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.
You’re also, in my opinion erroneously, subscribing to the notion that there are “absolute best” applicants rather than “best fits”.
I’m not, there’s not some sort of generically absolute best applicant, there’s only ever best fit for the given position. Unless you are implying that being a specific demographic or demographics makes one a better fit inherently?
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.
Explicitly not being able to make a decision based on race/sex/etc because you do not know the race/sex/etc of the applicant and thus it cannot be a factor is itself not a fix for racist, sexist, etc hiring practices because it does not allow you to give members of certain races or sexes additional consideration because of their demographic membership? And proof of this is that not knowing candidate’s race/sex/etc doesn’t necessarily increase the likelihood that you will pick women, non-white, etc candidates?
This actually demonstrates the point though - it’s not about removing discrimination in the hiring process, it’s about targeting a specific mix and coming up with whatever policies help you approach that desired mix without doing anything explicitly illegal (like outright saying only to hire [or not hire] a certain race/sex/etc for a given position). It’s the difference between saying “we want to hire a black person for this job, if possible” and heavily emphasizing that your institution is a historically black college and the “need to fit in with the college community” when hiring for this position. I’m not saying but I’m saying and all.
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.
I’m not, there’s not some sort of generically absolute best applicant, there’s only ever best fit for the given position. Unless you are implying that being a specific demographic or demographics makes one a better fit inherently?
Explicitly not being able to make a decision based on race/sex/etc because you do not know the race/sex/etc of the applicant and thus it cannot be a factor is itself not a fix for racist, sexist, etc hiring practices because it does not allow you to give members of certain races or sexes additional consideration because of their demographic membership? And proof of this is that not knowing candidate’s race/sex/etc doesn’t necessarily increase the likelihood that you will pick women, non-white, etc candidates?
This actually demonstrates the point though - it’s not about removing discrimination in the hiring process, it’s about targeting a specific mix and coming up with whatever policies help you approach that desired mix without doing anything explicitly illegal (like outright saying only to hire [or not hire] a certain race/sex/etc for a given position). It’s the difference between saying “we want to hire a black person for this job, if possible” and heavily emphasizing that your institution is a historically black college and the “need to fit in with the college community” when hiring for this position. I’m not saying but I’m saying and all.