Weaselly.
Spoken like someone with absolutely no experience hiring people.
Just as there is simply no other way to interpret "prioritizing hiring non-white men", and the only way to distance yourself from that accusation is to not hire any non-white men at all, at least for a while.
Or there is implicit bias that favors hiring white men. That's the point a lot of folks like yourself miss. It's not "don't hire white men". It's "look at more than just white men."
see above
So, only white men can be qualified?
Notice how it is the mere use of the words "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion" that is being excised from documents. This isn't about banning programs that implement discriminatory policies under the guise of calling them "DEI". This is about banning all mention of diversity. All mention of equity. All mention of inclusion. You can't even talk about them. You can't use them in a sentence in federal documents.
In education, government, business, and wherever else DEI was deployed, it wasn't just wasteful, it was destructive. Student test scores tanked, business suffered losses, the most promising up-and-coming scientists forced to move abroad to find jobs, and a complete airhead nearly became the president of the United States.
I don't see that at all. I see Trump promoting nothing other than colorblind meritocracy.
[citation needed]
Citation required, because literally all evidence so far has pointed in the opposite direction. And a corrupt, incompetent, criminal actually became President.
Well, yes, when your automatic assumption is that white men are better, you won't be able to see anything but a "colorblind meritocracy" when white men are favored.
He did become president of the United States, and holds that position even as we write. He filled his cabinet with airheads, fired many competent people whose gender or skin color offended bigots who assumed they got their jobs because of DEI, and set out to defund scientific research, forcing many scientists to move abroad to find jobs.
There is nothing meritocratic about political appointments. That's why we call them political appointments.
You're saying that the Trump administration actually doesn't care about meritocracy?
No political administration cares about meritocracy when it comes to political appointments. Hello?
Then why does the Trump administration and the rightisphere keep talking about meritocracy? Is it "one rule for me and one rule for thee"? Surely if meritocracy is valid it is always valid? Isn't that equitable?
You are not this dense. I refuse to believe you are this dense.
Why is it dense to believe that merit should be universal?
Actually it is a free for all article, but you do need to sign in. Apologies I hadn't realised as I just went straight to the full article, presumably I have a password or access from work stored that just gives me direct access to full text.
The question is whether some of these appointments should be political. Just because they are appointed by the POTUS doesn't mean e.g. director of FBI should be based on political beliefs. Nor should supreme court judges, or generals. it is usually possible to shortlist a group of people who are all potentially capable of doing a job, on merit. What then happens is bias comes in and people will choose someone they will be comfortable working with, usually someone like them, they feel they have someone in common with, someone from a similar background. People find it easy to justify their decisions, we know that people find it hard to be rational.
