This requires so much context and I appreciate where you are coming from and would love to have a debate in good faith. I would like to preface this by saying that I hit every single element you mentioned - I am a POC from a low financial bg, neurodiverse woman. While I can see why US DEI should work great in theory it isn't evident in the fact it is outlawed in the UK, but more so the fact that there are historical contexts and social constructs attached to big law. Let me address some of your points:Your understanding of this lacks the acknowledgment that certain groups have the exact same potential for greatness as others, but perform worse on standardized tests/grading/etc due to lack of resources, financial stress, and the simple fact that it is way easier to do well in school and in life if you aren't low income, and that's hugely tied to race and immigration status. So quota based hiring gives underrepresented applicants the benefit of the doubt (as well as making sure that different perspectives are represented). DEI is here to offer a leg up to candidate who are historically excluded, whereas white candidates, especially white men, have been offered countless legs up through the ages. Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus. Funny how that happens...
Anyways, in short, I think you're pretty wrong
Did you know that quota-based hiring often operates independently of supplementary factors like socioeconomic background? This means that even if someone from a minority background attended private school and had the same advantages as their peers, they may still receive preferential treatment based solely on race or ethnicity. How is that fair?
This issue is particularly contentious in India, where Scheduled Tribes and Castes often have significantly lower cut-offs for education and employment compared to the 'general class,' even when they share the same upbringing and educational experiences. A similar pattern can be observed in the US, as seen in the case of Biden’s former press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre. While diversity and representation are undeniably important, competence remains crucial. Jean-Pierre was widely criticised for her communication skills, with reports highlighting instances where she misled the public and struggled in White House briefings. It was later debunked that her primary qualification for the role was her identity as an LGBTQ+ Black woman. In contrast, her successor, Karoline Leavitt, has been regarded as far more effective in the role.
While promoting diversity is valuable, I hope we can agree that merit and capability should remain at the core of any hiring decision.
Did you know 94% of corporate jobs since 2020 have gone to poc while white people were underrepresented in new hires by 90%?
This raises an important question—when did creating opportunities for underrepresented groups start translating into actively disadvantaging white talent?
While DEI was designed to increase exposure and access for POC in the workforce, it has, in some cases, led to the unintended consequence of restricting opportunities for white candidates—even in countries where they remain the ethnic majority. While I fully acknowledge the historical context that justified DEI’s introduction, it’s worth considering whether, in practice, it has fostered more racial division rather than less.
Of course, this is my interpretation of the statistic, but I’d be interested in hearing other perspectives.
"Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus."
While this is largely a social issue, the following factors contribute to the disparity: statistically, men are more likely to negotiate salary increases, tend to retire later, and spend more years in the workforce. Additionally, maternity leave presents a long-term cost to companies. This is not to say that bias against women doesn’t exist, but from a business perspective, it becomes clearer why men, on average, receive higher compensation—largely due to their greater overall participation in the workforce.
Also, @Chris Brown, I just saw your comment and want to clarify that I never assumed 'a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials' nor did I imply that 'a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’'. I simply provided an example of a situation where there are two kinds of candidates and how DEI is implemented in the US—something that is both practised and factual, not just my opinion.
Secondly, you mentioned, 'Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now'—same here! I’m incredibly grateful for the DEI processes in the UK, which, in my opinion, are far more balanced than those in the US, as I’ve highlighted. There’s certainly more to discuss on this, but I’ll keep it brief here. Happy to continue the debate in private!
I appreciate this is not the intention of this forum to discuss these so I would love to speak to both of you should you wish in private! 😊
