[uselesscynicism]

> The anti-cancel-culture people make it sound like they are being horribly oppressed. But for what? The color of their skin?

At work last week, our "diversity and equity" team announced that our company is "obviously" not diverse enough.

This is a company in the US with employees across North America and Europe, with some employees in South America, Australia, India, and even Africa, and not just South Africa, either.

The company does have more employees in Europe and North America than elsewhere, and those employees share one thing in common: skin color. They do not share a nationality, a language, a cuisine, or a mindset.

The only possible interpretation of the D&I&E officer is that there is too much white skin at our company.

Is that horrible oppression? No, but it is racist and prejudiced AF and I would 100% lose my job of I said a single word.

[standardUser]

Skin color is one of the characteristics that influences our lived experience, and a lot of companies are seeking a diversity of experiences in their staff and leadership. They may look around and feel like they have a significant diversity of backgrounds and experiences, but not in one particular and very important way. So they want to correct this.

I'll readily concede that many companies do this for image reasons alone, though I'm sure some do it out of a genuine belief that diversity can lead to better business outcomes, or create a more desirable workplace for attracting new talent. But in the end, this is the decision of a private company and they are not being coerced to make these decisions by any authority, nor does it sound like they are breaking any laws.