Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Hiring
Currently, there are reports that companies are wholesale eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) roles.
Currently, there are reports that companies are wholesale eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) roles. A company I worked for instituted a strong DE&I policy a couple of years ago. Managers’ raises are tied to the percentage of minorities on their staffs. In the employee profile and when applying for jobs, there is always a question about the applicant’s race.
My ancestor who was 100% Cherokee died 60 years before I was born. But most of the rest of my ancestors were Caucasian, so I look white. For a company internal search for a different job, I checked both “White” and “Native American” as a test to see if I would get increased interest and interviews.
Some would say it is wrong for me to take advantage of a diversity system if I haven’t lived my life as a Native American. I didn’t think of that at the time, but I agree. The next day I unchecked “Native American,” but for different reasons.
One reason is there were other internal policies that would come into play for hiring—so there wasn’t a single variable change to make this a clear test to determine the weight given to diversity in hiring.
Another reason is I don’t want to be a DE&I hire.
Most people who promote DE&I programs sincerely want to do the right thing and make the world a better place. If done right, there are advantages to a DE&I program. It could foster dialog and mutual understanding between people who have different life experiences—not just of race, but of economic background, employment, disability, gender, nationality, and region. This could build understanding and respect between staff, thereby reducing bias and increasing bonding as a team. Ultimately, also stamping out the last vestiges of racism that still exist in the US.
DE&I done wrongly is the way my former employer handled it—departing from a meritocracy to elevate DE&I for all hiring. An argument against a DE&I hiring policy is that in a company with a true meritocracy, staff don’t necessarily question whether management hired the most qualified person for a position. When DE&I is part of the basis for hiring, then the rest of the staff, regardless of race, naturally have an additional level of reservation about a new, diverse staff member. Staff are left to wonder whether any diverse person placed is the best person for the job.
DE&I hiring causes grudges that come from unequal treatment. So, DE&I hiring foments division. When a company places the best person who happens to be diverse, this generates respect for diverse people. When a less-qualified person is put in a role because of diversity, it does nothing to lift up diverse people. Instead, DE&I sets up for failure those who are diverse, and is a step backwards in eliminating bias between people.
I have family and friends of several races and backgrounds that are outstanding at their jobs, and they worked hard to attain their positions. It is a travesty the stigma of diversity hiring can taint others’ views of their qualifications, abilities, and work ethic.
Americans respect those who have overcome hardships to be their best selves. And a lot of people support giving a leg up to those whose life has handed them a raw deal. So, maybe DE&I hiring would work when limited to entry-level hiring to give opportunity to people from backgrounds on the fringe of society—including the poor white kid that grew up in Appalachia. Train these new hires equally and well, then let the cream rise to the top.
As for me, I don’t want to be in put in the position of colleagues viewing me through a diversity lens rather than a meritocracy lens. And I want to be confident I got a job because I am the top candidate, not because of my ancestry.
More writing at https://rethink1.substack.com