[DagsEoress]

> “how? How do you know they are the best?”.

The answer is you don't. But just because the system isn't perfect doesn't mean we should just throw it in the blender. By that logic we should get rid of "free" health care / safety nets in Western European countries. It mostly works but it also gets exploited. How can you know people aren't exploiting the system? You can't know for sure, but we can do our best to find out.

[Xeamek]

But nobody is saying that. Having hiring quotas is far from throwing entire system out the window.

[raxxorraxor]

But it would still be better without hiring quotas because they cannot constructively improve the situation. You will habe to leave that up to hiring.

[endisneigh]

Your comparison is inane. What’s the connection between dei and getting rid of safety nets? Not to mention that dei is not inherently unmeritocratic to begin with

[DagsEoress]

> What’s the connection between dei and getting rid of safety nets

There is none, nowhere in my comment did I say that.

> Not to mention that dei is not inherently unmeritocratic to begin with

It literally is. Meritocracy, people are hired by their merit. DEI, people are hired by representation. Equality versus Equity, polar opposites.

[endisneigh]

You misunderstand what DEI is. It means diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s not incompatible with meritocracy. For example you have similar candidates, take the one who’s least represented in your org.

Or you have a “pure” meritocracy, but you spend more energy and money sending your recruiters to areas and schools whose students are more likely to not be represented at your company.

If you can’t understand that you shouldn’t be commenting on DEI stuff.

[yobid20]

Ive seen lesser qualified people get hired because of this. Ie multiple people get inverviewed, but even the the "least represented" is far less qualified they got hired entirely because of DEI. This was clearly stated as the reason why too. Happens more often than you'd think.

[endisneigh]

That’s not a DEI issue inherently. Not any more than a startup founder hiring incompetent friends any more a “meritocracy” issue.

how do do know it was dei specifically anyway? Was it explicitly said they were hired because of their gender or nationality?

[DagsEoress]

> For example you have similar candidates, take the one who’s least represented in your org.

This would be the only edge case in which it would "work". And even then you're still systematically rejecting someone based on who they are rather than what they can do. I'd rather lose to a coin flip.

> Or you have a “pure” meritocracy, but you spend more energy and money sending your recruiters to areas and schools whose students are more likely to not be represented at your company.

Then it's not pure, because you're actively avoiding people.

> If you can’t understand that you shouldn’t be commenting on DEI stuff.

Regardless if your statement is true or not, you believe we should exclude people from discussions because they might not have enough knowledge on the subject? (Ironic for a topic on inclusion)

[endisneigh]

Your other two points are trivially handled by the history of race and hiring practices in the United States. I recommend beginning your education with the “New Jim Crow”.

Truly fascinating there are some who believe the hiring process is meritocratic to begin with. It’s not. This notion you have that hiring is solely about what you can do is just so naive. It never has been and never will be. Working is a collaborative effort and inherently will include nebulous traits, I.e. “who you are”.

> Regardless if your statement is true or not, you believe we should exclude people from discussions because they might not have enough knowledge on the subject? (Ironic for a topic on inclusion)

If you do not support dei, which you appear not to, then yes. Ironic indeed. Perhaps now you will understand the need for diversity (in opinions such as yours) and inclusion (in conversations such as these).