Unless you're Target. Then you get sued by the cops for tanking the share price for killing DEI. (bolding mine)
Companies in general should probably just stay out of politics. In their truest form, corporations aren't endowed with some sort of moral compass. They exist to make money for their shareholders and acting contrary to that is stupid. So don't refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (lost revenue) and don't pander to populist politics of the day (risk boycotts and reduced share value). Incorporate inclusion into your hiring practices and customer service policies, and you don't have to call it "DEI" or say you're ending a specific "DEI" program.
White guy when a white guy is hired: "This is merit based." White guy when a black guy is hired: "This is clearly DEI." It's implicit bigotry, the idea that what we had before the advent of equality programs was merit based when people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump exist and are flawless examples of white supremacy and systemic inequity under capitalism. It requires one's head to be so far up one's ass the farts have accidentally created a perpetual motion machine of ignorance.
That's the future everyone supporting diversity initiatives would love, yes. I've been involved in interviews and hiring processes many times where these considerations have been involved, and never once did we hire someone to fill a quota, or dismiss a candidate because they were a white guy. Quotas are an indicator of where your systems are failing to cast a wide enough net to find the best candidates, a sign of where you should look for filters that are cutting them out. The bonus here is that you can often end up getting better candidates because you find the ones who tend to get overlooked for whatever reason.
Yeah, just this week Musk was sharing graphs showing how Biden nominated majority non-white and non-male judges as clear evidence he was trying to bias the system, implying the previous parts of the chart where it was overwhelmingly white men was purely merit based. It's transparent AF.
"All in the Family" did an episode on this where Mike Stivic loses his shit about a Black guy getting a promotion over him, thinking it was political correctness (or whatever that was called in the 70s) which he speaks to him about and the Black guy says "Did you ever consider I was more qualified?" In hindsight, making such an episode focused from Mike, who thought he was enlightened and not Archie (who gets to drag him for his hypocrisy) was a wise choice to illustrate how deeply this white privilege entitlement truly goes.
"Failing" assumes a goal, but if the goal is anything other than the best qualified candidate, I would question your definition of "better."
Exactly. It's common for white liberals and white socialists to still be chained to that mindset of systemic white supremacy. There's an old expression in leftist circles that goes "kill the cop in your head," and while it generally refers to authoritarianism, it's also very relevant for any white person in a social movement trying to change things for the better when it comes to racial justice. Just because we're trying to make things right doesn't mean we still don't have a lot to learn, and some bad behaviors to unlearn. I think the modern equivalent of that would be Jordan Peele's "Get Out," or if you want another classic, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" It's a lifelong process. We're all unlearning things we were taught as children and young adults, and every white person should be open to instruction from everyone else. That doesn't mean white guilt, white shame, or white obedience, it means listening and learning, making the work of the people themselves as a part of yourself. Don't just read MLK, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, or Maya Angelou, internalize them. Make them a part of how you see the world. If we really want an equitable world, it's white people who are going to have to surrender their status and privilege. Everyone else is already fighting and has been fighting for generations.
If only it was right there in the text you quoted. As someone who has strong opinions about where hiring practices aren't working correctly I'm sure you have lots of experience in them, and also know that terms such as "best qualified" can actually be highly subjective depending on the criteria used.
You're making two VERY generous assumptions. 1) That he reads. 2) That his opinions are based on anything but knee-jerk biases.
Heck the qualities looked for can vary for nominally the same position just on a different team. Getting along and working well with others, providing a diverse set of experiences and education are all part of building a productive team. Which is why I get a kick out of THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB like there is some test you can make all the candidates take and just pick the high score. THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS! LOL!
In UA land, you whack the carnival strength tester with a wooden mallet while "winner takes it all" by Sammy Hagar plays in the background.
The criteria should be the qualifications to do the job. The person who best meets those qualifications should get the job, regardless of their irrelevant, intrinsic traits.
Have you ever been responsible for hiring anyone? Ever? Even once? Have you ever even had input on it?
We've talked before about how studies show that when the same exact resume is sent in with a minority-sounding name, it gets far less interest than the exact same resume with a white-sounding one. Here's a relatively recent article that talks about the phenomenon. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names That is but one illustration of the notion that a "merit-based policy" is lacking. Because if there were a merit-based policy, the same resume would get the same level of attention, whether it was from Shaniqua Jackson or Anna Rostov. Indeed, if affirmative action/DEI were as prevalent and powerful as its critics claim, the Shaniqua resume would garner far more attention than the Anna one.
That's a vintage WF conversation from decades past. I believe my solution involved only identifying people with an applicant number until they are hired. It needs refining, but it can be made to work.
I think experience in the field is pretty relevant. I wouldn't try to advise you on how to program a welding machine, for instance. So, I am now forced to assume by your silence that you don't actually have any hiring experience. Which is not, by the way, a straw man argument.
You're not forced to do a goddamn thing. It is a strawman to attribute to me something I did not say. I have BEEN hired. That's relevant enough experience. Fuckheads have tried that "If it doesn't involve you personally.." tactic before, and it falls the fuck apart when you inevitably comment on something that doesn't involve YOU. It is not cute, clever OR successful.
If I want to even attempt to converse with you, yes, I am forced to make assumptions because you are constantly, intentionally vague. And you can comment all you want about stuff you have no experience with. That's 90% of your posts here. But when people who do have experience tell you you're wrong, you don't have a history of taking it very well.
