73 Reds

No business - public or private has to change anything if they are following the law. If they violated the law with unlawful quotas or anything else that's misguided thinking and that's on them.

You really don't get it do you? They put diversity in place because of misguided thinking. They removed it because it wasn't effective. Don't you understand the difference between mandatory DEI and resultant DEI simply because that is what happens to work best?

And they chose to remove them.

Because they were in place for the wrong reasons and were bad for business!

No!!!! Trump is not telling any business how to run itself or to eliminate diversity if the business itself believes it is good for business. Now you are just making stuff up.

Says who - you? Diversity should not be a factor unless diversity itself makes the business better. Most businesses hire people who can best meet job requirements - regardless of any outsider's opinion on diversity. One political party has made this into a divisive issue which it should not be at all. We have laws that govern discriminatory hiring practices. Otherwise businesses should be free to hire the most qualified candidates - period.

Right - do what's best for business, regardless of diversity. Not sure why that is an issue.

Again so what? So your answer is to sacrifice quality? That doesn't work in business. You are proving my point, over and over again.

Applicants self-selected because the school did not do a good enough job promoting itself and its selection process as entirely merit-based. The fact that 50%+ Asians got in is completely immaterial.

No, as @Vinod1 just pointed out, the higher the skillset required for a job, the less diversity should have any bearing whatsoever.

I don't follow why it backfired? Because the school did not get enough qualified applicants? So? Other than money, why does that even matter? If the school is not getting enough qualified applicants, perhaps it has a marketing, or message problem. Another important lesson for business. Instead, the school seems to have chosen the easy way out by admitting non-qualified applicants. I blame the school.

You're only referring to a tiny subset of higher education and student applicants. The rest of the World doesn't have to follow that path to be equally or more successful. And again, it is unclear how this applies at all to business hiring practices.

No, the school hurt itself. It could have RAISED the standard to get in, thereby eliminating some of the lesser qualified Asians. And what if 50%+ Asians were indeed the best qualified candidates? So what? Why is that a problem? If a company was comprised of 50%+ Asians and was not an Asian-specific business, why would this preclude Non-Asians from applying for open positions? Back to your example; could it be that the School's Admissions Committee was made up primarily of Asians with a natural predisposition toward their own? Could there have been other factors the Committee overlooked with Non-Asian candidates or that favored Asians? The example itself really does not demonstrate anything useful with regard to business and hiring practices because anyone can be a satisfactory student with intelligence and a GPA but not everyone is cut out for every job or career path. Two entirely different standards and required skill-sets.

That's a separate issue - faux diversity for purposes of a non-worthy agenda.

In your example the problem lies with the ignorance of applicants who were otherwise qualified and did not apply. If they were indeed significantly qualified they would have been admitted over Asians with lesser qualifications. In the end, if the school had to lower its admission standards it admitted lesser qualified applicants. A good lesson for business not to follow.

The only issue that matters is "what is best for the business?". If diversity somehow enters into the equation its all fine and good, but again not at the expense of someone better in the eyes of the decision-maker when all relevant factors are considered. If diversity is a non-factor, who cares other than one political party?

Whether diversity adds anything depends on the company and its business/end markets. With regard to most professions it adds little or nothing unless you are targeting a specific clientele, whereby being a member or knowing your clientele is obviously important. But that is not "diversity", it is simply prudent business practice.

You continue to miss the point. Diversity is in itself a qualification to be considered for certain jobs, such as broad based marketing - no one suggested otherwise. But it is not the end-all nor should it even be an objective when diversity is a non-factor or if there are more qualified alternatives.

No; the decision maker should be there due to merit as well. This is not about GPA; its about any and all qualifications, whatever those may be in the eyes of the decision-maker. This is such a ridiculous issue; would you hire any 2nd rate [name your profession or occupation] to work for you when there is someone out there more qualified for the same cost?

This seems like such a straight forward issue: DEI is fine as long as it never supersedes merit-based decision making.

Nah, was contemplating more nefarious things......

Well, you'd have to create land masses. And everything will cost you more.

That's a complicated issue in a lot of marriages.

And if you had a choice?

That actually all makes sense. (But not enough to convince me to invest LOL).