You're viewing part of a thread.
This only works if you assume that a company can only be successful with the best talent, and that simply isn't true. Disney is massively profitable but its ranks are filled with nepo-hires, idiots, whatever - all kinds of "not the best." We like to pretend that business is a purely pragmatic and as such integrity will automatically occur based on the profit motive.... but that just isn't reality, at all. In reality business is personal, and crony, and human-driven, and so many other things that keep it miles away from being the pragmatism you're implying.
This is why businesses are full of unskilled nephews, old business school friends, etc.
So framing this as "DEI" vs "merit-based" is flawed as fuck because "merit-based" was never actually on the table.
Right, I’m sure my company did an exhaustive search and just so happened to be a coincidence that all the most qualified talent has the same last name. Weird.
And would dei policies stop this from occuring? Fuck no!
Yes, this is literally what DEI program at least stifle, as now you can't just stack the deck with all your cronies. And yes, there will still be nepo-babies, but 60% nepo-baby crony executives is still an improvement over 90-100%. Life isn't all or nothing, it's frustratingly incremental.
What's it like living on sunshine mountain what flavors are the lollipop flowers? "Maybe in a million years things will get better if we just stay this course " -Vespair.
Show me where I discouraged you for any genuine efforts towards betterment, for any severity or speed. I'll wait.
So why fight for "DEI"? fight for merit based. Fully fund education across the country. Make it illegal to ask things like photo,sex, race, age,name, access to social media, requiring drug test on the application for being hired. Fight to Increase workers rights. But instead you are wasting all this energy into what? Another way to divide Americans and the rich owners of capital laugh and cheer.
I work for a university department, and our programs strive to make "DEI" and "merit" literally the same thing. We want the best and the brightest, so we try to overcome the barriers that keep them down, such as family history and economic circumstances. Those factors disproportionately affect people from minority groups because of historical reality, and that's the only reason that race even enters into it. Many of the people in our programs are white people from poorer backgrounds. We don't control the admissions process, we just try to get the best people to apply.
Put another way, the people with the family and cultural background (i.e. money, knowledge, and connections) to get into grad school are not always the same people with the best scientific minds.
Put yet another way, if the result of your hiring process is all weathier, white men, that's prima facie proof that the hiring metric was not merit.
Let's establish some frameworks here.
First, I want to clarify that I am not "fighting for DEI." Instead, I am dismissing the narrative that frames the current situation as a conflict between DEI and merit. This perspective is not only misleading but also fundamentally incorrect.
It's important to recognize that the existence of one initiative does not preclude the existence of others. For example, free school lunch programs do not conflict with disaster relief efforts. Similarly, DEI initiatives do not conflict with other movements aimed at creating a more merit-based system.
In terms of my personal opinion, if pressed, I would find it challenging to label DEI as simply a "good" thing, likely for reasons similar to your own. Life is complex and nuanced, and we rarely encounter straightforward solutions. However, I do see DEI as a significantly "better" approach, which brings me to why others might "fight for DEI" as you say.
Life is inherently complicated and often an uphill battle. When starting in the muck, seeking a solution that keeps your boots clean is unrealistic. While we may desire perfect solutions and easily identify them, implementing those solutions is a different challenge. The powers that be often resist change because they benefit from the status quo. Therefore, when pursuing progress, we sometimes need to consider compromise for the sake of achieving meaningful impact.
So, we are not discussing merit versus DEI; we are comparing the status quo to DEI. In this comparison, DEI represents greater opportunities for a lot of individuals who have been unfairly excluded. Yes, this does not solve the greater problem nor does it address it in an equally or means-based way and yes this potentially introduces additional disparties; these things are true. DEI does not solve social inequity nor does it suddenly represent a "fair" system. But it pretty objectively is an improvement on the deep cronyism and gatekeeping of the existing status quo. It's not good, and it's not fair. But it's BETTER, and it's MORE FAIR.
We may not be reaching the summit of the mountain with DEI, but we are certainly elevating our position.
I hope this provides some clarity. However, you may find a more passionate advocate for DEI can offer a more satisfying answer.