4 ms·

> It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition It does not require it. My second point refers to the fact that people often talk about evaluat

> It does require lowering standards and quality, by definition It does not require it. My second point refers to the fact that people often talk about evaluating candidates/choices as if there’s a single, objectively measurable metric by which we can rank them. I argue that’s not how people really make decisions, but even if they did, who’s to say that the top three choices of suppliers are not all owned by minorities or women? You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. I’ve personally never been a fan of stringent DEI requirements, especially those that came from companies that were clearly in it just for the optics, and I do think it can result in lower quality. It’s the way that some people almost take lower quality as a given if diversity is involved that doesn’t sit well with me.

chii 2y ago
"we have the same product/service, and charge the same price as all our competitors. But because we're owned/operated/benefits minorities, you should be choosing us as a form of guilt driven affirmative action"
- jensensbutton 2y ago
  If all the competitors have the same quality and price then you're always going to be using some subjective criteria to decide between them. Why is choosing a minority supplier worse than any other criteria in this case?
  - chii 2y ago
    It's not worse (or better). But it should be a private criteria, rather than a publicly mandated one.
dmix 2y ago
> You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. That is bypassing competition, instead sorting by identity first. Competition is how the world found the best services/products for the best price for over a century and the foundation of our economy. Supporting that idea is how the west became as dominant and wealthy as it was. Only recently have large organization and gov bypassed that for social justice experiments and using ranked systems, similar to giving preferential treatment for 'national security' (aka keeping zombies like Boeing alive). Even massive US defense contracts are being forced to contract out to minority owned businesses first. It's not an optional thing where the decision maker gets leeway, they are required to start there and narrows the options by definition. > You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. There's no hidden genius in technocractic top down manipulation when it comes to purchasing decisions. The options are what they are. The less options you have the harder it will be to find the best. Like being forced to choose between 2 gov-backed monopoly ISPs for your internet here in Canada.

chii 2y ago

"we have the same product/service, and charge the same price as all our competitors. But because we're owned/operated/benefits minorities, you should be choosing us as a form of guilt driven affirmative action"

jensensbutton 2y ago
If all the competitors have the same quality and price then you're always going to be using some subjective criteria to decide between them. Why is choosing a minority supplier worse than any other criteria in this case?
- chii 2y ago
  It's not worse (or better). But it should be a private criteria, rather than a publicly mandated one.

dmix 2y ago

> You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. That is bypassing competition, instead sorting by identity first. Competition is how the world found the best services/products for the best price for over a century and the foundation of our economy. Supporting that idea is how the west became as dominant and wealthy as it was. Only recently have large organization and gov bypassed that for social justice experiments and using ranked systems, similar to giving preferential treatment for 'national security' (aka keeping zombies like Boeing alive). Even massive US defense contracts are being forced to contract out to minority owned businesses first. It's not an optional thing where the decision maker gets leeway, they are required to start there and narrows the options by definition. > You can both fulfill a mission to engage with more diverse suppliers and not lower your standards. There's no hidden genius in technocractic top down manipulation when it comes to purchasing decisions. The options are what they are. The less options you have the harder it will be to find the best. Like being forced to choose between 2 gov-backed monopoly ISPs for your internet here in Canada.