ex-President Trump

That... seems like a positive result? AA was never intended to comprehensively solve black poverty, and certainly no one expected it would help families who simply can't afford college.

I haven't even discussed DEI in this forum that I can recall, so I don't know what the **** you are on about.

At 12:25 the bishop start pleading with Trump to display some Christian values. In a different video you can catch JD desperately trying to catch anyones eye to have a little moment and Trump defiantly glancing around.

Trump said he "wasn't a fan of the service" and that "they could do better"

Almost nothing is ever pitched as a comprehensive solution. I think that it is fair to say that proponents hoped that AA plus need blind admissions plus readily accessible school loans would eventually contribute to reducing poverty.

A basic logic failure by who? I didn't purport to draw any conclusions. I simply was responding to your statement that:

I would argue that isn't always true because of my example below.

Which is to say if you choose to hire who you think is the 4th best candidate for a job because your race/sex preference hits on your #4 candidate then that person was hired because of racism/sexism and is still a DEI hire.

mickey, i've done a lot of hiring

you almost never get your 4th best candidate, the top people all have competing offers

there's an entire industry of professional recruiters and head hunters - large companies both hire outside help in these fields as well as having dedicated full time staff members who's sole job is to convince the top choices to take the job offer

this is because it can be so difficult to convince your top candidates to join

this is why you often don't hear back from employers for a week or so after the final interview, it's not because they aren't debating whether or not to hire you, you've already made the cut, they are just seeing if the people they like a little more than you are willing to do the job before they offer it to you

while technically DEI, i have no qualms about the 4th best candidate being given the first offer because they are from an unrepresented background in the sector

and then if that person turns it down you perhaps make an offer to the 7th best candidate for similar reasons before going back to the top and working your way down as you normally would do

the real horror of it is when it's done like a casting call in hollywood, where it's predetermined that the candidate must be from specific backgrounds - so it's not that the 4th best candidate gets the first crack at it, but the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best are never getting an offer in the first place - when the 4th best candidate accepts the job this works fine, but when that person is not the 4th but rather the 27th and the next best option is 39th and so forth, the quality of the person in the position can drop dramatically pretty quickly

this is especially true in fields where the majority of candidates are non-DEI acceptable

take an engineering position that is 85% men for example and you want to hire a woman

well if you're a small firm in a small region where there's only 10 people applying for the position, there's a 20% chance no women apply, and 35% chance only one applies - this means the majority of the time you go to hire someone, there's none or just 1 female option - leaving your hands tied if you're committed to hiring a female

or say you're in a larger market and there's 20 applicants, 4% of the time there'll still be no female candidates, another 13% of the time only 1 will apply and you'll rarely get more than 3 females applying

and as one could guess, the odds that that female candidate applies is actually the best candidate is again 15% as that's the natural rate of females in that field

so whenever companies engage in these practices, they are going to be severely handcuffed in terms of acquiring good talent

it's even worse for large companies

let's say it's a large firm doing entry level hiring where they're not too picky and just pulling 25 new entry level employees at a college career fair and there's 100 candidates

well, if they want to have a 50/50 balance as most firms strive to have, then they often won't be able to do so as 16% of the time they won't even get 12 female candidates

in a 10k sim the largest turnout is 28 of 100 candidates being female, so even when the turnout is at its absolute highest, when given a quota system, nearly half of the women are going to get offers compared to one out of 6 men

quite often nearly every female, if not all will get an offer

y is the pool of candidates, x is the amount of female candidates assuming it's a male dominated field where 85% of men

as a former tech worker, i've witnessed this first hand, where every female who is mildly competent gets offers and promotions up the wazoo whereas a lot of men are stuck in the rat race

this can have a very disenfranchising effect of the 85% of the working population who see the inequality in action and must self censor because anyone speaking out about get labeled as a misogynist or racist

and this can have real life consequences, fellow progressive liberal who's often called an evil right wing fascist because like me he speaks out against this stuff absolutely nails it

his entire monologue is right on point, but this right here highlights the disease within, the only priority we should have in running essential services like a fire department should be ability to put out fires, not whatever this is

First Space Force now we are getting Stargate

Of course by the Trump administration. Which was noted for its incompetence in hiring, blatant nepotism outright lack of even basic vetting.

i think a better way to describe why dei sucks is going back the 85% green engineers or 15% blue engineers issue (changing it for sake of how it sounds)

let's simplify it and make some assumptions

100 applicants with 85/15 split

30 positions can be filled with 50/50 split

it's a dream job so all applicants will accept the position if offered

so all the greens who are given offers are going to likely be in the top quintile in their field (and 100% going to be within the top quartile) whereas the blues will be of a typical distribution of talent

thus the 15 greens who are hired are all going to be rock stars whereas a small percentage of the blues will be rock stars

this then continues down the line, there's going to be 6 who are promoted after a year and again they want a 50/50 split, the three greens who get promoted are likely going to be the best 3 options for the promotion whereas it's statistically improbable that any of the blues would be

the end result is not only are more deserving candidates losing out but the organization itself suffers

but on a much greater importance, in terms of cultural impact, it just sets a really bad tone where the greens feel like they need to overcome insurmountable odds and be the best to attain the same level as a blue who just happened to have showed up