 |
|
|
|||||
Welcome to Pressing Questions, Fast Companys work-life advice column. Every week, deputy editor Kathleen Davis, host of The New Way We Work podcast, will answer the biggest and most pressing workplace questions. Q: Should I take my DEI work off of my résumé?A: This is such a timely question and such a fraught one. In the last month, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders dismantling DEI initiatives in the federal government, military, and public schools. Trump also revoked an executive order from 1965, which addressed discriminatory hiring practices across federal contractors, and in the same executive action, he directed federal agencies to open investigations into private sector companies to end DEI programs that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. Add to all of that the 2023 Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action, which sparked a wave of lawsuits from conservative activists aimed at DEI efforts across the public sector and private companies. Given all of this, its not surprising that a lot of companies are renaming, scaling back, or ending their diversity programs. So in this climate, I understand the inclination to remove or downplay your DEI work on your résumé if you are looking for a job.But, as someone who has covered the evolution of DEI work and understands how crucial it is to employee well-being, team dynamics, innovation, and company success, I would never advise anyone to downplay their DEI work on their résumé. Why it’s a mistake to hide your DEI work Aside from the moral imperative to stand behind this important work, its just never a good idea to lie on your résumé. Leaving off your work on an employee resource group, for example, may feel more like a borderline omission. But if your job title included DEI, changing it or leaving it off of your résumé is a deceit that is easy for a future employer to discover. The other reason why I think its a mistake to remove mentions of DEI work from your résumé: If this is work thats important to you, do you really want to work for a company that wouldnt hire you because you worked in DEI?All of that said, Im not naive about the need to find a job if you are out of work. Ideally we could all feel connected to our companys mission, but in an environment where businesses are afraid of legal retaliation, that can difficult. While I dont think you should alter your résumé to remove your past DEI work, you can use your cover letter to address the current climate and how those same values can still have a place at companies. Pivot to Belonging and Culture Fast Company contributor Mita Mallick says that she sees some DEI work being rebranded as Belonging and Culture. While some leaders may feel uneasy about continuing to use the words diversity, equity, and inclusion, belonging can spark more feelings of comfort. When we feel like we belong in our workplaces, we are happier and more engaged, Mallick says. If you previously did DEI work on an HR team, a belonging and culture role pivot to do similar inclusion work by helping with onboarding experience for new hires, employee engagement, employee surveys, and employee resource groups. Expand hiring pool If a company wants to shy away from outright diversity hiring initiatives there are still ways to widen the applicant pool: removing degree requirements, widening where jobs are posted, removing biased phrases from job ads, opening up jobs to remote candidates, and more. Signaling that you are versed in these best practices to find untapped talent, will make you more valuable for open HR roles.Things are complicated and changing fast. Heres some further reading about the current state of DEI: SCOTUS overturns affirmative action: What it means for workplace DEI This is how DEI will change in 2025 DEI in the Trump era: Whats at stake for you and your workplace? How companies can keep doing DEI work, despite Trumps executive orders
Category:
E-Commerce
Last year, Republican attorneys general in 17 states sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), asking courts to declare Section 504 unconstitutional. Section 504 is part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It protects people with disabilities from discrimination and gives them equal access to federally funded services such as education, employment and healthcare. The lawsuit came in the wake of the Biden administration’s update to Section 504 to include gender dysphoria as a disability in some circumstances. It received intense criticism from disability rights advocates who said it threatened to upend more than 50 years of established law. Now the states have released a status report that seemingly walks back the original case. They noted that it was not their intention to declare Section 504 unconstitutional, writing: Plaintiffs clarify that they have never movedand do not plan to movethe Court to declare or enjoin Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as unconstitutional on its face.” However, disability advocates warn that this status report does not actually mean anything substantial and, in fact, disability rights are still under threat. The attorneys general obviously got a lot of pushback,” says Alison Barkoff, a professor at George Washington University who led HHS’s Administration on Community Living under the Biden administration. “Some responded to the pushback saying that they were going to drop the claim. That didnt happen. They didnt change the complaint. They didnt drop out of the case.” In other words, the status update is little more than legalese. It says, The context of the entire Complaint . . . is an as-applied challenge to any purported application of Section 504 to funds that are not authorized by the Rehabilitation Act. What does this mean? According to Barkoff, the states are saying that Section 504 only applies to the handful of programs that the Rehabilitation Act directly funds, such as state vocational rehabilitation programs and some employment programs. She points out that healthcare programs are funded through Medicare and Medicaid, and educational services such as 504 plans are funded through the Department of Education. These are all still at risk if the states were to win the court case. She notes that the court required a status update by February 25, and this was filed a few days earlierprobably because of the pushback the original case received. Currently, the case is on pause at the request of both the states and HHS. What happens next? There are a few possible paths forward. First, HHS could decide it will step in to defend Section 504. The current Trump administration, according to Barkoff, has made its stance on gender dysphoria very clear, and it is unlikely that HHS will defend anything regarding gender dysphoria. However, it’s unclear what the implications of this will be for Section 504 as a whole. Second, HHS could decide not to fight and another party, such as a disability rights organization, could step in to defend Section 504. Third, during the pause, HHS could decide to change Section 504 to address the states grievances in hopes that its enough for the states to drop the lawsuit. Barkoff was unwilling to speculate on the future of disability rights, she but urges people to contact their state attorney general and educate him or her on the importance of Section 504. The case that has been filed is very concerning and we have to take it seriously, she says.
Category:
E-Commerce
David Droga is a legendary advertising creative and executive. Hes also CEO of Accenture Song, one of the largest advertising and marketing services firms on the planet. For those two reasons, we kick off Brand New World with Droga at the 2024 Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity. Why there and then? Its the worlds biggest convergence of media, marketing, entertainment, technology, and brands, and a mirror of what’s happening and a bellwether of what’s to come, on a global scale. Theres no better time and place to start a conversation about how brands, and the marketing and advertising industries, are approaching AI at this crucial and nascent moment. In this episode, I talked to Droga about what Accentures $3 billion commitment to AI means for his work, how it compares to the first digital revolution two decades ago, where it may be headed in the not-so-distant future, and the impact it will have on the art of persuasion and pop culture. On AI’s existential threats Fundamentally, I think we have to look beyond job preservation. This is not about preserving specific jobs within an agency. What we look at is what it unleashes for the skillsets that you have, and how you can parlay that into new things. AI is going to open up possibilities that we don’t understand quite yet and allow us to do things we wish we could have done, or didn’t anticipate being able to do. And if we have that attitude, then we will move forward. On AI vs human creativity Not all creativity is worth saving. I know that’s a provocation, that’s probably going to annoy some people. But I really mean it, because just turn on the TV. Look at most advertising. Look at most of the stuff that follows you online. Who wrote this shit? Who’s creating this stuff? Does that need saving? A lot of it’s written by something more alarming than AI, which is research and conformity. And that’s why it’s bland. Now, what’s interesting about that is, that it does not erase the need for incredible things, innovative things. Things that touch you and [allow you to] experience the new. There’s always room for things that are really, really wonderful and delightful. That’s where our role as creators and shapers is always going to be needed and necessary. That’s where my optimism is. Listen to the full episode for more.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||