> DEI is not a push to have quotas. Rather it is based on the assumption that if you see one group being overrepresented then there is probably a bias in favor

> DEI is not a push to have quotas. Rather it is based on the assumption that if you see one group being overrepresented then there is probably a bias in favor of that group. It literally is a push for quotas. Their ideology dictates that there is not enough X's, therefore bias. It's not necessarily true either, please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907690 Annec data is that the UK police force would be harassed by head office for not having a diverse enough team. A friend spent a while breaking down the local makeup of ethnicity and proving that the one black colleague they had was actually an over-representation for the local area. It was not easy to convince them either, as they had a literal quota for each area. > I (as a white man) don't for a moment believe that that is because white men are better at being CEOs (achieve better outcomes). Rather I believe it is because the selection process has long been biased in favor of white men (both in the last steps, and the path to get there). It's not particularly cut and dry. There is a class bias towards being promoted to CEO, and the pool of black people in upper class society is smaller [1]. > And this is not just my biases at play, many studies have been done, and none show that white men generically achieve better outcomes. Would be interested to read if you have them. > It is not about quotas or giving people points for being a woman/black person/disabled/etc. It is all about making sure that those characteristics do not subtract points. It is no different from a quota. You believe that some end ratio must result i.e. B% black people, there are N positions, therefore there should be a minimum of N x B black people in those positions. Then everything is done to meet that quota, otherwise there is still bias based on this quota. > But you could just as easily point to the current over-representation of women in colleges and universities and worry about an anti-man bias there. But nobody does make that case. Women are under-represented in dirty jobs, dangerous jobs, gruelling jobs, but there are no advocates to put more women in those positions. DEI itself is only fighting over the cream. They want more diversity in STEM, but I see zero fighting to get diversity into the arts, languages, etc. What's worse is that we literally have to lower standards to make it DEI possible. The military lower fitness requirements to help more women get in, colleges lower entrance exam thresholds to increase diversity, the list goes on. DEI has made us a society of lowering standards. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue at all with women CEOs if they cut mustard. But if you lower your expectations too much, you get the likes of Elizabeth Holmes, where there was near zero scrutiny by anybody [2]. Or a black CEO such as Kanye West, who clearly has large mental instability (which backfired on Adidas) [3]. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but-so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasin... [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/11620036/theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmess-five-best-cover-story-appearances https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/11620036/theranos-ceo-elizabe... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/01/08/kanye-west-lashes-out-at-adidas-accuses-company-of-design-theft-and-oppression/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/01/08/kanye-we...