DEI

[missy]

"​

​

A Crossroads for DEI: How Should Medical Institutions Respond?​

— Ideology and excellence don't have to be mutually exclusive​

by Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBAFebruary 11, 2025
Medical institutions across the U.S. -- including associations, medical schools, and health systems -- are facing a defining moment as political shifts threaten to reshape their approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. With **edited by moderator** executive orders poised to curtail federally funded DEI programs and gender ideology in healthcare, these institutions must make a consequential decision. Will they persist in advancing DEI-driven policies despite growing resistance, or will they pivot toward a renewed emphasis on merit, excellence, and evidence-based scholarship with no regard for diversity? The answer may determine not only the future of these associations but also the quality of medical care itself.



Proponents of DEI argue that these initiatives address systemic inequities in healthcare, increase representation among marginalized groups, and ultimately lead to better patient outcomesopens in a new tab or window -- improved patient compliance, enhanced problem solving, and increased trust and engagement. The emphasis on cultural competence and diverse perspectives is often framed as a means to mitigate health disparities, improve physician-patient relationships, and create a more inclusive medical workforce.

Organizations such as the American Medical Associationopens in a new tab or window (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Collegesopens in a new tab or window (AAMC) have embraced these ideals, implementing policies to diversify admissions, faculty hiring, and research funding. Their stance has been that a medical system attuned to social determinants of health is a more effective and just one.

However, critics contend that DEI policies have strayed too far from the core principles of medicine: scientific rigor, meritocracy, and evidence-based practice. They argue that medical schools and residency programs should prioritize selecting the best candidates based on ability rather than demographic quotas. They also contend that affirmative action admission policies in medical schools contravene the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvardopens in a new tab or window.



Moreover, opponents have raised concernsopens in a new tab or window that ideological commitments to DEI have led to the suppression of scientific inquiry, with physicians and researchers discouraged from questioning dominant narratives on topics such as gender-affirming care and race-based treatment protocols. A prime example of this tension is the backlash physicians face when they express concern about the potential long-term side effects of hormone therapy for minors, despite unresolved scientific debates on the subject.

The conflict between DEI and meritocracy is further illustrated by recent controversies in medical education. Some institutions have reduced the emphasis on standardized testing, such as the MCAT and USMLE Step 1opens in a new tab or window scores, arguing that these exams disadvantage underrepresented applicants. While well-intentioned, this shift has sparked concerns about declining competency standards and the long-term impact on patient safety. If the medical profession moves away from objective measures of skill and knowledge in favor of subjective considerations, it risks eroding public trust and weakening the profession's commitment to excellence.



Yet, it is worth asking whether DEI and meritocracy must be mutually exclusive. A well-designed system could ensure fairness while maintaining rigorous standards. For example, initiatives that expand educational opportunitiesopens in a new tab or window for disadvantaged students without lowering the bar for medical competence could strike a balance between inclusivity and excellence. Programs that mentor aspiring physicians from underrepresented backgrounds while holding all applicants to the same academic and clinical benchmarks might achieve diversity without compromising quality. The challenge lies in implementing policies that uplift rather than dilute the profession's core values.

Medical organizations must also consider the broader societal and legal landscape when determining how staunchly they will adhere to DEI-driven policies. In November 2024, Walmart announcedopens in a new tab or window that it would be scaling back its DEI programs, a move that signaled a broader shift among some major corporations. Other businesses have followed suit, recognizing the growing resistance to DEI-based hiring and promotion strategies. The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer recently settled a legal dispute with the "Do No Harmopens in a new tab or window" organization over its "Breakthrough" fellowship, which had excluded white and Asian American applicants. Facing a federal civil rights lawsuit, Pfizer ultimately opened the programopens in a new tab or window to candidates of all racial backgrounds.



These developments highlight the increasing legal and financial risks associated with maintaining rigid DEI policies, particularly those that explicitly favor certain groups over others. As corporations retreat from these initiatives in response to government, public, and legal pressure, medical associations and institutions must decide whether to do the same or to hold firm to DEI principles, despite potential backlash.

As medical associations, schools, and health systems reassess their strategy, they must confront a difficult reality: doubling down on DEI in its current form may alienate physicians, policymakers, and the public who see these initiatives as ideologically driven rather than pragmatically necessary. On the other hand, abandoning DEI entirely could be perceived as ignoring genuine inequities that persist in healthcare access and outcomes.

In fact, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, medical school matriculants in MD-granting schools from groups that are historically underrepresented in medicine declined across the boardopens in a new tab or window in 2024 compared to 2023. What might this mean for care of minority populations?



The path forward requires a recalibration -- one that reaffirms a commitment to scientific integrity and high standards while acknowledging the need for a diverse and inclusive medical workforce. Whether associations and institutions will take this balanced approach -- and whether it can be achieved -- remains to be seen, but the stakes for the future of American medicine could not be higher.

Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA,opens in a new tab or window is a former Doximity Fellow, a member of the editorial board of the American Association for Physician Leadership, and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia. He is the author of several books on narrative medicine, including Medicine on Fire: A Narrative Travelogueopens in a new tab or window and Story Treasures: Medical Essays and Insights in the Narrative Traditionopens in a new tab or window.

"

 

[Mreader]

I have a lot to say about this but not the time at the moment. But I will lead with a concrete example. My friend is involved in a school's AIDS work in Africa and it’s getting shut down.
Lifesaving humanitarian work is supposed to be exempt from freezing UNLESS its dei too. And violence against women programs count, which some clinics have, so AIDS treatment for everyone is halted.

This is the kind of crap that is happening all over in regard to federal funding as grants are being combed for words. The word “women” is one of the words. Bc of this insanity scientific research will suffer - big time. DEI isn’t hiring unqualified people (and oh wow the irony of that) - it’s leveling the playing field to give everyone an opportunity to succeed.

 

[Mreader]

I would love to hear other people’s real life examples. I have more but again will circle back.

 

[Karl_K]

When it comes actually being a doctor it should be 100% merit and patient relation based.
To many lifes are at risk to allow standards to fall to get a theoretical mix of skin tones.
I also think that medical school is vastly overpriced and the entire system is outdated and needs a bottom to top overhaul.

All that said the best Doctors I have/had are:
1: Hispanic female who went to med school in Chicago IL.
2: Syrian man who went to med school in Syria.
3: Black female went to med school in Des Moines.
4: White male - now retired who was educated in Australia many decades ago and was a teacher at the medical school here.
,,,,,,,,
The 2 worst are both white and educated in the US.

Skin color or nationality has nothing to do if a person is a good doctor or not.

 

[Lookinagain]

When it comes actually being a doctor it should be 100% merit and patient relation based.
To many lifes are at risk to allow standards to fall to get a theoretical mix of skin tones.
I also think that medical school is vastly overpriced and the entire system is outdated and needs a bottom to top overhaul.

All that said the best Doctors I have/had are:
1: Hispanic female who went to med school in Chicago IL.
2: Syrian man who went to med school in Syria.
3: Black female went to med school in Des Moines.
4: White male - now retired who was educated in Australia many decades ago and was a teacher at the medical school here.
,,,,,,,,
The 2 worst are both white and educated in the US.

Skin color or nationality has nothing to do if a person is a good doctor or not.

Agree, and the same applies to other professions, jobs or careers. I think that is the point of DEI.

 

[Karl_K]

Agree, and the same applies to other professions, jobs or careers. I think that is the point of DEI.

"Skin color or nationality has nothing to do if a person is a good doctor or not."

That would be color and sex blind merit based system.
That is the opposite of DEI which tries to rank people by other things than merit and give them some advantages over others.

 

[Lookinagain]

That is the opposite of DEI which tries to rank people by other things than merit and give them some advantages over others.

Well, I think DEI is supposed to ignore color and sex, so that white males don't get an advantage based on their color and sex.

 

[missy]

My thoughts.
DEI sounds great on paper
In theory it is supposed to counteract racism and treat all fairly
In theory, DEI addresses systemic barriers that have historically excluded certain groups
It embodies a set of values to meet the needs of people from all backgrounds
To be inclusive

A truly well-designed DEI initiative seeks to level the playing field, not create "reverse discrimination"
However, in reality, there is a bias towards hiring workers based on their skin color vs their achievements
I have seen this play out personally on many occasions

So in theory I am behind it but in reality now I am not

Well, I think DEI is supposed to ignore color and sex, so that white males don't get an advantage based on their color and sex.

It does not. It actually disadvantages other groups in favor of some

"Skin color or nationality has nothing to do if a person is a good doctor or not."

100%. It should be based on merit. None of us want a less skilled physician especially if our lives depended on it.
I have excellent physicians of all races and religions and that is how admission needs to be (color blind) especially in the medical profession.

ALL should have equal opportunities. BUT no one should be guaranteed equal outcomes.
That is up to each individual and their abilities and motivation

Plus DEI unfairly targets other groups and I find quotas to be a poor way to choose the most skilled.
The fact is, in reality, DEI prioritizes hiring employees based on who they are, as opposed to their skills and experience.
It's intent was good but unfortunately it's execution leaves a lot to be desired

My thoughts. Agree or disagree but these thoughts are a long way in coming and I have carefully looked at both sides of this issues. Can DEI be done better? Yes. I am confident it can be. But the way it works now is anything but equitable and actually hurts minorities. Believe it or not. Read Thomas Sowell as he goes into this in depth

Lastly some use the word and concept of"diversity" as allowable discrimination against other (minority) groups. Purposeful discrimination. I won't go into it here but it is a well known fact that colleges have discriminated against admitting too many of the same religion/race. Instead of going by merit they are absolutely looking at one's religion and race as a qualifier. So they are limiting some of the most qualified in exchange for getting their so called "diversity" which in this specific circumstance is blatant racism. This is what Quotas do

I 100% believe in EQUAL opportunities.
I am just not sure how to get there

And please do not be offended. Try seeing it from all sides
In the end we (most of us) strive for equality and diversity but the question is how do we get there without sacrificing (certain professions etc) and hurting people in the literal sense of the word. I want my surgeon to be as skilled as possible without any politics coming into play, Just one example

The Problem with DEI

Lack of data literacy can turn a good idea bad.

eric-sandosham.medium.com

Consequences Matter: Thomas Sowell On “Social Justice Fallacies”

Thomas Sowell, age 93, is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. With his usual fierceness and feistiness intact, Dr. Sowell returns to Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson to discuss his latest book (he’s published over 40 titles over his...

www.hoover.org

 

[LilAlex]

All that said the best Doctors I have/had are:
1: Hispanic female who went to med school in Chicago IL.
2: Syrian man who went to med school in Syria.
3: Black female went to med school in Des Moines.
4: White male - now retired who was educated in Australia many decades ago and was a teacher at the medical school here.
,,,,,,,,
The 2 worst are both white and educated in the US.

I will venture that you have no idea who your best doctors have been. Those four are almost certainly the ones whom you felt listened the best or whom you liked the most.

It's like financial planners. Everyone loves their asset manager and they are almost all thieves (think Edward Jones). They excel at social engineering (they make you feel good and at ease) but they are dreadful at helping you maximize your returns and avoiding senseless fees. And that's actually what you need them for. Doctors are a little different in that most are helpful (it is not pure mercenary, at least in the US) but you have no idea how much "curbside" consulting your doc has done about your case -- with other specialists or with regional experts in his/her own field -- or how thoroughly they have combed your EHR for clues or red flags or how far back they have trended your biochemical data, etc.

Oh, and DEI is not about hiring the less capable in a "sheltered workshop" model. The selection criteria for medical school, just like for Ivy League undergrad education, are incredibly arbitrary at the top. Harvard says they could fill their class with qualified enrollees over and over from their talented applicant pool. DEI is helping all the talented folks get recognized. My kids have had every opportunity and they have excelled. Others' kids have had fewer advantages and opportunities and still attained that upper stratum; maybe they did not have that engaged mentor or coach in high school or that teacher with the bandwidth to write the glowing letter of recommendation.

I am not "all in" on DEI and I think it has been oversold as a cure for all of society's ills. I'm not convinced that every workplace team is made better by diversity. Sadly, though, race is a proxy for socioeconomic class in the US and I believe that the opportunity for upward social mobility in one generation is a marker of a just society. The US was a leader in this (vs. the UK, say) and now the US is lagging. That can't be good. I think we have a responsibility to at least arrest the trend. Not by selecting the unqualified but by ensuring that the qualified -- or even the latently qualified -- are not needlessly overlooked.

My parents were successful after overcoming significant social and financial adversity. Same for my wife. I, on the other hand, had every advantage (two bright, educated, sane, solvent, loving parents, great siblings, stable home, no disruptive moves, no major health issues, etc.) and, unsurprisingly, have been reasonably successful. I'm pretty sure that my late parents respected my wife's "origin story" much more than mine. That's not a DEI mirage; that's recognizing reality.

 

[missy]

I will venture that you have no idea who your best doctors have been. Those four are almost certainly the ones whom you felt listened the best or whom you liked the most.

100% agree. I find many people who think their physicians are excellent truly have no clue. What they like is their personality and their experience with them. Were they listened to and treated with compassion? I have said this many times to my DH and being in the health field I get why people feel the way they do about their doctors. Sometimes I see certain physicians highly recommended on social media and I just shake my head having had personal experience with those doctors. And some of them were ignorant and some even a danger to their patients. Not exaggerating.

 

[Lookinagain]

Not by selecting the unqualified but by ensuring that the qualified -- or even the latently qualified -- are not needlessly overlooked.

My feelings exactly.

 

[Matata]

That is the opposite of DEI which tries to rank people by other things than merit and give them some advantages over others.

^ How ironic.

Nominee for Undersecretary for daily operations at the Pentagon: billionaire Steve Feinberg, who co-founded Cerberus Capital. He has no military or Pentagon experience.

for secretary of the Navy, John Phelan, a wealthy businessman and art collector who has never served in the military or any government position.

for undersecretary for research and engineering Emil Michael, a tech investor and executive at Uber and Klout, no engineering experience/goverment experience

 

[Mreader]

"Skin color or nationality has nothing to do if a person is a good doctor or not."

That would be color and sex blind merit based system.
That is the opposite of DEI which tries to rank people by other things than merit and give them some advantages over others.

Wrong. That is NOT what DEI does. It’s so infuriating that people think this.

 

[LilAlex]

Go easy on @Karl_K who is right about a lot of things but, in this instance, is missing some key information around DEI initiatives and their objectives. With the media blizzard, it can be hard to even remember why these programs were started. For example, I was astounded to learn that women would be impacted by the new backlash since my field, while not exactly post-sexist, is at least half women -- I no longer think of women in the "DEI-supported" bucket. But clearly a lot of people still do and are eager to claw that back.

 

[Lookinagain]

Go easy on @Karl_K who is right about a lot of things but, in this instance, is missing some key information around DEI initiatives and their objectives. With the media blizzard, it can be hard to even remember why these programs were started. For example, I was astounded to learn that women would be impacted by the new backlash since my field, while not exactly post-sexist, is at least half women -- I no longer think of women in the "DEI-supported" bucket. But clearly a lot of people still do and are eager to claw that back.

do you think this is because there is still (either real or at least perceived) gender pay gap?
If women make up 50% of a field, but are on average paid less for the same job, then perhaps that is why they are DEI supported? I'm just guessing here.

 

[LilAlex]

do you think this is because there is still (either real or at least perceived) gender pay gap?
If women make up 50% of a field, but are on average paid less for the same job, then perhaps that is why they are DEI supported? I'm just guessing here.

You make a good point; that's still a factor in my industry although not for my employers (plural), who set salaries objectively (by role, rank, years in rank).

 

[Bianca201]

do you think this is because there is still (either real or at least perceived) gender pay gap?
If women make up 50% of a field, but are on average paid less for the same job, then perhaps that is why they are DEI supported? I'm just guessing here.

Likely DEI supported because the roles at the top are held by men. I used to work for a Fortune 500 company - nearly all of their C-suite, and nearly all of the senior management, are men.

It used to make me laugh, when I'd be in my VP's office for a meeting, glance over at his file cabinet where he had a pic of the senior staff from the prior annual meeting - all men in suits, like twenty of them, with a couple token women mixed in.

As a woman, it was a known fact - you have equal pay within the company, but your opportunities will be limited as you go up. Because the more senior level roles are primarily held by men.

 

[Matata]

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this utterly shameful example of how low america has sunk and how low americans have sunk to suggest that women and POCs are incapable of filling a coffe cup in enough time to suit an entitled disgusting racist misogynistic excuse of a homo sapien.

Missouri sued Starbucks this week, alleging the chain’s push to hire and promote more people of color and women violated anti-discrimination laws and slowed down coffee orders.

Missouri’s suit alleges that Starbucks’ mentorship programs connecting minority employees to senior company leaders, its goal of achieving 30% minority representation at all corporate levels and 40% of all retail and manufacturing jobs by 2025, and its other programs to increase diversity are a “mere pretext for its actual commitment to unlawful discrimination.”

“Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers,” regardless of their race, gender or national origin, the lawsuit said.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/business/starbucks-dei-lawsuit-missouri/index.html

 

[lovedogs]

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this utterly shameful example of how low america has sunk and how low americans have sunk to suggest that women and POCs are incapable of filling a coffe cup in enough time to suit an entitled disgusting racist misogynistic excuse of a homo sapien.

Missouri sued Starbucks this week, alleging the chain’s push to hire and promote more people of color and women violated anti-discrimination laws and slowed down coffee orders.

Missouri’s suit alleges that Starbucks’ mentorship programs connecting minority employees to senior company leaders, its goal of achieving 30% minority representation at all corporate levels and 40% of all retail and manufacturing jobs by 2025, and its other programs to increase diversity are a “mere pretext for its actual commitment to unlawful discrimination.”

“Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers,” regardless of their race, gender or national origin, the lawsuit said.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/business/starbucks-dei-lawsuit-missouri/index.html

I largely agree with @missy about this stuff, but i want to address the above in particular.

I dont read it quite the same as you @Matata. I don't interpret the suit as, "POC and/or women can't make coffee as fast as white dudes". Rather, I read it as, "Starbucks was explicitly using race based hiring quotas rather than a merit based hiring system. Doing that means they aren't always looking for the best candidate because they are trying to meet specific racial percentages, etc, and that can be harmful for both consumers and potential job candidates".

I think DEI is amazing in theory. Everyone should have equal opportunity to apply for jobs, have access to opportunities, etc. But these days i think it can be used to make explicit requirements about what percentage of a certain race is hired. That's explicitly problematic because it means that if 2 candidates are being considered, the best candidate might not be hired bc the 2nd best person is the specific race/ethnicity they're required to hire to meet quotas. That's when I think DEI is problematic.

 

[Mreader]

I largely agree with @missy about this stuff, but i want to address the above in particular.

I dont read it quite the same as you @Matata. I don't interpret the suit as, "POC and/or women can't make coffee as fast as white dudes". Rather, I read it as, "Starbucks was explicitly using race based hiring quotas rather than a merit based hiring system. Doing that means they aren't always looking for the best candidate because they are trying to meet specific racial percentages, etc, and that can be harmful for both consumers and potential job candidates".

I think DEI is amazing in theory. Everyone should have equal opportunity to apply for jobs, have access to opportunities, etc. But these days i think it can be used to make explicit requirements about what percentage of a certain race is hired. That's explicitly problematic because it means that if 2 candidates are being considered, the best candidate might not be hired bc the 2nd best person is the specific race/ethnicity they're required to hire to meet quotas. That's when I think DEI is problematic.

But what had been happening before some measures were in place to promote diversity inclusion equity is if the most qualified candidate were a woman or a minority then they wouldn’t get hired and it would still be the second or third most qualified.

People also are equating DEI with being “woke” when simple things like ramps for handicapped people or closed captions, subtitles etc are part of DEI.

My “women on weights “ class was canceled bc of the new anti-DEI at my university and we aren’t doing anything for Black History Month. They canceled a seminar for women in STEM. These are just a few examples and it’s effing ridiculous.

 

[missy]

But what had been happening before some measures were in place to promote diversity inclusion equity is if the most qualified candidate were a woman or a minority then they wouldn’t get hired and it would still be the second or third most qualified.

People also are equating DEI with being “woke” when simple things like ramps for handicapped people or closed captions, subtitles etc are part of DEI.

My “women on weights “ class was canceled bc of the new anti-DEI at my university and we aren’t doing anything for Black History Month. They canceled a seminar for women in STEM. These are just a few examples and it’s effing ridiculous.

That’s a shame it really is but the problem with diversity equity inclusion is that it went too far. It absolutely did exclude some of the most qualified in order to make their quotas. If it hadn’t gone so extreme, it could have done some good for the people it was actually meant to help.

 

[Matata]

That's explicitly problematic because it means that if 2 candidates are being considered, the best candidate might not be hired bc the 2nd best person is the specific race/ethnicity they're required to hire to meet quotas.

It absolutely did exclude some of the most qualified in order to make their quotas.

I'd love to see some stats on the differences between the "most qualified" and DEI hires because the implication is that in all instances the DEI hires were significantly less than. In real life, the differences in qualifications and experience can be minute and have no bearing on the 2nd best's ability to do the work. In real life, companies sometimes hire 2nd, 3rd, 4th best if their top candidate refuses the job offer.

It doesn't track that an organization would hire someone who is not qualified to do the job because the risk to the org is significant. It's shooting one's self in the foot and sets the org and the employee up for nasty things such as failure and lawsuits. If DEI hires are hired solely to meet quotas then it is not a DEI issue, it is a failure of the Human Resources Department to monitor and manage the hiring process to ensure those processes adhere to employment laws.

 

[lovedogs]

But what had been happening before some measures were in place to promote diversity inclusion equity is if the most qualified candidate were a woman or a minority then they wouldn’t get hired and it would still be the second or third most qualified.

People also are equating DEI with being “woke” when simple things like ramps for handicapped people or closed captions, subtitles etc are part of DEI.

My “women on weights “ class was canceled bc of the new anti-DEI at my university and we aren’t doing anything for Black History Month. They canceled a seminar for women in STEM. These are just a few examples and it’s effing ridiculous.

I agree with the bold, and honestly am torn on what should happen about that. Hiring on the basis of race, sex, etc, is bad no matter which direction it goes (who it "benefits", etc).

And i 100% agree that Accessibility shouldn't be optional, period. No wheelchair ramps makes locations literally unaccessible to folks in wheelchairs, and that isn't OK.

I think things like removing names from resumes would help, since studies show that even when resumes are identical, names can lead folks to unintentionally be biased.

I wish it were feadible to make all job interviews like "the voice", so no one can see anyone. I think lots of folks have implicit bias that they qrent even aware of, and that can lead them to make biased hiring decisions, which is bad.

I've been reading a lot about affirmative action policies that are required by law in the fed govt. Many of them I didn't know existed. For example, the FAA had this one related to "targeted disabilities" (https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/...clusion-policy-guidance-elon-musk-sarah-palin)

Essentially it says the FAA needs have 3% of theur workforce be individuals with targeted disabilities, and I think it began with Obama so it isn't new.

I have a lot of trouble with the above example because on one hand I 100% can imagine how hard it could be for someone with dwarfism (as an example) to get a job, likely due to implicit biases. But on the other hand, is it a good idea to MANDATE a specific percentage of employees with those disabilities be hired? I don't agree with that.

 

[Lookinagain]

Likely DEI supported because the roles at the top are held by men. I used to work for a Fortune 500 company - nearly all of their C-suite, and nearly all of the senior management, are men.

It used to make me laugh, when I'd be in my VP's office for a meeting, glance over at his file cabinet where he had a pic of the senior staff from the prior annual meeting - all men in suits, like twenty of them, with a couple token women mixed in.

As a woman, it was a known fact - you have equal pay within the company, but your opportunities will be limited as you go up. Because the more senior level roles are primarily held by men.

I worked for a Fortune 500 company as well. There was only one female in the upper, upper, echelons of the company and when she retired she was replaced by a man. Lower than that on the totem pole there were women, but fewer and I don't know if their compensation was equal. I was in a fairly senior management position and do know that I was paid somewhere in the middle. More than some men in equal positions, but less than others. But I feel was I fairly compensated. However, when it came to staff (comprised of many professionals and support personnel) I think men where hired at a higher pay rate than women in the same job in many instances as I talked to other managers around the country. It doesn't mean that it stayed that way, but the women really had to "fight" to get up to the same salary. For the men, it was just what they were given.

 

[Lookinagain]

I think things like removing names from resumes would help, since studies show that even when resumes are identical, names can lead folks to unintentionally be biased.

I've heard of those studies too. But removing names only gets you to the "elimination" phase. Then there is the interview phase, either in person or via something like Zoom. So the lack of a name on a resume isn't relevant there.

In real life, companies sometimes hire 2nd, 3rd, 4th best if their top candidate refuses the job offer.

This is absolutely true. You don't always get to hire your "first" choice.


I don't know enough about how all companies work, but how many had actual "quotas" vs. just trying to have a somewhat diverse workplace, filled will qualified people from all races, sexes, etc. and attempting not to fall into the habit of picking white males over others? Has anyone seen any studies on this? I think part of the issue is there tend to be more white males in hiring positions, and people tend to gravitate towards someone they relate to. Maybe DEI is just an attempt to overcome this? Just throwing that out. I'm no DEI expert.

 

[LilAlex]

I've been reading a lot about affirmative action policies that are required by law in the fed govt. Many of them I didn't know existed. For example, the FAA had this one related to "targeted disabilities" (https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/...clusion-policy-guidance-elon-musk-sarah-palin)

Essentially it says the FAA needs have 3% of theur workforce be individuals with targeted disabilities, and I think it began with Obama so it isn't new.

Except I don't think this means that the blind are monitoring air traffic control screens, as this news item seems to suggest ("people will die!"). There are plenty of disabilities that still permit one to answer the phone, file paperwork, problem-solve, perform maintenance, etc. There are highly functional people on this forum who talk openly about their disabilities and are bright, effective communicators and are employed. (I don't know if they can lift a sack of cement, say, or fly a helicopter but most jobs don't require that.)

 

[missy]

Initially DEI was put into place because there was a very strong need for it.
Before DEI the white guy was the one who was (usually) hired
DEI policies were developed so companies would look at all qualified candidates and not just white ones.
Yes there was a need for it
100%

But over the decades it has morphed into what we are seeing now
Discrimination against others
Asians, Jews to name a few


I mean do you all think it is OK to deny someone who is qualified a spot at a top college because of their race or religion
Just because they are "over" represented for their statistics?
0.2% of the world is Jewish
But look at all the contributions the jews have accomplished for the world
Or is that racist for me to point out?

Same for the Asians
Is it fair for them to be turned away because they are over represented in some fields?

It's insanity IMO
Don't we want the best and the brightest
Don't we want to see cures for fatal diseases?
As just one example



To address the needs of the physically challenged and other put upon groups (women, veterans etc)
What about these legislations? Were they not put into place to protect the most vulnerable?
Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Equal Pay Act, Family Medical Leave Act
Yes these are mainly to protect their jobs once they have them
But just pointing this fact out
There are some protections in place
The system is FAR from perfect
But it is too flawed as I see it now


100% I think we should all be playing on the same field with the same opportunities. I cannot imagine anyone here disagreeing with that principle. The issue as I see it is abuse of the system. There is systemic abuse everywhere and it needs to be remedied. Things have become twisted and contorted

It doesn't track that an organization would hire someone who is not qualified to do the job because the risk to the org is significant. It's shooting one's self in the foot and sets the org and the employee up for nasty things such as failure and lawsuits. If DEI hires are hired solely to meet quotas then it is not a DEI issue, it is a failure of the Human Resources Department to monitor and manage the hiring process to ensure those processes adhere to employment laws

Not “if”. This is how it works. At least some, if not much, of the time. I know people involved in the hiring process in several fields and this is not unusual. They must meet quotas and not infrequently at the expense of hiring the most qualified. I cannot provide statistics that are accurate because many do not keep track of these statistics. Can you prove with truly accurate statistics that quotas are not in place? That those who are always hired are truly the most qualified?

Just a few anecdotal experiences.
I also have some personal experiences with discrimination but do not feel comfortable sharing in this climate.
I know for a fact discrimination exists against other minorities. Just because these minorities don't fit your definition of being discriminated against does not mean it is not happen. It does. More than you care to think.

"
I've been given explicit instructions not to hire men. I've seen wildly under qualified hires pushed through by my clients so that they can meet certain ratios. I've seen clearly problematic team members hired because they fit a certain demographic (people who average 3-6 months per company when the average tenure in the field is 3-5 years).

So, it DOES happen.

:

“ We can’t fill positions because of DEI. If one of my hiring managers posts a job and we don’t get a certain percentage of women or minority applicants we can’t hire anyone and have to have the job listing reviewed by DEI and reworked to be more appealing to the target groups.

If the stars align and we have enough of the “right kind” of applicants any decision my hiring managers and SME advisors make can be overturned by DEI. I have multiple maintenance, and engineering positions going unfilled. I have DEI hand picks that can’t be let go except for extreme willful negligence.”


Another:

“I work at one of the largest organizational consulting firms in the US as a recruiter. Starting last year and more recently, I've seen a push in hiring managers wanting to hire what they call "diverse" candidates.

Now, as an Asian American female, I recognize and have experienced reasons for why these hiring practices have come into place. Many companies are pushing for equality in the workplace, which I think is great.. However, I can't deny that I feel morally icky about leaving a qualified candidate in the candidacy pool because of what essentially comes down to their gender and skin color.

“

"If you do some digging on the IRS website, you'll find incentives in the form of tex credits for companies. For not only hiring specific groups of people but also reaching certain levels of diversity. So I can't say if they were hiring people unqualified for the job, but there was definitely a large incentive to hire anyone in these groups to meet a quota.

"

"Sometimes the Dei hire was most qualified. On some occasions maybe they weren't and they wanted a certain race,gender,whatever in this role for reasons. Saying neither happens ever is an issue.

"


Why are people so resistant to understanding both sides?
Why is it OK to discriminate against some groups (not talking about white men here)
It is not
It is unacceptable
We need to really look at the way DEI HAS been functioning and make it BETTER

The Historical Parallel Between Asian American and Jewish Students | BestColleges

The Harvard admissions case before the Supreme Court involving Asian American students draws a historical parallel to the treatment of Jewish students 100 years ago.

www.bestcolleges.com

I could find many more examples of this discrimination but am leaving it here
Are PSers truly open minded to learning about all points of view
And really getting it
Or is racism against certain groups so acceptable that you will just dismiss everything shared in favor of what you WANT to believe?

 

[lovedogs]

Except I don't think this means that the blind are monitoring air traffic control screens, as this news item seems to suggest ("people will die!"). There are plenty of disabilities that still permit one to answer the phone, file paperwork, problem-solve, perform maintenance, etc. There are highly functional people on this forum who talk openly about their disabilities and are bright, effective communicators and are employed. (I don't know if they can lift a sack of cement, say, or fly a helicopter but most jobs don't require that.)

1000000% aggree and its MORONIC to suggest otherwise ("omfg blind people are flying planesssss" is just dumb).

I would be considered as a "targeted disability" were i to disclose my psychiatric diagnoses (at least I think so based on definitions). So yes, it doesn't mean anything about functioning level perssay. And I think anyone who suggests otherwise is either ignorant or lying on purpose to stir the pot