throwaway7430

The only people who will be receptive to working for someone who feels that way about them will only be those who have decided for themselves they are not capable of assessing people objectively either. A less charitable way to put it is these people have decided their own biases are beyond rehabilitation, so these are the people you are selecting for if you hold that view. (In reality, I think people who support these quotas agree with you but think they don't have biases, it's everyone else that can't be trusted. An equally toxic scenario.)

Actually I think diversity quotas imply one of two things:

- Underrepresented groups are by default less qualified than average

- Hiring decisionmakers are incapable of assessing people objectively enough to overcome inherent biases

Are there other possible consistent implications? Honest question.

It seems to me either scenario is fundamentally toxic.

Brendan Eich got fired from his CEO position for the offense of privately and silently donating a few thousand dollars to a PAC which was against prop 8.

The above sentence is a fact but I am compelled to write it with a throwaway account since even mentioning the idea that this may have been unfair puts my career at risk. That's how bad it's gotten.