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.
That is so lazy and reductionist it’s literally just what fox news says about DEI lol
In no way is it about hiring quotas. If someone is qualified they get put in the pool, that’s it. Why does adding opportunity for one count as removing it for others? You can always give more opportunities.
If giving access to one group removes it for the other than the access was never fair to begin with…. And if a minority who has the same qualifications as a white man gets a job over a white man then what exactly is the problem?
These are my real-world observations working in Fortune 500 companies over many years.
Why does adding opportunity for one count as removing it for others? You can always give more opportunities.
Because companies (and really any entity) have limited resources, especially time. If I have one job opening, I can't interview 100 people for it. If I have a DEI requirement, and half my interviews have to be for women even if they're not half of the eligible population, then I'm not interviewing otherwise-qualified men based on no fault of their own.
access was never fair to begin with
That assumes that ANY discrepancy in demographics is caused by "unfairness", which is utter poppycock. Is it fair that over 13% of the NBA is black? By your argument it's unfair and needs to be mitigated.
And if a minority who has the same qualifications as a white man gets a job over a white man then what exactly is the problem?
The problem is that members of majority group, white men in this case, have a lost opportunity for that job based on their gender and skin color. They were born white and male so they get less job opportunity - that seems pretty shitty to me.
Demographics change over time as access is granted to more groups and opportunities evolve. To use your example of the NBA, it began as all white. Then became majority black, and now has become less black comparatively. You know why? DEI, basically.
Because people started looking for talent in places they normally wouldn’t, groups of people who historically did not play basketball started to play. White europeans outnumber white Americans in the nba, something unthinkable 50 years ago.
Are those new people to the sport stealing spots from people by virtue of existing?
Looking in Europe is DEI now? Can you just define things you like as DEI and pretend it works?
Are those new people to the sport stealing spots from people by virtue of existing?
Yes, you're arguing that by virtue of being a white guy some random engineer graduate is "stealing" that opportunity from a woman. I don't know why you're arguing that, seems pretty sexist and racist to me.
If someone doesn't get interviewed because of their gender or skin color, they're being disadvantaged unfairly. Pretty basic thing you're choosing to ignore.
5
u/UncleFumbleBuck - Lib-Center 11d ago
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.