I’ve been in a meeting where my boss said he didn’t want to hire any more Indians because they aren’t fun to talk to at lunch, so I guess our two stories cancel out?
Hard disagree. On the one hand, "we have to hire a minority" is extremely blunt interpretation of DEI. But the intent is to foster diversity and that does mean hiring underrepresented groups. Having a diverse team is net positive on a lot of fronts. There are studies showing it actually improves team performance, but more generally it improves society. It may be marginally "unfair" for a particular company to be the one picking up the slack for society, but given the systemic discrimination that exists against minorities in so many part of society, giving them any sort of accommodation in hiring can at least offset the injustice elsewhere. The net result is a better society. Why is that the responsibility of a private company? Because companies are people and people live in society.
The people "balancing the scales" are ideologically motivated and are prone to their own error. So, you need to reckon with whether they're doing more harm than good. And to the extent that they're doing harm, what is the solution?
Is your argument "humans are fallible so we should give up?" The effectiveness (and sincerity) of DEI programs have certainly been mixed, but they should produce measurable outcomes that can be iterated and improved upon. A lot of the commentary in this thread and the rhetoric from the White House is that DEI is bad idea and should not be attempted because we shouldn't seek equity.
I've been in meetings where we had minorities that killed the interviews but leadership gave us shifty reasons as to why they weren't hired. They landed on "bad cultural fit"
When you say minority are these like East Asians or Indians? I’ve never heard of anyone rejecting a high performing African American or Hispanic for cultural fit, I’d be curious to hear what part of the country this happened in if it was from the latter group.
The parent said their boss didn't want to hire Indians. The seem to support DEI with that company as evidence that (white?) systematically discriminate against Indians. That power and status stay within one group those people werent allowed to join.
I posted a counter-example showing Indians systematically discriminate against non-Indians and shift almost all money to Indians across an entire, industry segment. So, they're no different.
Also, the intersectionality (DEI) proponents strictly focus on whites as the problem, but non-whites as the opposite, when non-whites do the same things structurally when in power and should be talked about the same way. That DEI proponents never treat non-whites as advantaged and whites as disadvantaged, even when company or industry data supports it, shows they're actually racists who are anti-white. They'll be inconsistent with their own principles to work against white people.
If called on it, like that whites can't get hired in company X or no power in industry Y, they start making excuses or denying a disadvantage or they deny that they even give advantages to non-whites like in this tthread. They certainly don't follow standard DEI or intersectionality principles to support shifting jobs or power to white people from the non-white majorities like they would if white people were the majority. We noticed the double standards. Their principles are therefore lies if specific groups can never benefit from them.
