Snoop, 100% this. I am not sure I have seen a better description of how DEI recruiting/hiring should work.In my job, I both hire for my direct staff and oversee my staff hiring their staff members down through the agency.
While we have never called it "DEI", we do have standards about doing everything reasonable to have a diverse (in a multitude of ways) staff at all levels.
What kills me about these discussions is that Republicans act like that when you're hiring for any position, that you can somehow identify an objective "THE BEST" candidate across a wide variety of inputs like technical skills, people skills, project management, leadership abilities, common sense, and many more. As if there is a way to feed all of the candidate resumes into a computer program and the program can spit out, without fail, a numerical score for each candidate that points to the absolute best applicant. (And, yes, such programs exist, but they typically do not do a great job with soft skills and non-technical skills.)
And while occasionally you'll go to hire for a job and have one candidate who stands out far beyond the remaining candidates, in most hiring situations you end up with a small number of final candidates who are all capable of filling the position and doing the job reasonably well, each with specific strengths and weaknesses vis-a-vis the positional requirements plus agency needs, and you are left to select one candidate from this small pool in which any will likely be reasonably successful. In these cases, we strongly favor candidates who bring diversity that we don't currently have to the table because of the greater benefits they will bring to our entire agency. And while we don't call it DEI, it's within the spirit and practice of it.
The other thing we do within our practices toward diversity is seeking out and considering candidates who may not quite the educational opportunities as other candidates when those educational achievements are not critical for the position. That took us going through all of our position descriptions to determine for each the level of educational/degree level we felt was truly required for each position. It also means that we don't default to assuming that a more prestigious college inherently means a "better" candidate before we have looked at other achievements or gone through at least an initial screening interview. On the whole, it has helped us to not only have a more diverse staff, but to also find candidates who turned out to be amazing in their positions whom we would have otherwise missed if we had hired largely based on details on a resume.
I often think of the choice of Supreme Court Justices. There are probably hundreds of people (maybe dozens? but probably at least a hundred) In the United States who are well-qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice and there is no way to rank order them like basketball recruits. So when Biden picked Judge Ketanji-Brown Jackson and the right cried out "He just picked her because she is a black woman." Well so, what if he did? As long as she met the cut-off of "Is she well-qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice" it doesn't matter if that is the reason he picked her if there was value in selecting her for that reason. There was no "How could you not pick Justice So-and-So? Their legal reasoning is six rankings higher than hers." That is just as arbitrary as any other reason to pick from that elite pool of judges. Now, if there was an argument that she was not part of that elite pool of judges, that is another matter entirely, but I have never seen a reasonable argument that she wasn't.
Last edited: