The anit-DEI stuff is predicated on an idea that there is a clear known 'best fit' for a position and it shouldn't take into account X, whatever X is. The problem is always this, nobody actually knows what a best fit really is. Nature shows us that one trait leads to longer term survival, diversity. When you think you know the traits that pick most suitable and exclude other traits then you are getting rid of the chance to find something you didn't know about. Diversity is a key ingredient in long term health and survival. The challenge though is that diversity naturally creates a certain amount of dissonance simply because you are now getting what you didn't expect. This is a feature, not a bug, so building for it is critical. A hiring policy that seeks out diversity and injects it in, in the long term, will lead to a stronger, healthier company.
The American conception of diversity that looks for race and gender ends up grouping 60% of the world together as "Asian". These are regions of the world with vast cultural differences (the obvious because South VS East Asia) and even within countries someone from Beijing is vastly different from someone from Xinjiang. It's extremely western-biased to look at what's going on in DEI efforts and think that it in any way represents actual diversity. It mostly means white women and educated black men get jobs while spewing the exact same thoughts as the HR department.
I agree with what you’re explicitly stating, but I can’t tell if you acknowledge and accept the implications.
As it stands, your statement boils down to “DEI is not diverse enough.”
If one also accepts gp’s point, then it seems DEI should continue, but be applied more carefully and thoughtfully. This would likely mean an increase in resources dedicated to DEI.
I agree and would welcome this (without requiring it legally). But I doubt most others would agree.
Do you think people with different ethnicities do their jobs differently? Or is ethnicity purely superficial?
Ethnicity is just one aspect of diversity. In my opinion (in line with gp’s point), it is generally advantageous to increase the diversity of culture and life experiences within a population. As both of these are very difficult to precisely identify or categorize, ethnicity tends to provide a decent, though imperfect, approximation.
Anything affecting appearance can shape one’s life experience drastically as others respond to you based upon their perceptions. And ethnicity affects appearance. As does culture and class.
If this is hard to believe, it wouldn’t be hard to play with one’s appearance (or even one’s speech/behavior) to gather an understanding of how it might shapes one’s life.
So you make assumptions about peoples' "culture" and "life experiences" based on their ethnicity?
The differences that you posit exist--are these differences necessarily "advantageous" or can the differences be disadvantageous as well?
[This should be read in conjunction with my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43730717]
> So you make assumptions about peoples' "culture" and "life experiences" based on their ethnicity?
When dealing with people, to understand the meaning behind their actions and words, one needs to have some understanding of their perspective (including their intent). Their perspective is informed by their culture and life experience, amongst other things (but life experience is broad, so mentioning anything else is just redundant). Life experience is informed by their ethnicity and the environment in which they exhibit that ethnicity. I don't say "hey this guy looks to be [...], therefore he definitely is/experienced [...]", but if they are clearly not of the ethnic majority, then I know they have experienced things that the ethnic majority has generally not experienced. That's a helpful start to understanding their perspective and relating to them. I also can ask questions to understand them better, and express insight or interest in them if my "guess" is right and if I have some background knowledge (of history/culture) to avoid misteps, at which point they are nearly always much more receptive and expressive, seeing that I am curious and open rather than uncurious and closed.
If one could somehow be "blind" to ethnicity, then it would only be a disadvantage to effective communication and relations, for both sides. (As evidence, one need only observe the general state of discourse online.) No one is that blind though, at least subconsciously.
> The differences that you posit exist--are these differences necessarily "advantageous" or can the differences be disadvantageous as well?
I'm a little uncertain as to what you mean here. Advantageous to the population or to the individual?
In either case, both exist, depending on the goals.
Individual advantages and disadvantages are probably obvious, especially the disadvantages given the amount of discussion they receive and the human propensity to identify personal threats rather than potential gains.
For populations on the otherhand, for basic long-term survival in a competitive landscape, diversity is an unequivocal advantage.
But, populations may have particular goals rather than pure real survival. For instance, they may prioritize maintaining their particular culture or ethos, beliefs and perspectives, and as such they view diversity as a threat because beliefs/perspectives are too easily transformed by the introduction of new beliefs/perspectives. Or simply because they are false goals, hiding the real goal of maintenance of power or maintenance of a subpopulation (usually a power-holding subpopulation experiencing decline). We are now experiencing the effects of that goal, as have many other cultures in the past. Always to ill-effect for the population as a whole in the long-run. And especially detrimental to individuals who are not part of the favored subpopulation.
What _doesn't_ change how you do your job ?
Does it make a difference if half a day in a month you're in pain ? Does it impact your human skills if you'll get shot by a cop if you're drunk in the middle of the night ? Will it make a difference if you go to golf with your boss or go to the same book club as your scrum master ?
You can argue whether any difference is worth it or not, but truth is we all have our opinions, we're probably right on some and wrong on other, and nobody knows exactly what actually matters. So we try to cover our bases.
Why are you always all over these DEI threads?
Because I view DEI and ethnic identity as a personal threat to my mixed kids. Followed closely by the fact that i’m from a third world country, and I know that promoting ethnic identity invariably corrodes and destroys a society. It wrecks every facet of society and governance. Every issue becomes overtaken by ethnic scorekeeping and jockeying. Democracy itself disappears, replaced with ethnic machine politics.
Maybe the emphasis on racial identity in society will prove harmful in the long run. But it's plain to see that the anti-DEI push from the Trump administration is little more than a return to white, male supremacy. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/07/park-service...
If I had to choose between the two, white supremacy is not what I would pick. And if it sticks around, it's going to be much more of a threat to the life and liberty of your mixed kids.
The anti-DEI push is not about “white supremacy,” but rather what some disparagingly call “multiracial whiteness.” It’s basically a return to the 1990s, when we retained a distinctly Anglo-flavored dominant American culture, but anyone could assimilate into that culture.
> It’s basically a return to the 1990s, when we retained a distinctly Anglo-flavored dominant American culture, but anyone could assimilate into that culture.
But that's.. not what the 1990s actually were like? I mean, this isn't that long ago, I was there, I lived through it. Returning to the 1990s is not a great goal, maybe we should try moving forwards?
[flagged]
Holy baloney, that is some top grade insane rambling. (Seriously, "Hitler-centric"? Are we just throwing darts at the scary word board now?) The administration pays lip service to getting rid of DEI, but then tries to erase genuine American heroes like Harriet Tubman while hiring completely unqualified candidates like Pete Hegseth, glorifying genocidal maniacs like Andrew Jackson, and restoring racist Confederate monuments that should have been melted down in the 60's.
If you don't see the white supremacy inherent in these actions, you are like a fish in water.
[flagged]
I
What is your thought process for that? Do you think ethnic conflicts do not exist in developing countries? Do you think nonwhite immigrants to the US would not talk about politics? Do you think nonwhite immigrants to the US are unbothered by a rise in ethnical tensions?
[flagged]
Why do you find it hard to believe? Naturalized citizens like me were one of the groups that swung the hardest towards Trump in 2024: https://www.cato.org/blog/naturalized-immigrants-probably-vo....
Accordingly, it's also very easy to Google a picture of him.
In which “third world” country have you experienced this?
How does ethnic identity threaten a mixed person?
Being mixed myself, I'd love to know why you think ethnic identity is a threat to me and others like me.
In my experience, it has been a tremendous advantage, despite the fact that I have lost friends and opportunities simply because I am not "white enough". And that isn't a guess or misread, I've been told that explicitly. It hurts, especially as a child, but knowing this happens allows me to understand the importance of exposing everyone to as much diversity as possible. Why? Because each and every time someone has mistreated me or judged me negatively based on ethnicity, it was quite apparent that they have lived a very cloistered life and oftentimes carry some sort of grudge or sense of victimhood despite their advantages. And they quite often look up to someone (e.g. their father or other adult role model) who exhibit the exact same prejudices, insecurities and victimhood.
I've also been threatened and harassed by the out-group because they thought I was of the in-group. Not a fun experience in the least. But again, it became quite clear why they behaved that way: a lack of diverse real-world experience (particularly a lack of positive experiences) combined with misguided lessons from equally misguided role-models.
> In which “third world” country have you experienced this?
Bangladesh. My uncle fought a war to gain independence from Pakistan and establish a homeland for our ethnic group.
> How does ethnic identity threaten a mixed person?
Because ethnic identity is maladaptive in individualist American society.
>> In which “third world” country have you experienced this?
> Bangladesh. My uncle fought a war to gain independence from Pakistan and establish a homeland for our ethnic group.
I appreciate that, as a family history you carry. I'm curious, how do you feel about it in the context of your arguments made here? Do you think ethnic groups should fight for survival and a safe harbor (homeland)? (Rereading your prior answer, it sounds like a definitive "no")
Do you think there is value in maintaining a living culture outside of the homeland?
Do you recognize any potential loss to individuals when their family's culture or ethnicity is erased?
>> How does ethnic identity threaten a mixed person?
> Because ethnic identity is maladaptive in individualist American society.
How so? Would you consider all group identities maladaptive?
> I'm curious, how do you feel about it in the context of your arguments made here? Do you think ethnic groups should fight for survival and a safe harbor (homeland)? (Rereading your prior answer, it sounds like a definitive "no")
If an ethnic group can realistically achieve self determination, that is the best course. Bangladesh's independence came at a terrible human cost, especially to the Hindus that were purged from the country during and after independence. But the result is a country that, for all its myriad other problems, doesn't suffer from significant sectarian or ethnic conflict.
If that's not realistic--and in the U.S. it isn't--then the best course is aggressive assimilation. In China, for example, 90% of the population is considered "Han Chinese," even though in reality that designation papers over a tremendous amount of underlying diversity.
I’m quite curious why this, me sharing my own highly-applicable experience, is being downvoted. I’ll take the additional downvotes simply to be given an answer.
If it’s due to a lack of clarity, I’ll gladly elucidate here. (I can’t directly edit the comment at this point)
Edit: Haha thanks for the extra downvotes HN. So predictable.
To be fair to DEI, the D could easily stand for “anti-homogeneity”. To that extent, Beijing, Xinjiang, Lahore, Jakarta, or Manila makes no difference. All that matters is you’re not being excluded just because you look or sound different.
"AAPI" is truly the epitome of a DEI term that is racist in exactly the way the ideology pretends not to be.
Really, you're going to group indigenous New Zealanders with Han Chinese as "one" racial group? Just to pick two very different groups at random. There are many absurd pairings that fit under "AAPI" and it's a parody of itself.
It's erasing these cultures to group them all under one constructed postmodern umbrella
A more pragmatic reason for this approach is many subgroups lack sufficient population sizes in relevant candidate pools to realistically attempt such a high-context focus with any sort of evaluation of efficacy.
The "anit-DEI stuff" is the same as the DEI stuff from before this administration: performative. Originally DEI was because the people demanded it of companies, now the anti-DEI version is because the administration will make your life hell if you don't fall in line.
Personally I fully agree that building a diverse workforce is more profitable in the long run than ignoring diversity (unless your company will die in the short term because of political pressure).
Do you think people who have different skin colors do their jobs differently? Can you articulate how you think your white workers do their jobs differently than say your hispanic workers?
You know, and I know, and literally everybody in this thread knows, that race is a an imperfect proxy for other things. Why keep trotting this out like you're going to really get someone with it?
If you’re a cog stamper, probably doesn’t matter, but if you think for a living and need to generate ideas ever, diverse perspectives are invaluable. It’s the exact same as biology: bio diverse environments always outperform homogeneous ones. You can adapt to way more situations. If everyone thinks the same, and has roughly the same life experiences, when you hit a situation one person can’t think their way out of, no one will be able to because you’re all roughly the same. “Outside the box thinking” is cliche for a reason: it’s a good thing everyone wants but is hard to capture. Diverse workforce is a more reliable way to capture it.
Disagree. You can have a team of similar life experiences that considers other life experiences.
[dead]
[flagged]
Everyone does their jobs differently due to innumerable variables, including life experience and cultural background.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Your bad faith anti-DEI rants are basically half this thread.
I’m trying to establish what people think “diversity” means. The foundational premise of the civil rights movement is that race is a superficial characteristic and people are the same. Accepting that as true, the concept of “diversity” makes sense only as a confirmation about the absence of irrational racial discrimination.
But OP suggested that diversity itself was a good thing, which makes no sense because racial differences aren’t meaningful. All else being equal, it’s not possible for a “racially diverse” team to function differently than a racially homogenous one.
> All else being equal, it’s not possible for a “racially diverse” team to function differently than a racially homogenous one.
And if all horses are perfectly spherical, they'd be awfully hard to ride.
The plain fact is that people are discriminated, for and against, based solely on their appearance. It happens today and it sure happened 100 years ago.
> The plain fact is that people are discriminated, for and against, based solely on their appearance. It happens today and it sure happened 100 years ago.
What does that have to do with how someone does their job?
The subject is preferential admission to harvard, what do you mean who does a job?
This thread is about diversity in the workplace. OP said: “Personally I fully agree that building a diverse workforce is more profitable…” I’m asking how that’s possible when race is a superficial and meaningless.
You are obsessed with race. It's weird.
I was just minding my business until someone called me a “person of color.”
I'd agree with that if you meant "you" as in the US public. It is difficult to respond to a DEI comment without acknowledging that racialist logic is a pretty major factor of DEI policy and it is unfortunate that race discrimination remains a political colossus despite some sterling efforts to weaken it. The fight against racism will always be an ongoing one.
Isn’t it a bit odd to dismiss discussions that focus on race, when DEI by definition centers on factors like race, gender, and ethnicity?
If the goal is to address inequality across these lines, shouldn’t that require a strong focus, some might say an obsession, with those very attributes?
[dead]
No, the anti-DEI stuff is based on the principle that race is a superficial characteristic that doesn’t change how someone would do the job. So, ipso facto, diversity itself can’t improve the performance of a workforce.
but DEI isn't just about race, nor is the idea behind it that a superficial characteristic makes someone more qualified for a job. DEI addresses the systemic barriers that have historically disadvantaged certain populations (like race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc). DEI aims to give them the same opportunities as their counterparts.
for example, DEI is meant to provide opportunities to impoverished white individuals as well, if they have not been able to afford higher education or have been passed on for various jobs because they didn't have the same internships or experiences that their wealthier counterparts had (which may have hindered their professional development).
That’s the motte. But the bailey is anti-white discrimination through the application of different standards to different races: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphic...
So the chart says:
> Acceptance rates for students with slightly higher and slightly lower than average GPAs and test scores are displayed in the other columns. In other words, the table above displays acceptance rates by race/ethnicity for students applying to US medical schools with average academic credentials, and just slightly above and slightly below average academic credentials.
So, uh, what? The argument is that it's now awful and horrible that average black students are accepted more frequently than average white students? Who cares.
> The argument is that it's now awful and horrible that average black students are accepted more frequently than average white students? Who cares.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 cares.
Presumably by your logic it would also care if black students weren't being accepted at an average rate? This is a silly conversation.
If they were being accepted at lower rates despite having the same index scores, then yes, that would be a huge civil rights act problem too!
“White” is not a race, but a vague signifier of pan-European identity that has shifted dramatically over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43720538
To play the devil's advocate, how do we know this carries over to business? If this was the case, it should have a track record at this point, since DEI has been a topic for a long time. Looking at comparable companies where one did do DEI and the other didn't, did one or the other have a statistically significant edge over the other? I have no idea, but I'm far from convinced purely from a reasoning stand point.
NPR had a story on this topic years ago and the researchers they talked with said diversity appears to have a negative impact on startups but a positive impact on established businesses. The logic was startups are smaller and need to move fast and be focused so DEI type efforts distract from the main business at that time. Once established diversity help the business by having people that can see business opportunities and challenges that a more homogenous workforce would not otherwise notice.
That diversity research at big organizations has been called into question: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/diversity-was-supposed...
Ah, McKinsey. That their pro-remote study was bogus will probably come as a shock to the four people left on planet earth who aren't familiar with "where there's fraud there's McKinsey"
The current example is Target vs Costco.
(Because of a black pastor-led boycott of Target for dropping their DEI policy)
Target basically decided to stop "over-delivering" on DEI. e.g. stuff like $2 billion to black-owned businesses, increase black workforce by 20%, etc. Even with the rollbacks, they are probably doing on average more DEI for the sector, than a Costco, Amazon.
They definitely messed up the messaging, though, in that they positioned themselves to be somehow boycotted by both left and right.
Costco is 20x the business as Target for numerous reasons, I kind of doubt any of it has to do with DEI.
Personal experience is that Costco foot traffic has been visibly increased in recent weeks. Our Costco has a few colorful members of staff, which I personally find makes my visits there more pleasant.
> Our Costco has a few colorful members of staff, which I personally find makes my visits there more pleasant.
Is this a poor choice of words, or one of those "I've gone so far left, I'm now also racist" things?
The biggest predication of anti-DEI stuff is white supremacy. Despite what they say, based on their actions, the best fit (or put another way, "merit") is clearly not a concern for the current US administration.
I think this is an online minority positions. There are a lot of well intentioned concerns which have nothing to do with “supremacy “
Furthermore, if these anti-DEI folks, whatever DEI means, think that people are hiring primarily based on some attribute rather than capability then it's fair to assume that if someone in any position is a straight, white, male they are there, not because they are qualified, but because they are straight, white, male. And from what I've seen, that's actually always been more of a problem than sourcing candidates from various populations.
Can you expand on the logic in your comment?
Why even have an interview or evaluate performance if everything is unknowable?
You use your best judgment and consider many factors. You make mistakes and get better with experience.
What we don’t want to have happen is a conflict between two opposing goals. That’s very different than disagreement about how to meet a common goal.
You've never witnessed a hiring decision that was based on an almost entirely arbitrary tie-breaker?
All I want out of DEI/Affirmative Action, apart from maybe some proactive efforts to improve diversity in the initial funnel, is for that arbitrary tie-breaker to skew towards the option that's underrepresented in the field. Does that seem unreasonable or particularly unfair to you?
dei programs in academia and corporations aren’t limited to breaking ties at the end of hiring. But I can consider the possibility in good faith.
I think giving someone who might normally not have the chance is a good tie breaker. I’m opposed to a policy that dictates that must be determined by skin color/gender/religion. If the individuals involved in the hiring felt that was the right tie breaker based on their knowledge of their community, I’m not opposed to that.
I love taking ideas to extremes, but in this case I don't advocate for that. What I mean is, diversity should be sought out and thought of as a positive, but that doesn't mean you throw out what factors you believe are relevant. I am advocating for incorporating diversity, searching for surprise, into hiring, not making it the only factor. Seeking out surprise is the fastest way to learn what you don't know so that you can use that knowledge for the future.
You are conflating two different ideas of diversity. An ecosystem of businesses is, for instance, more diverse if it contains some companies with racially and sexually diverse workforces and some companies without these properties. This is strategic diversity.
[flagged]
Those that criticize DEI have no problem with Nepotism. Ivanka and Jared had white house positions, that paid them salaries and entitled them to secret service on trips to Israel and Saudi Arabia. That tells you all you need to know. I would not hire either of them as doormen in a new building development, but they ran the house on 1600 Pennsylvania. DEI really is poor nomenclature. I think all of us favor someone that came from hardship (low income areas, refugees, veterans, disabled person that wants to find fulfillment by working), and giving them an opportunity. There are many places (and states) where these people would NOT be hired, even if they were qualified.
You're conflating two different sets of people.
The overall problem is nepotism, or even more generally, a lack of upward mobility. If you're poor it's a long road to the top. Most of the slots are filled by nepotism or otherwise having rich parents and only a minority are filled through merit.
The ideal solution here is to improve upward mobility, but neither party really does that, because to do that you have to fight entrenched incumbents. To lower poverty you need to lower the cost of living and therefore housing and healthcare costs, but the existing property owners and healthcare companies will fight you. To create opportunities you need to reduce regulatory capture so that small businesses can better compete with larger ones, but the existing incumbents will fight you. So these problems persist because neither party solves them.
Then, because more black people are poor and the bipartisan consensus is that if you're poor you're screwed, there are proportionally fewer black people at the top. Now consider what happens if you propose DEI as a solution to this. All of the nepotism still happens, but now the merit slots get converted into satisfying the race quota. Now if you're poor and white you're completely locked out, because the "white people" slots are all filled by nepotism and the remaining slots are used to satisfy the race quota.
The result is that poor white people are completely screwed by DEI, they understand this, and because the proponents of DEI are Democrats they then vote for Republicans. Then the Republicans oppose DEI because they're actually representing their constituents who at least want their chance at the limited number of merit slots instead of being completely locked out.
If the Republican elites then engage in nepotism and fail to improve upward mobility, that isn't good, but it's only a distinction between the parties if the Democrats would have done better in that regard, which they haven't, and they're plausibly even worse in terms of increasing regulatory burdens that prevent people with limited means from starting a small business.
[flagged]
No, the anti-DEI stuff is predicated on the idea that civil rights are bad and that white (straight dude) rule is good. There's not really any point in sugar-coating it or pretending the idea has any kind of intellectual or legal legitimacy. It is entirely driven by animus and resentment. The folks driving it aren't even hiding it.
This is classic ad hominem fallacy. I don't think I've seen such a great example in a long time
Critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement—especially when they have clear, documented consequences for marginalized groups—is not attacking the person, it's addressing the substance. There’s ample evidence that recent anti-DEI efforts are not grounded in merit-based reform but in resentment and exclusion. A few examples:
* Executive Order 11246, which prohibited discrimination by federal contractors, was eliminated.
* Civil Rights investigations in schools and colleges were dropped or deprioritized.
* Investigations into racial and gender discrimination in banking were quietly shelved.
These are a few structural, documented actions, not just rhetoric. Their impact falls disproportionately on people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants. That’s not an ad hominem, it’s observable policy.
Yes I agree almost completely with what you wrote. However, I disagree with your premise that GP was "critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement":
> Critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement
Here is their entire comment:
> No, the anti-DEI stuff is predicated on the idea that civil rights are bad and that white (straight dude) rule is good. There's not really any point in sugar-coating it or pretending the idea has any kind of intellectual or legal legitimacy. It is entirely driven by animus and resentment. The folks driving it aren't even hiding it.
Reading that yet again, it seems to me to be clearly making an argument that we shouldn't listen to any of the points/arguments/information they present because they don't have pure motives.
From the wikipedia page on Ad Hominem:
> this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
If you believe that GP was critiquing actions and policies, can you kindly point out which actions and policies?
How about this: the GP was clearly communicating a all-but-obvious conclusion based on the the demonstrated, highly publicized, and widely available evidence to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. For Trump and his team: the motives are the substance!
At this point I do not think it is reasonable for an informed participant in this conversation to demand every attack on the motives of the current administration given the overt words, policy and behavioral choices supporting such a conclusion. The GP wasn't speculating or prepping for debate club, they were summarizing a (seemingly) obvious conclusion. That you agree with me tells me you know at least some of this.
This isn't a debate class where we score points on technical merit. Do you disagree with the point being made, or were you just having fun demanding the GP show their homework? But perhaps in fairness, I've moved the goalposts. Yet once again I would say: it seems a distraction from the obvious larger, more important, easily demonstrated point.
Uh huh.
> U.S. State Department hire Darren Beattie wrote on X: "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-darren-beattie-state...
Yes, to be clear I'm not suggesting they have pure motives, nor am I suggesting they don't deserve the criticism. You are reading into my statement things that aren't there.
What I'm saying is that's irrelevant to the claim they are making. It is an ad hominem, which is a formal logical fallacy and has been for a very long time (going back well over 2,000 years)[1]. It didn't used to be controversial to say that ad hominem was a fallacy.
Are you disagreeing with me that the above is ad hominem? Or that ad hominem is a fallacy?
Wouldn't it be much better to just refute the claim instead of attack the person's motives? I.e. I think it's pretty damn easy to demonstrate that non white men have been great leaders who have gotten things to work. Refuting that claim is the non-fallacious approach and may actually convince someone honest (likely some third-party who is reading it later, you'll probably never convince the original speaker).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The claim we are arguing is "anti-DEI stuff is predicated on the idea that civil rights are bad and that white (straight dude) rule is good.". You said this claim is an ad hominem fallacy. I quoted someone in the administration who is literally saying "competent white must be in charge," an exact example of what the claim is stating.
> Wouldn't it be much better to just refute the claim instead of attack the person's motives?
No, at some point, and we have absolutely passed it in the US, you can be overwhelmed by the lies and bad faith arguments if you try to respond to them individually, and it's necessary to try to derail the source.
it’s okay to attack a person’s motives when those motives are just racist as fuck. The arguments put forth by the ‘anti-DEI’ crowd are what is known logically as ‘bullshit.’
How so? The words and actions of the current administration and its supporters are pretty clear about the intent. One of the first acts of the president was to fire a black man and a white woman from the joint chiefs of staff and replace them with white men. The current secretary of defense claims that women shouldn't be in the military, and rolled back protections for LGBT servicepeople. Records of the black service men are erased from public web pages. I could go on and on and on, it is a nearly endless list.
I think these companies have found what they believe to be best fit. The question is, "fit for what?". The answer to that is maximum short term profits.
If you can't show benefits in the span of 1 quarter, it might as well not be an option.