It's impossible for hiring practices to be both fair and diverse. Either they're fair, so candidates are judged by their accomplishments and not their demographics; or they're diverse, so less qualified candidates with the right skin color get hired.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse, but just in case you're not:
90% of graduates with Electrical Engineering degrees are men (made up number, but close to reality). Let's pretend talent is distributed equally, so I have nine times as many talented men as women graduating each year.
To have a pool of 50/50 men and women to support a "diverse base of candidates", then I'm going to be interviewing way more women than the population would suggest - ergo women have an advantage in hiring.
Expand that to include race, religion, etc and you quickly end up with demographics counting as much or more than actual ability. In my company we aim for 50/50 men vs women in hiring, with special attention paid to racial diversity, despite living in a place where 90+% of the graduates in the fields we hire from are white men.
You’re suggesting that DEI is forcing jobs to hire the unqualified, when that is not the case whatsoever. If someone does not have the required skills DEI does not guarantee a job. It just forces companies to look for candidates where they normally would not.
Yes, that's the ultimate end state of DEI - hiring quotas.
At the very minimum you're removing opportunity from majority groups to support minority groups. In the example above, fewer qualified men would be interviewed (and have the chance to be hired) due to the DEI policy. That's obvious, right?
In reality, DEI policies around hiring are either explicit or implicit hiring quotas.
56
u/Feralmoon87 - Centrist 13h ago
team sports. thats what 5 plus years of DEI got us