3 ms·
> "Better qualified" generally boils down to "people who look like me". ...it's math. If you hire from 60% instead of 100%, you're intentionally eliminating po
by brightball 5mo ago
> "Better qualified" generally boils down to "people who look like me".
...it's math. If you hire from 60% instead of 100%, you're intentionally eliminating potential candidates. Whether you're talking about immigration policy or diversity policy. It's just math.
On fraud, I hear just as much concern about disability fraud. If it's coming out of taxes, either state or federal, taxpayers are paying for it or going into debt for it or seeing the currency inflated for it.
- svachalek 5mo agoDEI is not racial quotas, where I've seen it practiced it's about broadening the pool and considering candidates that may not have got a foot in the door based on traditional class signifiers. So the anti-DEI crowd is the side arguing for 60% over 100%.
- matchbok3 5mo agoIt literally is, based on numerous lawsuits, specifically concerning higher ed.
- Spooky23 5mo agoThe string-pullers behind the anti-DEI crowd want to replace the traditional power structure with their philosophical fellows. They complain that black people are admitted to fancy colleges despite being "less qualified", but reality is the DEI/affirmative action really protected white kids place in the social order, especially the legacy people whose qualifications are marginal. Those kids are being squeezed out by smarter, harder working Asian kids, so those white kids are going to southern prestige schools. People laugh at culture warriors because of stuff that is targeted at stupid people like the Starbucks "war on Christmas". But there's a more serious/malignant aspect to it as well.