The far right has finally figured out how to hone its racist attack on Kamala Harris

I like that. I usually just say "Oh, like all those old money assholes out there, like Trump, who were given their positions and fortunes by their parents?"

To quote Robin Williams, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some get it as a graduation gift!"

Anytime someone says anyone is a DEI hire

Some people are DEI hires though, don't overreact.

Someone using it as a slur against the most competent candidate is being racist. But used for anyone elevated for diversity reasons it's perfectly valid.

Realistically, most DEI initiatives I've seen have been more like, "put a statement acknowledging that women and minorities are less likely to apply for jobs when they don't meet 100% of the requirements and encouraging them to apply anyway, make the work environment not a living nightmare for those candidates/employees, don't throw resumes in the trash because they have a 'black name,' Sharon." If even that much, really. Republicans act like companies are firing all the cishet white dudes instead of just maybe not having a leadership team composed exclusively of those men.

I think a lot of our collective notions around "merit" need to be challenged in general. How is merit really measured? A person's achievements? Who decides what qualifies as an achievement? If a person has the deck stacked against them (e.g. coming from a low income household, not as much access to quality education) and manages to get a college degree then it's easy to say they've "achieved" more than someone who grew up privileged and obtained the same degree with similar grades.

But how should these things be weighed? If someone grew up privileged but is also exceptionally skilled, have they achieved more or less than someone who grew up underprivileged and obtained above average skills? Who has more merit? Who deserves greater recognition? And who decides if one skill or another is even meritous? Is the merit of a skillet ultimately just decided by how much the job market is willing to pay for those skills?

These aren't meant to be leading questions; I genuinely don't think there are any good answers here. When I'm in a position of making hiring decisions for my company, I make a point of not thinking in terms of merit. Instead I think about these factors:

• Alignment: Will the candidate be interested and motivated in the work that we have available for them?
• Qualification: Do I have good reason to believe the candidate will be able to competently handle the role we're hiring for after a reasonable ramping on period? They don't need to immediately have all the skills required, but I should see evidence that they have a good foundation to build off of and a willingness to learn what's needed.
• Perspective: Does this candidate bring and new and potentially valuable perspective to the role? This perspective could come from past work experiences and/or their personal life experiences. I don't want a team that's totally homogenous because that will fall too easily into groupthink and miss valuable opportunities to improve.

I think when people talk about merit they fixate on qualifications, but I genuinely believe that alignment and perspective are equally important. I would much rather take someone who is highly motivated but less qualified on paper than someone with amazing credentials who won't really care about what our team is trying to do. I would also rather have someone who is going to challenge our team's assumptions and bring insights from other fields and experiences than someone who will very competently agree with our status quo.

I think people who complain about DEI are totally missing the value of diverse perspectives, to say nothing of the moral concern of systematically reinforcing social divisions and the inequity that naturally follows from that.

Just because they're going to be more horrible in the future doesn't mean we should get used to the horrors of today.