DEI was and is very clearly a central point in the contention between the Democrat and Republican sides (voting wise) as of the past few years. Based on outcomes in the USA, it appears that the prevailing voice is one which speaks against DEI. It seems to me, fundamentally, that the vast majority of people would be in favor of an absolute meritocracy, if it is indeed something which can exist. That is, no matter the role or situation, the best person wins – regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. There are, obviously, nuances when it comes to competition, but on a base level this seems to be what we want as a country. I haven’t done my research well enough to understand the mechanisms of DEI and how it specifically works, which is why I’m asking.
So here’s my understanding:
Now, the motivating case with regard to the existence of DEI, is one in which two candidates are equally or very similarly qualified with regard to skills, interview capacity, references, demeanor, character, and experience, but differ in demographic characteristics. In the capitalist world we inhabit, this is akin to a fight over the last scrap of food. The job market is worse than ever, so such questions are more tense than ever. The argument stems from the idea that it has been observed that in such cases, traditionally, people from specific backgrounds tend to be chosen over those who do not possess certain characteristics, at a statistically significant rate. I do not know how this was found or whether it was, but it seems to be a prevalent belief that this was and/or is how these tend to go.
Within my limited understanding of hiring, I do not understand how such a bias can be fairly corrected, if indeed it does exist. If you set quotas based on demographics such that every possible group is represented at a rate fitting their proportion within the overall populstion, you’d create an absolute nightmare of a process for every company in existence, and there’d be many qualified applicants who fell by the wayside in favor of others who were objectively under-qualified by comparison. That wouldn’t feel fair, either. Even if you only applied such a doctrine in those tiebreak cases, where every single time you just choose the person who belongs to the underrepresented demographic group, you’re still forcing the choice, and it’d still suck on the part of the scorned interviewee. How do we prove this targets bias itself? It seems more about mitigating perception than bias. As in, if I look at your team and it’s 90% composed of people who have one or two specific traits in common then you may appear to have hired with bias, whether you were biased or not.
So I am just curious how the mechanisms of DEI were devised and how they do target bias in specific without just discriminating against certain groups outright.
Comments
Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. Circumvention by posting unrelated link text is grounds for a ban. Well sourced comprehensive answers take time. If you’re interested in the subject, and you don’t see a reasonable answer, please consider [clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=AskSocialScience Reminder).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Really, this reads like a discussion of some imaginary version of DEI. All the DEI training I’ve ever had focused basically on how not to be a jerk to people.
In the specific area of hiring the idea that there comes a moment when you’ve somehow got the candidates sorted precisely by qualifications and have to pick one, then somebody says “let’s pick the less qualified one because DEI” really is a right-wing fantasy.
DEI hiring reforms are things like make sure you’re recruiting broadly, not just through existing networks or at most white colleges. Take the names off resumes to avoid unconscious bias (identical resumes with Black- or female- sounding names get fewer callbacks).
There’s also the pretty obvious point that determining how qualified people are is pretty inaccurate and very subject to bias.
Quotas and affirmative action have been largely eliminated in the United States since the 1990s. Conservatives cling to them because they make good taking points.
[removed]
I’ve been diving into the topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) lately, and I’m struggling to see how it actually solves the problem of bias in hiring or promotions without creating new issues. I’m not here to bash anyone or any group, just genuinely trying to unpack this. Curious to hear your thoughts, especially if you’ve got insights into how DEI works in practice.
From what I understand, the core idea behind DEI is to address situations where bias creeps into decisions, like when two candidates are equally qualified but one gets picked over the other because of their demographic (race, gender, etc.). The argument is that historically, certain groups have been favored at a statistically significant rate, and DEI is supposed to level the playing field. Sounds good in theory, right? But when you dig into how it’s implemented, things get murky.
Here’s my main issue: DEI seems to prioritize outcomes over fairness. Let’s say you’ve got two candidates who are neck-and-neck in skills, experience, and fit for a job. If a company’s DEI policy says, “Always pick the candidate from the underrepresented group,” isn’t that just swapping one form of bias for another? The person who loses out might be just as qualified, but they’re sidelined because of their race, gender, or some other trait they can’t control. How is that fair? It feels like we’re trading one perceived injustice for a new one, and I’m not sure that’s progress.
Then there’s the quota problem. If companies are pressured to have their workforce reflect the demographics of the population (e.g., X% of this group, Y% of that group), it creates a logistical nightmare. Hiring managers might feel forced to pick candidates who check a box over others who are objectively more qualified, just to hit a target. I’ve heard stories from friends in HR who say they’re under pressure to “diversify” teams, even when the applicant pool doesn’t naturally align with those goals. This doesn’t just screw over qualified candidates, it can breed resentment and make people question whether their colleagues were hired for their skills or their identity. That’s not a recipe for a cohesive workplace.
Another thing: DEI often seems more about optics than actual bias. If a company’s leadership is 90% one demographic, people might cry “bias!” without evidence of how those hiring decisions were made. Maybe those folks were just the best for the job? DEI policies sometimes feel like they’re designed to avoid bad PR rather than to tackle systemic issues. For example, mandating diverse hires to “fix” the numbers doesn’t prove you’ve eliminated bias, it just proves you can hit a quota. Meanwhile, the root causes of why certain groups might be underrepresented (education, access to opportunities, etc.) don’t get addressed.
I’m all for a meritocracy where the best person gets the job, regardless of who they are. But DEI, as it’s often practiced, seems to lean on forced outcomes rather than fixing the actual mechanisms of bias. If we’re going to correct for unfairness, shouldn’t we focus on blind hiring processes, standardized evaluations, or addressing pipeline issues way earlier (like in schools)? Those feel like they’d target bias without punishing people for factors they can’t control.
What do you all think? Am I missing something about how DEI is supposed to work? Have you seen it done well, or does it mostly feel like a clunky fix for a complex problem?