Equity-Based Hiring Practices are Under Fire, But The Reality of Merit-Based Systems is Misconstrued
February 12, 2024
In recent weeks there’s been this fascinating discourse around the merits and minacious effects of anti-racism and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In these discussions many have raised questions about “equity-based” hiring systems followed by statements that these systems are coddling the sensitivities of liberals. They argue this is the case because it prioritizes diversity hires over “the best” hire. Along these lines, some are of the opinion that corporate efficiency and talent pools have been diluted and by effect, have inadvertently caused individuals to question whether diversity hires can perform at the same level as merit-based hires.
What people are most upset about is the explicit declaration some companies have made about hiring more racialized people for highly specialized jobs such as, for example, pilots and heart surgeons. Writ large, these are jobs where one’s identity is irrelevant, but their performance is of the utmost importance.
This has triggered some because they believe it’s an unfair, diversity-based process where a racialized person may undeservingly be employed over a non-racialized person merely because of the colour of their skin. Consequently, they suggest that this risks the lives of the public by prioritizing the feelings of people and quotas over competency, health, and safety.
The issue with this line of thinking is that it rests on an assumption that public declarations to hire more racialized people means employers will do so by any means. It’s an assumption that the only qualification is to be a racialized person in the profession. It’s also an assumption that the bulk of the racialized people in the profession in question have lower quality skills and performances than their non-racialized counterparts, and that it’s rather unlikely to find high-performing and skilled racialized people by intentionally expanding the candidate pool.
Understanding the Intention of Anti-Racism and DEI Strategies
When it comes to anti-racism and DEI strategies, there are a few foundational axioms that guide and gave rise to the work. In many cases the main issue was that racialized and equity-deserving groups weren’t given fair opportunities to compete due to systemic barriers. Being so, anti-racism work seeks to counter systemic racism and the barriers that racialized groups encounter. Many will argue that systemic racism is a concept of the past given that overtly racist laws, policies, and institutions no longer exist; however, what this often misses is the legacy that historical laws, policies, and practices left behind, manifesting through disinvestment, food desserts in racialized communities, inadequate access to healthcare, and barriers to quality of education and meaningful employment. Indeed, this doesn’t apply to all members of specific racialized groups. However, there remains disproportionate levels of racialized groups facing these issues in comparison to their non-racialized counterparts.
A similar intention exists with DEI work, but it has expanded to consider and provide accommodations for neurodivergent people and those with visible or invisible disabilities. In the context of hiring practices, this is because these individuals also face barriers to fair and meaningful employment.
By committing to DEI initiatives, the intention is for corporations and institutions to improve their approaches to hiring by intentionally expanding candidate pools beyond the standard applicant. To do this, many have partnered with groups that have relationships with specific racialized or equity-deserving groups. Others have diversified hiring committees while offering applicants the ability to request accommodations should they be needed. Doing these things are not commitments to hire a racialized person if they are not the best candidate. It does, however, provide racialized and equity-deserving people with more opportunities to be the best candidate specifically considering that there are often awareness and access gaps that limit applications from diverse communities.
Indeed, some will argue that in practice, anti-racism and DEI hiring efforts have failed in comparison to their underlying objectives. Indeed, it’s possible that some corporations and institutions have prioritized hires based on their race or gender as opposed to their skills. This, I agree, isn’t a diversity-based process, and it certainly isn’t a merit-based process considering reduces candidates solely down to how they look as opposed to how they perform. But the thing is, I don’t think we have truly considered whether we’ve ever had a purely merit-based system. The focus seems to be on how certain racialized and equity-deserving groups are undeserving of certain opportunities. People have castigated applicants with ‘lackluster’ achievements or their tenure at corporations that lack cachet. But, even in a ‘merit-based system’, can we truthfully say that the best person always gets the job? In some contexts, the hiring process is a mere formality while the position is filled before the process even starts. Many positions are also filled without the position being posted. In other cases, the pervasiveness of nepotism may lead to unwarranted promotions or hirings. And often, people with network ties are placed in a position without having to compete, meaning even if they are an exceptional candidate, it’s impossible to know if there was someone out there who was better.
With many of these questions and critiques, what people haven’t done is questioned if “diversity” hires with “less than stellar resumes” when given the opportunity simply outperformed their non-racialized counterparts during interview processes. These questions and critiques also ignore the many racialized and equity-deserving people with better qualifications than their non-racialized counterparts that are, or have been, excluded from opportunities because of biases. The reality is that we choose to believe we have had a purely merit-based system, and this may be true for some positions; however, just as many positions are filled based on relationships or prior working situations where individuals may have proved that they are highly skilled or a great fit.
At the end of the day when it comes to perspectives on diversity hires and if an individual was only hired because of their race, I question if these are honest perspectives or fueled by hostility. I do believe that it’s important to field elements of this dialogue to dispel assumptions. But if you look at racialized people in specific positions and the first question that comes to mind is if they were a diversity hire, maybe you should ask if non-racialized people hires are relationship-based hires. And if the biases of one’s capabilities and their innate draws to hire based on similar characteristics and identities influence how people in positions of power may hire, ask yourself what it has and will look like without a systemic interruption. And then ask yourself, is that fair?