After affirmative action in college admissions, the conversation now shifts to the workplace: how should jobs be allocated—based on identity or merit? This is something many might confront personally or through their children’s experiences, under the umbrella of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
Ultimately, the goal of attending the best possible college is to land the best possible job, to lead a financially secure life. While colleges also serve as places to gain knowledge, build networks, and even find life partners, these are means to the same end: financial stability.
I personally would find it demeaning to be considered a diversity hire, as it would undermine the hard work and talent I bring to the table. However, as a parent, I might feel differently if it opened doors for my children, as long as they remained unaware of the circumstances of their hiring. This contradiction raises several points for discussion about diversity hiring:
1. We need to determine our own stance on advancing through identity versus merit.
2. It’s crucial to examine whether our actions align with our principles.
3. We must acknowledge that not everyone has equal opportunities and discuss how to create a more equitable playing field.
4. Parents often go to great lengths to secure advantages for their children.
5. We should consider the broader societal norms and how we can benefit from them.
6. It’s important to challenge the stereotype that all underrepresented individuals are merely diversity hires.
During a discussion among parents, the consensus was clear: everyone preferred to be hired on merit rather than as part of a quota. Yet, recognizing structural inequities, there was a general agreement on the importance of providing opportunities to those less privileged.
One parent expressed concern that being labeled as a diversity hire could cast doubt on one’s capabilities. This is mirrored in college admissions, where transparency in grades and test scores was suggested as a means to validate merit-based admissions and reduce suspicions of identity-based decisions.
Moreover, transparency in salaries and other professional earnings could help correct pay disparities and ensure everyone is rewarded fairly for their contributions, although it might not be welcomed by all.
In practice, societal norms often override the ideal of a merit-based system, making it rational to leverage one’s identity if it provides an advantage. Whether in large corporations or elite educational institutions that actively promote DEI, there are opportunities to use one’s identity strategically.
However, joining smaller organizations or becoming a solopreneur requires facing the realities of performance-based evaluation, where there is little room to hide. This pressure can instigate self-doubt, especially if one feels they were hired more for their identity than their skills.
In conclusion, while some may aspire to a meritocratic ideal, the pragmatic approach to navigating systems that value diversity can lead to financial benefits and opportunities for advancement. Life isn’t always fair, but understanding and maneuvering within this reality can be more productive than simply lamenting over inequalities.
