[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).