This. All Vice Presidents are DEI hires: they just call it something like, “Balancing the ticket”. This is a smear implying-without-saying that Harris is unqualified. The proper rejoinder is, “If you think Harris is such a lightweight, why is Trump terrified of debating her?”
Just wanted to point out the Politico article refers to the 2020 election, and talks about Trump losing ground as opposed to the 2016 election.
If diversity hire means less qualified why does so much research show that organizations with diverse viewpoints do significantly better. If everyone thinks alike, there will be no new viewpoints.
FWIW, I also recall that Biden promised a woman VP, not a black woman. It seemed like standard ticket balancing to me. Just as everyone assumes she her running mate will be a white male.
But white males are qualified by default.
Is the “diversity” in DEI diversity of viewpoints?
Diversity of viewpoints comes from diversity of experiences, which is highly correlated to diversity across a range of dimensions.
I’ve often seen diversity as described in DEI training and discussions I’ve taken part in (I work in government so of course) as a diversity of backgrounds and experiences. This is important not just for hiring purposes but also for interacting with coworkers and the public. A diversity of backgrounds will lead to a diversity of viewpoints, it’s inevitable. And that is something we’re taught to be aware of.
perfect response!
Indeed.
Umm, I do not remember that and Moriartys lovely cite above confirmed it. He said a woman. No mention of race. So that is slightly more than half of all Americans.
It’s not limited to that, though. You could fill a room entirely with white people (or people of any other race - or all men, or all women,) and you could still plausibly cover every political view from far-left to far-right.
Conversely, you could also fill a room with men and women of all races who are only liberal or only conservative.
More diversity can lead to more ideas, but it’s not necessary or the only factor.
Yes, and in theory, if the cookie jar is empty, maybe somebody snuck into my house, took only the cookies, and left without leaving any other traces.
Or it could be the kid with crumbs all over his hands.
Sure, a monoculture can still produce a diversity of viewpoints and outcomes. Nobody said otherwise.
What the studies have shown (and the part you quoted directly stated), however, is that a diversity of backgrounds is highly correlated with a diversity of viewpoints and has been shown to be correlated with things like improved profitability for corporations. That doesn’t mean corporations can’t be profitable without diversity of backgrounds, i.e. no need to go to the contrapositive of the statement.
I may be the most ardent of male feminists, but I still will not have had the experience of someone dismissing my grievance because “it must be her time of the month”.
Or an English Literature and Linguistics Major with decades of experience as an interpreter at multinational corporations, global nonprofits and courts being told that they must have misunderstood what was said in an English language meeting because of “the language barrier” because of her facial features being East Asian. No matter how empathetic a white person you are you are never going to have that experience or be as tuned to recognize that shitty behavior.
You completely mistake the idea of “viewpoint” for the very narrow and crabbed idea of “political orientation in 2024 US politics”. That is NOT the sort of diversity of viewpoints DEI is getting at.
Here on the SDMB we often see people who write confidently about stuff in their experience, often governmental stuff, as if their experience in County X of state Y is universal nationwide. Only to be amazed to be told that many other states or counties do things quite differently. Same thing happens when folks write about retail or restaurants.
The punchline is that your life experience is necessarily limited to what you have experienced. A business with employees in different regions of the country will approach every problem, not just regulatory problems, with a wider experience base than a similar company where everyone hails from a single mega-metro area. Or worse yet, a single smallish city.
That is what DEI is properly about.
The problem is that “diversity of viewpoints” and “diversity of experiences” and “diversity of backgrounds” are all vague and ill-defined. Even if people could agree on what they mean, they’re not the kind of thing where you can sort people into easily identifiable, separate categories.
And so, what people often think of when they think of DEI, and what often happens in practice, is that the only kinds of “diversity” that get considered are the kinds that are easily identifiable separate categories, like gender and race.
Diversity in those easily identifiable categories probably does correlate with diversity in viewpoints. But it seems somewhat disingenuous to claim that what we’re really interested in is diversity of viewpoints, but then what we actually pay attention to is diversity of something else, like race or gender. Plus it may give the implication that the correlation is more perfect than it is: people of this color think one way while people of that color think another way.
Add to that the fact that, in many cases, diversity in those easily identifiable categories like race and gender is desirable per se and not just as a means to an end of diversity of viewpoints. And that in some aspects we don’t necessarily want “diversity of viewpoints”: do you want to make sure that creationists and evolutionists are equally represented in your Biology department?
Welcome to the world of corporate KPIs! Goodhart’s Law is a rough beast.
No, it’s not ideal that the simplest categorizations are the ones that get the vast majority of attention.
But it’s vastly better than the previous status quo where they weren’t considered at all. The perfect cannot be allowed to be the enemy of the good.
Diversity of viewpoints does not mean universality of viewpoints. This is basically an excluded middle fallacy.
The previous status quo in the US in Biology departments was a bunch of middle aged/older white men, mostly Protestant Christians at that. Sure, there were a few exceptions but that was the ‘default’.
There’s a wide gulf between that and giving any nutcase equal time to present their case. And at this moment of time, we’re much, much closer to the historic default than the other end.
I think the issue here is that people conflate Diversity with Affirmative Action. Diversity is about candidates have equal professional levels of experience and giving extra credence to the one that has a different background than the majority of the group. Affirmative Action is seen as being biased towards race, even when there is a difference in levels of achievement.
41 years ago, it was a Black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. 
For high-demand, trained professional positions (like in my own field of biology or just maybe for POTUS candidates 
), no one passes the first screening level without strong credentials and basics. On hiring committees it’s frequent to have a half dozen candidates who are all great on paper and highly competitive, each one of whom would pass muster and be seen as great if they were the only choice. So no choice the committee made would be a compromise on skillset. Frequently (when several candidates are strong) the tiebreakers are intangibles/socials (“in this 30min interview, did I get the sense that I would enjoy working with this person?”). DEI training did open my eyes to watching out for bias when making these assessments, and at my org hiring committees spend more time discussing “did we actually like the substance of their answer, or did we just like the way they delivered it?” and those conversations have affected the decisions - I think our decisions have been stronger for it in general.
To my mind, a so-called “DEI hire” is someone hired specifically to fill a demographic quota irrespective of qualifications.
But not to point out the obvious, but almost ALL VP picks are picked in part for their demographic qualifications. Even prior to this, how many VP picks were picked because of the state or region they were from? Tons, man. Tons. Mike Pence was absolutely and beyond any doubt picked in 2016 because of his religion; he was picked to appeal to Christian evangelicals. LBJ was picked at least in part because he was from Texas, counterbalancing JFK’s blue blood New England origins.
Demographic appeal is a fundamental qualification consideration in Vice President, and that’s totally fair and understandable.