I donтАЩt see how itтАЩs a euphemism. ItтАЩs just incorrect usage. Like saying something is тАЬinflammableтАЭ when you mean тАЬflammableтАЭ. ItтАЩs technically wrong and it annoys me but IтАЩm not gonna correct anyone on it since we all know what the speaker is trying to say.
"Inflammable" is correct, it comes from the verb "to inflame". It is however confusing because of the other meaning of the "in-" prefix, so "flammable" and "non-flammable" can be used instead.
The people who assume a тАЬdiverseтАЭ candidate is unqualified and hired strictly because of their identity never assume the same of well-connected white males. Interesting, that.
Under affirmative action principles, employers are urged to take affirmative steps to seek out applicants who meet the stated qualifications for the position.
In contrast, the premise of тАЬequityтАЭ hires is that requirements can be waived, generally because theyтАЩre believed to be barriers for members of historically marginalized racial or ethnic identity groups. Katie gave the example of waiving the requirement that a head librarian have a masters degree in the field. In other words, employers lower standards for diversity hires strictly because of their identity.
Just as some minority applicants are very well connected for certain jobs because theyтАЩve come up in the small and insular world of social justice nonprofits, some white guys are very poorly connected because theyтАЩre not well socialized into mainstream hetero male culture.
This is one of my bugaboos as a journalist but I am fighting a lonely war. A single person cannot be diverse. Only a group can be.
It's a euphemism. It's preferable to "token" and "affirmative action wonder."
I donтАЩt see how itтАЩs a euphemism. ItтАЩs just incorrect usage. Like saying something is тАЬinflammableтАЭ when you mean тАЬflammableтАЭ. ItтАЩs technically wrong and it annoys me but IтАЩm not gonna correct anyone on it since we all know what the speaker is trying to say.
"Inflammable" is correct, it comes from the verb "to inflame". It is however confusing because of the other meaning of the "in-" prefix, so "flammable" and "non-flammable" can be used instead.
THANK YOU
The people who assume a тАЬdiverseтАЭ candidate is unqualified and hired strictly because of their identity never assume the same of well-connected white males. Interesting, that.
Under affirmative action principles, employers are urged to take affirmative steps to seek out applicants who meet the stated qualifications for the position.
In contrast, the premise of тАЬequityтАЭ hires is that requirements can be waived, generally because theyтАЩre believed to be barriers for members of historically marginalized racial or ethnic identity groups. Katie gave the example of waiving the requirement that a head librarian have a masters degree in the field. In other words, employers lower standards for diversity hires strictly because of their identity.
Just as some minority applicants are very well connected for certain jobs because theyтАЩve come up in the small and insular world of social justice nonprofits, some white guys are very poorly connected because theyтАЩre not well socialized into mainstream hetero male culture.
As a journalist, maybe just go the opposite way. Instead of "diverse" say "different".
A synonym for "deviant," perhaps?
Than the normal people clearly.