Firstly, I take great suspicion in the honesty of someone taking right wing talking points at face value in the very thread proving right-wing dishonesty about the criticism of DEI.
Secondly, you imply that the DEI(+accessibility) aspects of hiring inherently uses representation as its primary hiring criterion overriding competence and qualifications, which is simply not true. You’re also, in my opinion erroneously, subscribing to the notion that there are “absolute best” applicants rather than “best fits”.
Thirdly, while we could have an honest discussion about what role demographic representation in hiring should play in what industry/field, I’d argue if you are distributing shared public resources, those resources should benefit the public evenly and equitable hiring is an important aspect.
Fourthly, your example of blind hiring is a very good example as to why it’s not a fix: it doesn’t take into consideration “invisible labor” women are subjected to. Etc.
Firstly, I take great suspicion in the honesty of someone taking right wing talking points at face value in the very thread proving right-wing dishonesty about the criticism of DEI.
Secondly, you imply that the DEI(+accessibility) aspects of hiring inherently uses representation as its primary hiring criterion overriding competence and qualifications, which is simply not true. You’re also, in my opinion erroneously, subscribing to the notion that there are “absolute best” applicants rather than “best fits”.
Thirdly, while we could have an honest discussion about what role demographic representation in hiring should play in what industry/field, I’d argue if you are distributing shared public resources, those resources should benefit the public evenly and equitable hiring is an important aspect.
Fourthly, your example of blind hiring is a very good example as to why it’s not a fix: it doesn’t take into consideration “invisible labor” women are subjected to. Etc.