Limiting the pool is rarely the way to find the best candidate
Congrats Democrats
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
I don't know how many people are hired by the Executive Branch, it appears Trump had very few minorities or women in his White House.
Omarosa's exit highlights lack of diversity at Trump White House
With an administration dominated by white men, ‘black diversity in the White House is almost oxymoronic at this point,’ says former RNC chair
Why don't people find that limiting? Is it because many of naturally assume a White male IS automatically the most qualified?
I'll go back to a point I made a few months ago, and in a way @TheOriginalHappyGoat touched on it in his reply, often times 'best" is who we get along with. My point was going back to the 84 Olympics with Barkley not making the team. When Felling pointed out he had been leading the tryouts in points and rebounds Knight replied that he wasn't putting together an all-star team but a team to win the Olympics.
Barkley may have been the best there, certainly he was one of the best. He wasn't asked onto the team. There was something more than being best.
Why do we discount that women and minorities can't be the best by some definition such as willingness to play as part of the team?
Depends on context and role right? If cal tech abd mit only take those who score above Xyz and space x needs needs to figure out whatever and the highest scoring members on his aptitude are all white men it is what it is right. Would inure to his benefit to add diversity. I doubt it.I don't know how many people are hired by the Executive Branch, it appears Trump had very few minorities or women in his White House.
Omarosa's exit highlights lack of diversity at Trump White House
With an administration dominated by white men, ‘black diversity in the White House is almost oxymoronic at this point,’ says former RNC chairwww.theguardian.com
Why don't people find that limiting? Is it because many of naturally assume a White male IS automatically the most qualified?
I'll go back to a point I made a few months ago, and in a way @TheOriginalHappyGoat touched on it in his reply, often times 'best" is who we get along with. My point was going back to the 84 Olympics with Barkley not making the team. When Felling pointed out he had been leading the tryouts in points and rebounds Knight replied that he wasn't putting together an all-star team but a team to win the Olympics.
Barkley may have been the best there, certainly he was one of the best. He wasn't asked onto the team. There was something more than being best.
Why do we discount that women and minorities can't be the best by some definition such as willingness to play as part of the team?
If AB is an institution with a broad marketing mission it would be pretty stupid to have a non diverse workforce. Same with the gov.
No, but I assume that it’s quite possible that they are not the best qualified or best candidate for the job since not all candidates are being considered.
IF MIT found every single engineering student who had the best scores among applicants were White males, I think they should ask why qualified minorities and women aren't applying.
If you read that story on Omarosa, who had been a huge Trump supporter at one time, said that many of the people in that White House had never worked with a Black before and had no idea how to talk to Blacks. If accurate, that's pretty interesting.
You’re presupposing they were qualified. Whether it’s the mcat or the lsat whites score highest then Hispanics then blacks
No one here has discounted women & minorities, the objection is that ANYONE is discounted, which is what the Biden admin & DEI hiring in general has. It is indisputable that if not all candidates are considered, the probability that the best candidate wasn’t chosen is higher.I don't know how many people are hired by the Executive Branch, it appears Trump had very few minorities or women in his White House.
Omarosa's exit highlights lack of diversity at Trump White House
With an administration dominated by white men, ‘black diversity in the White House is almost oxymoronic at this point,’ says former RNC chair
Why don't people find that limiting? Is it because many of naturally assume a White male IS automatically the most qualified?
I'll go back to a point I made a few months ago, and in a way @TheOriginalHappyGoat touched on it in his reply, often times 'best" is who we get along with. My point was going back to the 84 Olympics with Barkley not making the team. When Felling pointed out he had been leading the tryouts in points and rebounds Knight replied that he wasn't putting together an all-star team but a team to win the Olympics.
Barkley may have been the best there, certainly he was one of the best. He wasn't asked onto the team. There was something more than being best.
Why do we discount that women and minorities can't be the best by some definition such as willingness to play as part of the team?
No one here has discounted women & minorities, the objection is that ANYONE is discounted, which is what the Biden admin & DEI hiring in general has done. It is indisputable that if not all candidates are considered, the probability that the best candidate wasn’t chosen is higherI don't know how many people are hired by the Executive Branch, it appears Trump had very few minorities or women in his White House.
Omarosa's exit highlights lack of diversity at Trump White House
With an administration dominated by white men, ‘black diversity in the White House is almost oxymoronic at this point,’ says former RNC chair
Why don't people find that limiting? Is it because many of naturally assume a White male IS automatically the most qualified?
I'll go back to a point I made a few months ago, and in a way @TheOriginalHappyGoat touched on it in his reply, often times 'best" is who we get along with. My point was going back to the 84 Olympics with Barkley not making the team. When Felling pointed out he had been leading the tryouts in points and rebounds Knight replied that he wasn't putting together an all-star team but a team to win the Olympics.
Barkley may have been the best there, certainly he was one of the best. He wasn't asked onto the team. There was something more than being best.
Why do we discount that women and minorities can't be the best by some definition such as willingness to play as part of the team?
In the aggregate, true. But that doesn't mean individually there aren't individual Hispanics, Blacks, or women that score quite well. I suspect if everyone accepted at MIT were of Asian descent we would hear complaints about bias against Whites.
If Harris wins…”that’s the end of Trump” will be the least of anyone’s worries. These idiots have no idea what they are voting for with Harris/Walz. Either that or they’re evil. Anyone that votes for Harris is either a total dumbass or an evil MFer. Is what it is. Hope for the best, prepare for chaos.
You’re a dishonest and dishonorable POS. Your opinion is worthless forever now.
Right, but if it's that hard for you to delineate and you are working with all those factors, why intentionally limit yourself based on a criteria that isn't useful to perform the job well?
Use your 1984 Olympics example:I don't know how many people are hired by the Executive Branch, it appears Trump had very few minorities or women in his White House.
Omarosa's exit highlights lack of diversity at Trump White House
With an administration dominated by white men, ‘black diversity in the White House is almost oxymoronic at this point,’ says former RNC chair
Why don't people find that limiting? Is it because many of naturally assume a White male IS automatically the most qualified?
I'll go back to a point I made a few months ago, and in a way @TheOriginalHappyGoat touched on it in his reply, often times 'best" is who we get along with. My point was going back to the 84 Olympics with Barkley not making the team. When Felling pointed out he had been leading the tryouts in points and rebounds Knight replied that he wasn't putting together an all-star team but a team to win the Olympics.
Barkley may have been the best there, certainly he was one of the best. He wasn't asked onto the team. There was something more than being best.
Why do we discount that women and minorities can't be the best by some definition such as willingness to play as part of the team?
Had Knight said, "This is America, so we need an Asian, a Native American, an Eastern Indian, etc. on the team for DEI" do you think that would have been the best team to lead the US?
I don't know, is it ever necessary to communicate with minorities? The article I linked, Omarosa said that many of the people in the White House had no idea how to talk to a Black. Should that be considered?
Now, I fully grant she may not be a trustworthy source, I know virtually nothing about her. But the idea that a White House full of only 1% White Men would know all the problems faced by the citizenry, or how to communicate to the citizenry, or even have the ability to formulate ideas outside of their very limited combined experience, seems problematic.
DEI in basketball? Wasn't that Alford's role on that team?
Do you believe Omarosa was qualified to work at the White House in any serious capacity? She's not exactly the most trustworthy or competent person in the world.
Alford averaged 10.3 points per game, was second in assists, and shot . 644 from the field.
She’s a horrible lying ingrate.
Marv as to diversity in the White House to somewhat identify with the citizenry I do agree with you. Same goes for cops, policymakers, etc. again it depends on the role. Space x. Not so much
Last edited:
I doubt she was qualified. So, find me all the posts the Trump supporters made criticizing her as a DEI hire. I wonder, if there aren't any, why they were silent on that?
She's a serial liar and fraudster. Trump only hires the best:
Omarosa Manigault Newman - Wikipedia
See, DEI works out sometime.
I loved Alford, but was he one of the 12 best amateur players in 1984? Remember, we want only the "best".
He was a fit. Government needs to, in some way, look like America. There needs to be visible men, women, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, and all the groups I missed. We need people to look and say, "I am being represented by someone who knows what it is like to be where I am." We need kids to look and see, "I can succeed" no matter what classmates tell them about their race, gender, religion, etc. There is nothing wrong with considering all the ways we interact with government.
Mc mentions interacting with police, it is similar. We need diversity in police to help eliminate any "us vs them".
Damn it, Marv... that was Joe Klein.
Why only race, gender, religion? Is there any stopping point? Military? Nuclear scientists? NASA? Segregated classrooms where only black teachers teach black students?
What about the 14th Amendment's equal protection of laws for each individual citizen (not racial groups)?
I think Justice Roberts got it right when he said "The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."
How does one talk to a Black? Anyone here ever done that? I'm anxious to take notes and learn how to talk to a Black.
So, let's go back to the Trump White House with almost no minorities. If they were discriminating on race, how could we prove it? Do we really think anyone would be dumb enough to write a memo, "don't hire minorities"? I doubt there are very many today that dumb (though some). So how do we know Trump didn't have an inverse DEI going on?
I played golf with Arnold one time...Pro-Am at Bent Tree in Dallas when the Seniors played there.
Didn't the court throw cold water on using stats, that it is statistically unlikely all 100 best candidates for these 100 jobs were White male.
Most of the government jobs we are talking about are not jobs you and I apply for or even scanned for on Indeed. The president looks for and finds people he thinks can do the job, shares values, and works with well. Is it incredible to think that through recruiting they cannot find 3-4 Blacks/Hispanics that fit that as well as any White using everyone in the nation as the pool?
Because any hiring is going to have bias. Guess what, as an older White middle class Midwestern male I am most likely to be comfortable around White middle class Midwestern males. There IS a bias in any hiring system because of that.
Oh, as to the question as to where it stops, nuclear scientists, we have that settled via the term protected class
There might be.
What are the odds Trump hires Democrats? What does that mean for best?
That’s not a protected class but as I said a rejected black, woman, old person could file a claim and seek redress
You'd never fill a tech position using that criterion.
I used to think the same, but my last hire before I retired from my civilian job was a new Tech Branch Chief for the entire organization. He has a rare combination of technical skills and knowledge as well as a great personality and excellent leadership skills. Cost a lot of money to get him away from his previous position, but he's worth it.
I must not have been clear. There are 4000 political appointments in the federal government in 2016, 1200 required confirmation. For 2800 then the only requirement is you belong to the party in power
Now if we demand the best, and only the best for each position, what are the odds in all 2800 cases the best possible person is Republican? So right off the bat are we not saying we do not really want the best.
Jamie Dimon has always been a D, any chance Trump would take him as Sec of Treasury? If we demand the best and only the best, why not?
They are still subject to title 7. Not personal staff and a few other exceptions. Enforcement is different than private but still subject
Similar threads
