— Chris Murphy
Trump’s statement was questioning DEI.
He, and many of us on the right, believe that DEI means hiring unqualified people. If the criteria for hiring includes anything that is something about the person which is immalleable, then it is unacceptable.
Years ago, we hired a woman to do technical writing. Having read some of her non-technical work, I expected this would work out. When she started submitting her work to me, I red penned it.
This hurt her feelings.
It hurt her feelings so much that she went to HR to complain about how mean I was to her.
The answer, use a green pen.
She wasn’t getting any better. My partner and I had a lunch meeting to discuss what to do with her.
She had graduated from law school but had failed the bar.
He was terrified, rightly so, that she would sue us if we fired her. We were afraid that she would use her status as a “woman” to claim that she was fired because she was a woman, not because she couldn’t do the job.
We agreed to move her to a different part of the company, where she would not do as much harm. It didn’t really help.
There was a lot more having to do with her, up to and including hiring a new HR person to fire her without fear.
She wasn’t hired because she was female, she was kept on because she was female.
At that time, we would have loved to have hired a black, female, physically disabled, capable person. Why? Because all the highly skilled positions in our company were white males. Those were the people who applied, those were the people that had the merit. Those were the people we hired.
Affirmative Action and DEI have caused significant harm to our country. Removing it from our culture is a good thing.
Chris Murphy says the quiet part out loud, and doesn’t even realize it.
He immediately went to “stopping DEI” is an attack on women and blacks. He is admitting that he believes that women and black cannot qualify when there is a merit-based hiring policy in place.
This is why only leftists believe that minorities, PoC are to stupid or lazy or broke to be able to get a voter ID.
I work in a highly technical and specialized field. I’ve been in it long enough, and am now senior enough, to have been on a number of hiring committees.
I can tell you first-hand that even if the job requirements don’t state it explicitly, there has always been the thread that we should be looking to hire “X,” and that has gotten more overt over the past decade.
Have we hired unqualified people? I don’t think so, as indicated per the job’s minimum requirements. But the question to ask is, have we ever passed on the best applicants in favor of those who meet “X” as a factor unrelated to actually performing the job. Or have we ever just … not made any hire for a position because nobody with “X” applied.
It’s a very “soft” sort of thing and you’d have trouble formally proving it if it does happen. But this sort of thing is why you can say “all of the job requirements were met by the people we hired” and still wind up with not the best people.
Few thoughts…
1. DIE is OK in theory. It basically says, do not discriminate based on physical properties. Women, minorities, disabled folks, the alphabet groups, etc…. all have valuable and important skills that can benefit your organization. (And, that is where it should end.)
2. But… instead of saying do not discriminate, in practice is discriminates in the other direction. You are forced to hire based on what a person is, instead of what they do.
3. In order to do that, you must lower standards. Is there any reason why a minority cannot operate an aircraft? No, but look at your candidate pool. What percent is minority, woman, or LGBT+? A very small percentage. Which means when you rank based on skills, the DIE hires will be spread, not all at the top. Forcing you to bypass qualified candidates in order to meet goals.
.
Slightly different approach, but along the same lines:
4. Someone told me DIE hires will happen until a “debt” is paid. Of course, this person could not identify the debt, or who it needs to be paid to. They were of the belief that minorities were discriminated against in the past, and this discrimination in their favor somehow erases that past injustice.
4a. I do not know how committing an equivalent injustice… actually a worse injustice because history tells you what you are doing is wrong… somehow erases a past evil. Should blacks enslave whites in the USA to erase their servitude? Can Jews indiscrimately kill Germans to erase the Holocaust? No, no sane person would advocate for that. But, DIE hiring…
4b. It is just as racist to hire someone because of their skin color as it is to fire them for the same reason.
Finally…
5. If DIE is so fantastic, and needs to be supported, why is it offensive to call someone a DEI hire? They should be proud of it.
One issue that Progressives do not consider with DEI is that that the job itself may not have an abundant number of “social classes” of people who are qualified for job to pursue it.
Put another way, people motivated enough to earn income will seek a career that will allow them to earn enough to satisfy thier economic needs, regardless of “social identity” (minority status). If a job doesn’t provide for stable income or pay enough to allow for a comfortable living (or any other undesirable characteristic), then the overall numbers of qualified applicants will be quite low. Including “minorities”.
Progressives ignore that fact.
my issue with the whole dei bullshiite is we already have laws against ANY kind of discrimination…. it used to be if you weren’t qualified for the job you didn’t get it. now just like before and during o’s time it will be “racism” screamed from liberals when some unqualified idiot gets fired. We the People must start ignoring them. liberals are adult-sized toddlers parroting the same tired lies.