry. The problem is not with your eyesight; perhaps just your vision.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 10:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's why I said "to represent a broader group of people". If your goal is to increase outreach towards one community, there's nothing wrong with hiring exclusively from that community. 

If the job doesn't require that, I'd disagree with it.

No doubt the rest of my post that you left out would have made that clear...

Oh I read the rest of the post about them being a private organization and it is their choice. I just didn't think that changed the context of your assertion.

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 10:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, but they didn't say the prefer diversity, they said they would prefer (like better than the other) NOT to hire folks because of their race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. That's a whole different message than we prefer diversity hires.

But do not worry. The problem is not with your eyesight; perhaps just your vision.

I agree the word choice was poor, but the message is the same. Preference is still only preference, it isn't saying that they will not hire someone based on their race, sexual orientation, or gender identity; they are only saying they would prefer it. That is still a different thing than people being openly omitted from employment.

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2017, 10:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I read the rest of the post about them being a private organization and it is their choice. I just didn't think that changed the context of your assertion.

Okey Doke.

Quote:BTW, you didn't answer my question.

Yea, I did.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2017, 10:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree the word choice was poor, but the message is the same. Preference is still only preference, it isn't saying that they will not hire someone based on their race, sexual orientation, or gender identity; they are only saying they would prefer it. That is still a different thing than people being openly omitted from employment.

Unless you answered the question and I missed it like when Pat answered it; I'm not sure you answered the question, just challenged the wording.

So let me ask it in revised form as we have decided to focus on the wording and not the context.

I do not think it is fair when one population is preferred for employment over another based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Do you? Pat already answered but I really cannot tell you if he said yes or no.

[Belsnickel]

(10-31-2017, 10:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you answered the question and I missed it like when Pat answered it; I'm not sure you answered the question, just challenged the wording.

So let me ask it in revised form as we have decided to focus on the wording and not the context.

I do not think it is fair when one population is preferred for employment over another based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Do you? Pat already answered but I really cannot tell you if he said yes or no.

Since I wasn't quoted in the post I was under the assumption the question had not been asked of me, and so I was not attempting to answer it. I was merely commenting on how the question you were asking was not representative of the situation described in the OP.

I have no problems with preference given to hires based on any demographic qualifier. I disagree with quotas and I disagree with people being disqualified because of a demographic qualifier, but preference in an attempt to further diversity is not something I have an issue with.

[GMDino]

(10-31-2017, 10:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless you answered the question and I missed it like when Pat answered it; I'm not sure you answered the question, just challenged the wording.

So let me ask it in revised form as we have decided to focus on the wording and not the context.

"we"

(10-31-2017, 10:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, but they didn't say the prefer diversity, they said they would prefer (like better than the other) NOT to hire folks because of their race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. That's a whole different message than we prefer diversity hires.

But do not worry. The problem is not with your eyesight; perhaps just your vision.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-31-2017, 10:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's ridiculous to (1) only be concerned with if gay people are capable of being professional, to (2) believe something about gay people justly causes this concern, and (3) describe any personality of a gay person as "fruity". No one is "prancing" around an office. 

But we both know this, so let's move past Dino's joke.


I think the best people to consult from marketing or lobbying towards a group of people are members of that group. Apparently you disagree or were you comments only on diversity hires unrelated to a goal involving their diversity?

Who said I was only concerned about gay people being professional in the office?

I have had gays come in and during the interview they were being fruity.... It’s fair to not want my office to turn into an episode of will and grace.

The only people who should be prancing around are little girls. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.

I don’t think diversity really matters when you sacrifice quality for the sake of diversity.