Since this seems to be the most common response. let me address it. DEI does not mean you dont hire on merit. Of course you hire based on merit Diversity - means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you have identified the candidates, you HIRE THE PERSON YOU BELIEVE IS THE BEST. What makes the whole " what about the players " comment ridiculous is that it's presumes that all positions are hired based on some quantitative rather than subjective version of merit. They aren't Even choosing the best basketball player is very much a guess. Which is why the best players weren't always the first pick in the draft and some go undrafted The reality is that most positions hired in a company don't have a quantitative metric you can use to hire someone. How do you pick the best barista, sales assistant, marketing or salesperson, etc More often than not it's an educated guess So when you see a company like @ibm say they want to add x percent more PoC or women or whatever group, they already know that the majority of positions they hire for don't have metrics for picking the best . As @elonmusk said "if merit for a job is roughly the same, then the tie reaker should be diversity (of all kinds)" Which is exactly what well managed companies choose to do DEI also does not mean you can't fire someone if you made a mistake. Of course you can. I'm a big believer in hire slow, fire fast. If it's the wrong person. Fire them. Finally. Let me address the thought that I'm "virtue signaling". I wrote this on @x because I knew very well that almost everyone on here would disagree with me. I don't virtue signal. I want people to challenge my positions. I want to have engaging discussions that help me learn.