Both of those mean "hiring based on identity politics instead of ability to do the job" (though different sub-groups, the first being activists and the second being the groups the activists focus on). It's not a simplistic "not good".
Like with my example of the SpaceX landing failure, it was a booster that had flown over 20 times, had flown a trajectory at the edge of its performance, the leading theory (IIRC) was/is that some components on the legs finally wore out too much. Testing these limits has been one of the side-benefits of Starlink launches on used boosters.
So, seeing a bunch of people stupidly freaking out about this being due to DEI just shows that they don't actually know what "DEI hiring" is as a complaint.
The only way your argument holds water is if you think minorities are just not up to the job.
This applies for every single word, average poster on social media are dumb. Toxic masculinity is similarly misused etc.
Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are able to do the job".
Just as it is not true that "of course minorities are not able to do the job".
Just as it is not true that "of course majorities are not able to do the job".
What minority/majority/gender or other group you belong to simply is not relevant.
For most highly skilled jobs, most people are not able to do the job, completely irrespective of which group they belong to otherwise ("otherwise" meaning: unless your grouping is "people who can do the job" and "people who can't do the job").
So the only or at least overriding criterion in hiring should (must?) be: can they do the job? (Do they have the skills, training, temperament, work ethic, etc.)
When reasonable people complain about DEI hires, what they are complaining about is "ability to do the job" not being the first, foremost and preferably only criterion used to select the hire. This is a reasonable complaint.
Of course there are also racist assholes, who complain about DEI hires because they believe a-priori that someone with a minority background can't do the job. That is to be condemned, obviously.
I can tell you with certainty it happens in tech. This is probably not "highly specialized" but unless I am to ignore the very obvious anti-white anti-male undertones of the monthly all-hands HR segments the sorting algorithm based on victim hierarchy is well and truly alive. I work for a coastal company though so perhaps this effective is magnified significantly.
Are there really anti-white anti-male undertones, or is it just a problem for you when anyone else is centered?
“Trust me bro it happens at my company.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/pw8622/duckduck...
Similar thing happened to me, though I didn't do the experiment.
And no, I am not "crying about it". But it is a real thing.
A executive recruiter working for an American company here in Europe told me that if she comes up with a white/male candidate, she has to get approval from the US head-office.
- A 3 year old Reddit post on r/conspiracy of a dead link
- Trust me bro, someone told me once
Anecdotal evidence is sufficient for "this does happen".
Whereas the absolute claim that this 100% does not happen was "trust me bro"
The US legal system seems to agree that this happens:
White male employee wins $10M in race discrimination lawsuit
https://www.hrmorning.com/news/white-male-race-discriminatio...
Or how about this: "As a recruiter, do you have any experience of a 'no white men' policy?"
19% answered "yes, explicit policy", with another 20% saying "implicit guidance"
https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/no-white...
"My boss said ‘we didn’t need another White guy.’ Say what?"
https://archive.is/NvPJD#selection-431.0-431.58
"To be clear, the candidate was eminently qualified, had made it through multiple rounds of interviews, and was the clear favorite among almost everyone who spoke with him. Further, it’s not like he lost out to someone else — they simply didn’t hire him, and the company started the hiring process all over again!"
This stuff is easy to find and verify.