- Using candidates' loud belief in DEI as a litmus test, even if the candidate themselves has no diverse characteristics
- Hiring diverse candidates
It’s only about getting people to the table who are equally qualified and capable and overlooked and under represented.
Often to the chagrin of most people who are lamenting on it changing.
We can all wax lyrical and paint pretty pictures about the noble goals of DEI. But till we get an equal and fair world, the ugly picture is that DEI starts by dividing the pie into smaller parts, and taking from one to give to another, instead of making the pie bigger for everyone.
And if history is anything to go by, most "DEI"-like efforts never ever reach that end-goal. They perpetuate indefinitely until they create yet another oppressed or previously-disadvantaged class, and the cycle will just repeat.
HR at most companies doesn't do nuance or complexity.
Yes that makes it more competitive.
Or less-competitive at an advantage to some and both others if it stayed the same way.
Theres lots of ways to improve hiring.
If holding space for equally qualified candidates is preferential treatment, is it having to exist because of the gatekeeping that existed before it?
Still, it remains important for any practice to do a good job of helping everyone understand how it's working better.
Too often companies jump to signal trends and keep doing whatever they were all along. Like organizations who's leadership looks nothing like the pool of qualified candidates in the respective country.
I put forward a single simple point. Since it's resonating in a response, it might be worth considering why, and see how our viewpoints form and how much of it might be rooted in isolating emotions like fear.
In discussing, an open mind to me is one that can openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't their own, and seeing if they're open to growing or changing their viewpoint.
Maybe.. the way your country does DEI is trying to do the opposite of the race based separation it did prior and doesn't know if any other levers exist?
One nice thing is you're inheriting the world and can help make it the way you think it should be instead of wanting to be a passive beneficiary of past gatekeeping baselines.
Hypothetically speaking... could openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't our own.. be similar to believing software could be better, if it was only improved, by trying to improve ourselves and building software better?
This is the first time I've heard that. The normal party line is that, yes, they're worse at the job but it's because they never got the opportunity to learn. You can observe in colleges that DEI-appointed students do massively worse overall despite probably being given even more leeway than normal students.
I think it's pretty easy to go learn the spectrum of DEI.
The world is generally run with gatekeeping, which means withholding access to opportunity to improve one's life to a selected group for a long time.
It's possible that your country may codify gatekeeping and privilege, and the only way they may know how is to do the same thing in the opposite way.
It might not be a good way of holding space for qualified candidates to get to the same table, or even, not allowing an average person to "get a chance" to fail upwards except if you're from one background.
The relevance of DEI shouldn't be held exclusively with its implementation at any given time, as long as it's improving. Kind of like software, maybe.
I'm not sure where your observation is based on - happy to learn and read from any studies though beyond anecdotal differences.
It would be like generalizing that lots of rich kids end up doing nothing as well after their parents pay for their way into and school. Doesn't make it true as a generalization of everyone though.
Theoretically it could be, but you should be aware if your argument directly contradicts years of other people advocating for DEI. The idea being sold isn't "we need jobs to be more merit based" but "we don't have enough merit and have to discriminate".
> It's possible that your country may codify gatekeeping and privilege, and the only way they may know how is to do the same thing in the opposite way.
My country, the US, codifies that you're not allowed to racially discriminate. Somehow this doesn't stop people from declaring that we must explicitly perform racially discrimination in order to offset some perceived discrimination.
> The relevance of DEI shouldn't be held exclusively with its implementation at any given time, as long as it's improving. Kind of like software, maybe.
The relevance is that I'm a race it explicitly disadvantages, and so it my family. It's illegal, racial discrimination is apparently immoral when it's done to anyone else, and it needs to go.
> I'm not sure where your observation is based on - happy to learn and read from any studies though beyond anecdotal differences.
Go look at medical schools. High scoring Whites and Asians are about as likely to get in as extremely poorly performing Black students.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/med1.jpg?x850...
Ask yourselves, who paid for your education? Was it pulled up by the bootstraps rags-to-riches, or did you get help from e.g. family? Where did you grow up, and how did that contribute to your current career / life?
Now imagine you didn't have those opportunities, because your family (going back generations) never was able to build up generational wealth and comfort.
DEI is an attempt to make up for that. Is it ideal? No. Does it come across as discrimination to the priviledged people / classes? Sure. Does it personally affect you? Probably not, but I don't know you (generalised you, the reader).
That said, if you don't like DEI, vote and act accordingly. Work to make sure everyone earns a liveable wage, owns a house, gets a good education and consequent steady job opportunities regardless of familial wealth. Be and act anti-racist and anti-classist, because it's not enough to simply "not be racist".
