3 ms·
By using DEI as a metric you end up doing the complete opposite of “optimal use of everyone's talent, irrespective of their colour, sex and/or identify…”
by bozhark 2y ago
By using DEI as a metric you end up doing the complete opposite of “optimal use of everyone's talent, irrespective of their colour, sex and/or identify…”
- worik 2y ago> By using DEI as a metric you end up doing the complete opposite of “optimal use of everyone's talent, irrespective of their colour, sex and/or identify…” That is a puzzling statement. Why is it true?
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoLet's say you're trying to hire programmers. DEI could mean going to historically black colleges and women's colleges, and encouraging people there to apply for jobs at your company. This gets you more diverse applicants, from which you pick the best available, because your goal is to hire good programmers. But what DEI actually means in practice is someone in HR keeping statistics on how many non-white-male programmers you have, and scolding you because you haven't hired enough non-white-males. That kind of DEI leads to non-optimal use of everyone's talent, because you hire non-optimal people for the job openings you have.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoNo, the complete opposite of that is when you only allow white men to do things - not when you attempt to give everyone the opportunity and don’t have a good way to choose the optimal one amongst them. And that opposite setup is, I’m sure you know, exactly how things worked in most of the west until relatively recently. The overwhelming impression is that because the current setup is closer to overall optimum and further from an optimum for white men, people see it as a net loss.