+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: DEI or MEI to hire workforce (/Thread-DEI-or-MEI-to-hire-workforce)
Pages:
1
2
DEI or MEI to hire workforce - Luvnit2 - 06-15-2024
DEI has become a political football. Here is newer tech company's decision. Is he wrong?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-tech/scale-ai-ceo-explains-why-his-company-hire-mei-not-dei-merit-excellence-intelligence
Scale AI CEO explains why his company will hire for MEI, not DEI: 'Merit, excellence and intelligence'
CEO Aledandr Wang said Scale AI is a meritocracy and will remain so
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-15-2024
(06-15-2024, 04:10 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: DEI has become a political football. Here is newer tech company's decision. Is he wrong?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-tech/scale-ai-ceo-explains-why-his-company-hire-mei-not-dei-merit-excellence-intelligence
Scale AI CEO explains why his company will hire for MEI, not DEI: 'Merit, excellence and intelligence'
CEO Aledandr Wang said Scale AI is a meritocracy and will remain so
That is the way in is when people want to win and dominate the competition.
No DEI in sports, just in stuff that doesn't matter or are falling all over themselves to be politically correct.
Any time you look at demographics to determine who should be doing what, it is nonsense.
DEI is a hustle and is already on it's way out.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - HarleyDog - 06-15-2024
I appreciate the left going overboard these last 4yrs and waking people up to the correct way of doing things. Hiring a person because of their skills and best fit for the company is paramount to the success of good business. Hiring people by any other means to meet a quota is not only bad for business, but bad for those who land in these jobs unqualified.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - NATI BENGALS - 06-16-2024
You’re probably best off with a combination of the two.
If both candidates are equally qualified. Adding some diversity to a team instead of a team made up of all the same is supposed to be beneficial because you add a different perspective, different life experiences, and possibly different ideas and/or other ways to solve a problem.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - pally - 06-16-2024
Why is the automatic assumption that a non-white, non-straight, or non-male person was not hired because of MEI first and foremost?
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 08:31 AM)pally Wrote: Why is the automatic assumption that a non-white, non-straight, or non-male person was not hired because of MEI first and foremost?
No one is saying they are not.
But when people go out of their way to hire based on demographics, then you are excluding a portion of the talent pool and lessening your chances of getting the best fit for the job.
Like when Joe Biden said se would appoint the first black female to the SCOTUS. That automatically excluded something like 97% of the talent pool, and thus made it that less likely the best candidate was selected for the job.
It is basically racism/sexism with a new coat of paint.
What it does do is exactly what you asked, it makes people question if a candidate is truly the best person for the job, or are they a token DEI placement?
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - samhain - 06-16-2024
I don't wring my hands over DEI. It's not something I have a lot of control over.
I feel like companies are currently or will soon start moving away from the concept. It's only real purpose was to provide large corporations with a chance to engage very loud virtue signaling.
No one making real decisions in these companies cares about anything but profit. The fact that DEI exists as a PR tool spits on the minds of both consumers and employees.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - pally - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 09:06 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: No one is saying they are not.
But when people go out of their way to hire based on demographics, then you are excluding a portion of the talent pool and lessening your chances of getting the best fit for the job.
Like when Joe Biden said se would appoint the first black female to the SCOTUS. That automatically excluded something like 97% of the talent pool, and thus made it that less likely the best candidate was selected for the job.
It is basically racism/sexism with a new coat of paint.
What it does do is exactly what you asked, it makes people question if a candidate is truly the best person for the job, or are they a token DEI placement?
You just assumed that the pool of black women was not among the most qualified for the job.
DEI is the new buzzword being thrown about by right-wing media since CRT has run its course. Gotta have something new to bring fear to the masses.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - pally - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 01:29 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You’re probably best off with a combination of the two.
If both candidates are equally qualified. Adding some diversity to a team instead of a team made up of all the same is supposed to be beneficial because you add a different perspective, different life experiences, and possibly different ideas and/or other ways to solve a problem.
you just described what most companies believe when they talk about DEI.
ALL THING BEING EQUAL
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 10:08 AM)pally Wrote: You just assumed that the pool of black women was not among the most qualified for the job.
DEI is the new buzzword being thrown about by right-wing media since CRT has run its course. Gotta have something new to bring fear to the masses.
Incorrect.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - HarleyDog - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 01:29 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You’re probably best off with a combination of the two.
If both candidates are equally qualified. Adding some diversity to a team instead of a team made up of all the same is supposed to be beneficial because you add a different perspective, different life experiences, and possibly different ideas and/or other ways to solve a problem.
Key words here are equally qualified. Diversity can be a great thing as long as one person is not chosen simply because of their race, sexual orientation, etc.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 08:31 AM)pally Wrote: Why is the automatic assumption that a non-white, non-straight, or non-male person was not hired because of MEI first and foremost?
Because of the push for DEI. Essentially those pushing DEI are casting doubt on the actual abilities of anyone perceived to have benefited from DEI. When your stated goal is hiring for diversity and inclusion instead of ability you are introducing this perception. You're trying to blame people for assuming companies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
(06-16-2024, 10:08 AM)pally Wrote: You just assumed that the pool of black women was not among the most qualified for the job.
No, he didn't and that's a silly accusation. If you say, as Biden did, that you are restricting your candidates to two arbitrary requirement, in this case Black and female, then you are the one excluding all other possible candidates. Maybe a Black female would have been the choice based solely on merit, it's certainly possible. But what we do know is that anyone else not meeting these arbitrary requirements were not considered at all, and that's a sizeable number of the population. Simple statistics would indicate that the best possible candidate could be found in a candidacy pool that includes 100% of the population instead of less than 6% of the population.
Quote:DEI is the new buzzword being thrown about by right-wing media since CRT has run its course. Gotta have something new to bring fear to the masses.
You are partially correct, but not in a way you'd like. DEI is the latest horrible idea from the woke left now that CRT has been thoroughly discredited and is now disavowed by most. As someone said above (forgive me for not crediting you) if all other things are equal hiring a person not already represented in your organization would be a good idea. Different perspectives and experiences are a good thing. But not hiring/promoting a far more qualified candidate, and I have personally seen this happen numerous times, because they aren't a "minority" in some way is a horrible idea. It weakens your organization, it breeds justifiable resentment in your work force and it degrades the accomplishments of truly worthy people who are from a population that benefits from DEI. It was likely well intentioned in the beginning, but put into practice it has myriad flaws that far outweigh any benefits.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - Nately120 - 06-16-2024
As a regular ol' mediocre white dude any time I get a job I get to pat myself on the back like Barry Horrowitz because I know I managed to make the cut despite missing out on all those bonus points minorities, women, disabled veterans, etc get that I don't.
Then I just have to work hard enough to show that hiring me over the feel-good candidates was the smart move. It's all on me. The ball is in my court, just where I want it.
(06-16-2024, 12:31 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Key words here are equally qualified. Diversity can be a great thing as long as one person is not chosen simply because of their race, sexual orientation, etc.
Part of me agrees, part of me has to admit there may have been a time in my life where being an able-bodied straight white guy helped get me the nod for a job, too. Hmm, actually a lot of people tend to assume I'm some variant of Arab or Hispanic unless I make a point to overdo the Italian-ness. Side note, I know two people who have one parent from Portugal and they look way whiter than I do but they get minority status on applications while I've been called a sand N-bomb and have to put WHITE.
Life ain't fair, I tells ya.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - Luvnit2 - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 08:31 AM)pally Wrote: Why is the automatic assumption that a non-white, non-straight, or non-male person was not hired because of MEI first and foremost?
Who made that assumption? Just the opposite, he said his criteria for hiring his team. He said DEI is not in his hiring platform, so a qualified hire regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or will get the job.
Why should it be any other way? Merit is earned regardless of the things I mentioned.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - pally - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 02:22 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Who made that assumption? Just the opposite, he said his criteria for hiring his team. He said DEI is not in his hiring platform, so a qualified hire regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or will get the job.
Why should it be any other way? Merit is earned regardless of the things I mentioned.
He assumes that his company is somehow special, thus the politically motivated announcement. HIS company is unique in that it looks only at merit unlike all those other evil woke companies that hire unqualified people because they add DEI.
People who get into Harvard automatically get a hiring advantage because it's HARVARD and only smart people get in there unless of course, it's a minority who was handed their spot only because of the minority status. How many white guys got into Harvard only because their rich daddies were alumni or because they donated a lot of money to the school so their mediocre kid could jump the line (looking at you Jared Kushner) How many qualified minorities were left behind because of the Jared Kushner of the world.
When looking at equally qualified candidates what criteria is used to hire is the question
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 03:20 PM)pally Wrote: He assumes that his company is somehow special, thus the politically motivated announcement. HIS company is unique in that it looks only at merit unlike all those other evil woke companies that hire unqualified people because they add DEI.
People who get into Harvard automatically get a hiring advantage because it's HARVARD and only smart people get in there unless of course, it's a minority who was handed their spot only because of the minority status. How many white guys got into Harvard only because their rich daddies were alumni or because they donated a lot of money to the school so their mediocre kid could jump the line (looking at you Jared Kushner) How many qualified minorities were left behind because of the Jared Kushner of the world.
When looking at equally qualified candidates what criteria is used to hire is the question
How many qualified, or over qualified, people were left behind due to DEI hires, such as Joe Biden's SCOTUS pick?
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 03:20 PM)pally Wrote: He assumes that his company is somehow special, thus the politically motivated announcement. HIS company is unique in that it looks only at merit unlike all those other evil woke companies that hire unqualified people because they add DEI.
Where does he say that? I'm rather gleaning from his statement that he would very much prefer his company to not be "special" in this regard. Also, he never used the terms "evil" or "woke". That's you projecting your preconceptions on others. He is stating that he rejects the notion that anything other than merit should determine hiring. Anything you're reading into it other than that is coming from you, not him.
Quote:People who get into Harvard automatically get a hiring advantage because it's HARVARD and only smart people get in there unless of course, it's a minority who was handed their spot only because of the minority status. How many white guys got into Harvard only because their rich daddies were alumni or because they donated a lot of money to the school so their mediocre kid could jump the line (looking at you Jared Kushner) How many qualified minorities were left behind because of the Jared Kushner of the world.
I would argue that a Harvard diploma is no longer special in this regard, especially due to recent events, but that's an aside. You're again projecting your own preconceptions about it being different if the person is a minority. Also, it isn't just "white guys" getting in because of huge donations or legacy admissions, but your only using them as your example is telling as to your thought process. The really interesting thing with this paragraph is that you're 100% agreeing with the gentleman in the article in question and his assertion that hiring/promotions, or in this case college admissions, should be decided on merit. It's a rare feet to argue against your own position within the same post.
Quote:When looking at equally qualified candidates what criteria is used to hire is the question
No, that's not the question. It's certainly not what DEI is about. Also, two perfectly equal candidates is a rare thing indeed. There will always be something that nudges one ahead of the other, even if it's as simple as how well the came off during the interview. Here's what the question actually is. Do you allow immutable characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation be a determining factor in your hiring/promotions process? If the answer is no, then you're in agreement with the gentleman in the article. If the answer is yes, than you're pro DEI and are not for necessarily for hiring the best person for the job.
Lastly, it's rather apropos that we are discussing this on a site dedicated to a professional sports team. Sports teams don't draft or sign players based on anything other than perceived ability. There is no mandated number of Whites, Blacks, Asians or Hispanics. There is not clamoring for a team to draft a woman into an all male league. There is no consideration given to a player's sexual orientation. Professional sports perfectly demonstrates the utter weakness of DEI when it comes to hiring decisions.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - pally - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 12:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because of the push for DEI. Essentially those pushing DEI are casting doubt on the actual abilities of anyone perceived to have benefited from DEI. When your stated goal is hiring for diversity and inclusion instead of ability you are introducing this perception. You're trying to blame people for assuming companies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
No, he didn't and that's a silly accusation. If you say, as Biden did, that you are restricting your candidates to two arbitrary requirement, in this case Black and female, then you are the one excluding all other possible candidates. Maybe a Black female would have been the choice based solely on merit, it's certainly possible. But what we do know is that anyone else not meeting these arbitrary requirements were not considered at all, and that's a sizeable number of the population. Simple statistics would indicate that the best possible candidate could be found in a candidacy pool that includes 100% of the population instead of less than 6% of the population.
You are partially correct, but not in a way you'd like. DEI is the latest horrible idea from the woke left now that CRT has been thoroughly discredited and is now disavowed by most. As someone said above (forgive me for not crediting you) if all other things are equal hiring a person not already represented in your organization would be a good idea. Different perspectives and experiences are a good thing. But not hiring/promoting a far more qualified candidate, and I have personally seen this happen numerous times, because they aren't a "minority" in some way is a horrible idea. It weakens your organization, it breeds justifiable resentment in your work force and it degrades the accomplishments of truly worthy people who are from a population that benefits from DEI. It was likely well intentioned in the beginning, but put into practice it has myriad flaws that far outweigh any benefits.
He was the one who assumed that more qualified candidates were overlooked. How many minority-qualified candidates have never been considered because they weren't white males? Do you honestly believe there have only been 5 qualified women, 4 qualified African Americans, and no qualified Asians? Are the only qualified conservative judges Ivy League, Catholic members of the Federalist Society?
I am sick and tired of being blamed for a conservative way of thinking. They alone are responsible for thinking that minorities are less qualified than the all-powerful straight white male. Why can't they take responsibility for their own political beliefs? Why does it seem like their beliefs are reactionary not primary?
Polling indicated that Republicans and conservatives were less enthusiastic about voting than Democrats in 2020 It worked so now they are upping their game with DEI.
We've seen this gameplan before. It is just another way for MAGA powers that be to use to convince their followers that they are the victims in this society
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - Dill - 06-16-2024
(06-16-2024, 06:25 PM)pally Wrote: Polling indicated that Republicans and conservatives were less enthusiastic about voting than Democrats in 2020 It worked so now they are upping their game with DEI.
We've seen this gameplan before. It is just another way for MAGA powers that be to use to convince their followers that they are the victims in this society
Yeah, I think it's rather like the anti-Sharia movement, then CRT, then Trans restrooms. And it makes political sense.
A lot of meme-level "knowledge" about racial discrimination and "the left" is generated through social media activity and RWM prompts.
Remember the role DEI played in conspiracy theories about the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore Harbor.
A Harvard School of Public Health poll back in 2017 showed that a majority of white Americans then thought that whites were discriminated against
in hiring and receipt of government services. An anti-DEI crusade would likely feel just to most of those people.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/poll-white-americans-discrimination/.
Anti-DEI might be a more serious threat than previous propaganda successes, though, given the moment.
If Trump wins, I do expect him and his team to implement their Project 2025, which will actively target civil rights gains women and minorities
have achieved over the last 70 years as DEI violations of federal laws against non-discrimination. (See Chapter 17 https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-17.pdf, 561-62 .)
The recent injunction against the Black female owned Fearless Foundation in Georgia, to block a business grant issued only to Black women on the grounds it is racially discriminatory, gives some indication of where anti-DEI movement could be leading. The injunction was brought by the Alliance for Equal Rights, the group behind the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. SCOTUS decision, which blocks affirmative action in higher education.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klpyzmjbqvg/09302023fearless.pdf.
RE: DEI or MEI to hire workforce - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-17-2024
(06-16-2024, 06:25 PM)pally Wrote: He was the one who assumed that more qualified candidates were overlooked. How many minority-qualified candidates have never been considered because they weren't white males? Do you honestly believe there have only been 5 qualified women, 4 qualified African Americans, and no qualified Asians? Are the only qualified conservative judges Ivy League, Catholic members of the Federalist Society?
I am sick and tired of being blamed for a conservative way of thinking. They alone are responsible for thinking that minorities are less qualified than the all-powerful straight white male. Why can't they take responsibility for their own political beliefs? Why does it seem like their beliefs are reactionary not primary?
Polling indicated that Republicans and conservatives were less enthusiastic about voting than Democrats in 2020 It worked so now they are upping their game with DEI.
We've seen this gameplan before. It is just another way for MAGA powers that be to use to convince their followers that they are the victims in this society
Wrong again.
I asked how many were, assuming they only looked at a pool made up of 3% of the potential candidates.
It is possible the best candidate was in that 3%, but it is much more likely that the best was in the 97% pool that was not explored. Thus a lesser candidate was most likely selected due to seeking to appoint a black woman, and not the best overall judge.