Still, making DEI any priority implies that there will be some tradeoff. You can't simultaneously optimize for two different quantities without compromises. As a the thread shows, DEI has a significant effect on hiring.
> Furthermore, the evidence comes from a guy
That doesn't matter when the information is accurate.
- Take more time finding suitable candidates
- Invest money in external recruiters
- Lower the bar
Only in the last case does it come at the cost of merit
The comparison is simple: given that you want to hire a fixed number of people and you don’t want to lower the bar (hire based on merit), you can either not invest in DEI or spend extra time/money on getting diverse hires without lowering the bar.
- Either you do not spend extra money/time in finding hires. Then you find better ones if you don't optimize for DEI.
- Or you do spend extra time/money in finding hires. Then you also find better ones if you don't optimize for DEI.
Yes, more competent hires do a better job. But there is a limit to how much competence you can hire per person. That means there is a limit - or at least severe diminishing returns - to how much more competence money will buy you.
That means you can opt to spend that money on DEI without losing out on competence
That neither shows that the "bad faith" accusation is justified nor that the arguments in question are wrong. It's not a counterargument. It's just a mixture of ad hominem and mere contradiction.
To reiterate: "There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring." That's the argument. The "bad faith" stuff is irrelevant.
And other people here in other threads are also ignoring alternative theories about what went wrong at Boeing, including the DEI theory. Yet you aren't holding that against them, aren't you?