Oh I have zero doubt that it *has* happened, of course it has. But it's
by far not what DEI is designed or intended for, nor how it plays out
most of the time -- Most of the time, it works as intended, which is great.
I've had my superior tell me not to hire a woman before, too, because... she was a woman. But I happen to have a pair and told them where to go.
So there you go, we both have a ancedotal occurance!
So does my 16 y/o. lol, but I'll take your word for it.
Hehe, actually the team I manage is a compliance team for the pharma industry...
The thing with DEI, is that intent doesn't matter so much as outcome. The issue is that it creates an incentive structure which necessitates a racial/sexual bias to remain complaint.
If you are going to be *judged* by your organisation not being "representative" according to some somewhat arbitrary criteria, or incorrect assumptions, then in order to avoid criticism, or not meeting a target, you'll need to ensure hiring and promotion brings you in line with expectation.
This is what people miss. Once you make something a "metric", then the system is gamed to make the metric appear good "on paper", regardless of how. Like how the government will just import people to make GDP look good, despite the fact that cost of living is going up, etc.
Its not so much the idea of "not discriminating" which is the problem, is the creation of metrics, which are directly correlated to the race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality of your staff.
Actually, one way companies increase their female management is to just create bogus "manager" jobs, i.e, rename someone working on their own as a "manager", and then this increases the female manager metric.
This should have been the obvious outcome from the start.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)