[floor2]

Perhaps it would help if you considered concepts like "more and less".

Without DEI measures (as implemented by many American institutions in recent years) such decisions would be more meritocratic.

There's still nepotism and rich parents and connections and luck and a whole bunch of random biases by the people making decisions. The point is that while in theory DEI was supposed to be a counter to those forces, in practice it has just become another source of unfairness and injustice.

[AnthonyMouse]

> There's still nepotism and rich parents and connections and luck and a whole bunch of random biases by the people making decisions. The point is that while in theory DEI was supposed to be a counter to those forces, in practice it has just become another source of unfairness and injustice.

And it tends to lead to a specific result: A number of slots are assigned for each group but then the set of people with rich parents are disproportionately from one group, so nepotism fills all of that group's slots. Then you get a 0% reduction in nepotism and instead the people without rich parents, but from the same demographic group, are the ones excluded. Which quite justifiably makes them mad.

[joshuamorton]

This doesn't follow.

Are you certain that "DEI programs" (which themselves are a wide range of things, from explicit preferences to hire veterans in US Government jobs to as described ineffective NSF rigamarole) are causing overall less meritocracy, or is it just a particularly visible form, some less qualified black people are getting in instead of equally unqualified white people, and that's notable, while the well qualified folks who get in but wouldn't be considered otherwise aren't noticed because they don't make the news.

[Manuel_D]

I'm not sure about th NSF, but at 3 of the 4 companies I worked at DEI initiatives were explicitly discriminatory. One prohibited white and Asian men from a segment of our headcount. Another set specific percentage quotas for women in OKRs (and those quotas were well above women's industry representation). And another prohibited offers being made until a certain number of women and URM were interviewed for a given role.

Not every form of discrimination involves lowering hiring standards. For instance, imagine I flip a coin whenever a Catholic candidate applies. Tails, their resume goes into the garbage bin, heads and their application process as normal. Does this lower lower hiring standards for non Catholics? No. Does this advantage non-Catholics over Catholic candidates? Yes. It would halve the hiring rate of Catholics, though it doesn't result in any "lowering the bar".

I'm not accusing you personally of doing this, but equating discrimination with lowered standards is a common tactic to try and stigmatize the acknowledgement of discriminatory DEI practices.