06-16-2024, 03:56 PM
(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.
