[hagbard_c]

No, it does not mean that. Have a look around you and you'll notice plenty of people with those inalienable characteristics in just about all positions you can think of. Some of them will have gained their positions due to preferential treatment or other 'DEI predecessors' but many just happened to have those characteristics while fitting the job profile.

As Thomas Sowell said [1] and says: “Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day.”

[1] https://sowell.org/quotes?page=3

[kyralis]

You're making a claim about it - twice now - that you haven't actually yet justified by any data. I'm suggesting there are, in fact, alternate explanations.

[hagbard_c]

Well no, you're the one who makes unfounded claims. Show how DEI makes things better, please. Don't start redefining the term, just show how selecting people based on inalienable characteristics instead of competence improves the outcome.

[kyralis]

I haven't yet made a single claim. I've asked a question about alternative hypotheses. For instance, that DEI initiatives allow qualified candidates who otherwise would have been overlooked to achieve positions they otherwise might not.

You are asserting that DEI means that unqualified individuals are being put into positions from which they should have been excluded. That is a statement for which you have yet to provide any proof.

[exe34]

you need to show how excluding people on the basis of skin colour makes things better.

[hagbard_c]

Who is talking about skin colour here? I haven't mentioned this term a single time, instead I purposefully use the term inalienable characteristics because that covers more than just skin tone.

You're the one talking about excluding people based on skin colour, not me. That is after all what DEI ends up being: exclude those who are considered to be non-marginalised (in practice white and east-Asian, heterosexual, men) from the pool. Getting rid of DEI removes the inalienable characteristics filter so that everybody is allowed in again to compete on merit. Having a given skin tone is not a badge of merit, having achieved a given level of competence is.

Do you realise that you are the one who is turning this into a question of race and that you are the one who is willing to exclude people based on it? Read that Sowell quote again and realise you're the one he's talking about, whether you're a politico or not.

[exe34]

Oh yes, racial equality has famously been achieved in the US...

[hagbard_c]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

Read that book. If it is too long read a summary [1]. Learn.

No, it has not. Neither does it make sense to reduce the level of equality, hence the need to get rid of DEI and similar constructs.

[1] https://literarydevices.net/animal-farm/