The insane hypocrisy behind MAGA's DEI obsession
- Thread starter Colonoscopy
- Start date
Hegseth is would never have even been considered for the role in the past, he knows absolutely nothing about the position. Even some Republicans call him the most unqualified by a long shot. He couldn't even answer questions in the confirmation. He's a joke and has many character flaws. I guess a lot like trumpy.
You can't be implying that merely serving and waiting seven years is sufficient to be considered qualified to be Sec Defense?!?
Serving is not a requirement at all,... However, if you did serve you must be out of active duty for a minimum of seven years,... Those are the qualification requirements.
The real underlying issue here is:
Win at all cost.
Your argument could be sound AF. No holes, no weaknesses just absolute perfection of reasoning with evidence as clear as day and no MAGA will ever acknowledge its truth. Even a shred of acceptance of your viewpoint automatically makes them an outcast. A Rhino. They have to be safe and impenetrable in their alternate reality bubble. That is the way of things now.
Yes, to be eligible you need that. Does not make for a properly qualified individual. Obviously when we're talking about DEI or what constitutes proper merit we're not talking about satisfying simple eligibility requirements.
Talk about a low bar you've set. Right right, I know this is you trying to be clever to avoid defending the indefensible. Look, this is an anonymous message board, no one is going to know if you go against the cult leader just once, you can be honest about Hegseth's (lack of) qualification for this Sec Dec. No one will know.
He's not that stupid, he knows that, playing dumb is unfortunately one of the better moves when playing a MAGA hand.
I rate him up near the top of my WTF happened to this poster ratings.
I do think couching anti-DEI in strictly merit is a poor idea and opponents shouldn't be doing it. As in this case, sometimes merit is in the eye of the beholder, everything in life isn't SAT scores. Even though Hegseth is wildely unqualified by reasonable standards, in the things Trump looks for in a Defense Secretary, as the hiring decision maker, Hegseth IS the most qualified at being a kiss ass or whatever. Not everything is as easy to define merit on as LSAT scores and entrance exams.
However, the actual proper point shouldn't be that it's it's illegal or even in some cases improper to use something other than measurable merit in hiring. It's that you can't make one of those other considerations "skin color" or several other protected classes. You can be like "I'm hiring/not hiring him because he speaks in a loud voice" but you can't be like "I'm hiring him because he's black (or white)."
Of course, in those cases (unlike Def Sec) where there clearly is objective standards, it gets very very hard to justify going too far off the merit order.
But the "meritocracy" aspect is kind of a red herring, and a nomination like this is absolutely exposes that.
However, the actual proper point shouldn't be that it's it's illegal or even in some cases improper to use something other than measurable merit in hiring. It's that you can't make one of those other considerations "skin color" or several other protected classes. You can be like "I'm hiring/not hiring him because he speaks in a loud voice" but you can't be like "I'm hiring him because he's black (or white)."
Of course, in those cases (unlike Def Sec) where there clearly is objective standards, it gets very very hard to justify going too far off the merit order.
But the "meritocracy" aspect is kind of a red herring, and a nomination like this is absolutely exposes that.
i get the rationale in your example. but it applies at best in an early learning stage such as student (college undergraduate at the latest ).
if you gave candidate #3 a spot for a bs in biology i am good with it, he will get
to show his potential there with manageable side effects if he’s over his head. but for med school or grad school or to head a medical organization, i am
not supportive coz the good intentions can go wrong.
at these later/professional stages it’s not just about the individual who fills the spot. what about coworkers, customers, investors, the organization itself? don’t they deserve consideration (to have the absolutely most demonstrably competent candidate)?
anecdotally, my work place has/had some of dimmest bulbs in critical exec spots. one day after trump banned dei, some of them aren’t listed in the directory (ie are not with the company). it seems logical that the org hired them solely to check a box, if they actually were contributing as opposed to screwing up, i have to assume they would still be here.
Do you still interview candidate 3 if he is white? Same social situation, just white.
I think this is totally reasonable. But it's not a reflection of reality. The problem is that for every #3, there are an outsized number of white guys from the exact same and worse background and better grades and tests.
I agree that in this scenario, #3 is at least as impressive as #1 (which doesn't sound all that impressive given the background). But that's not the problem...
But how do you handle #3 vs
4. White guy. Grew up in foster care. Never knew his parents. Worked 45 hours a week and then drove an uber while being a full time student, survived cancer, and gets a 3.6 GPS and his test scores are 5% lower than #1.
If you say well in that case I would choose #4, you still end up with disparate impact when you add up your hires on racial grounds. If you say you would still hire 3, then you're clearly simply just operating on a racial hiring/quota basis.
What you posted sounds good, but it's not the real world. Poor white and especially poor Asian kids top the scores of wealthy and upper class blacks and Hispanics.
There's no way to grade on a curve that solves for this. You either have to strictly require racial quotas and lesser qualified applicants, or have to accept disparate impact in some institutions and areas of society. It's an intractable problem and the answer is way harder than this example suggests.
How much did Xavier Beccarra know about being health to be nominated Bidens HHS Secretary? He was AG of California and supported Obamacare, does that make him qualified? Nope, his second in charge was a mentally ill cross dresser who wore a military uniform. Of course, very qualified, lol.
That guy had high level leadership roles for years.
Again, Hegseth doesn't compare
Similar threads
