DEI is racist - An Analysis
I'll preface this by saying that I am a "URM" myself and have been on both the poor and middle-class ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. I broke into the buyside in the US after a difficult IB recruiting process but have chosen to move to an entirely country, so I have no real dog in this fight. I hope the mods allow for some semblance of free-speech to be preserved in response to this:
Having read the original post and the comment war that ensued, I think there is an understated degree of nuance that is ignored, but the fundamental premise is objectively correct. DEI hiring, as it stands, is systemic racial discrimination disguised under the pretense of "restoring parity" between the so-called privileged races and URMs. What is even more ironic is that these programs catastrophically fail to help the intended population they claim to be helping. The primary beneficiaries of DEI hiring - particularly in banking - are white women and affluent "minorities" from elite prep schools. Occasionally, you'll see a woefully unqualified HBCU kid in there. That's why you get outcomes like the famous GT-RBC debacle. The likelihood of seeing a kid who faced real hardship and poverty is virtually 0 because 99% of them have no idea what IBD is, never go to college / perform poorly in school, and perpetuate the cycle of crime and violence they grew up in. Having been in these environments, I would know first hand. As has been mentioned many times in this forum, the solution should be to incorporate a program that is geared towards low-income individuals - a fair, meritocratic opportunity for people to climb the socioeconomic ladder and chase the American Dream.
That said, I think the barrage of posts from students attributing their recruiting failures solely or mainly to DEI is unexcused (particularly those from target schools). They are clouded by entitlement and arrogance. The reality about any high-paying job is that it will be invariably scarce and, thus, extremely competitive. With the advent of social media, more people than ever are applying to IB and the acceptance of schools beyond the usual targets intensifies this. The real reason you are not getting that job is principally a function of extreme competition and compounded by nepotism/diversity and your own flaws (lack of pedigree, poor interviewing, ineffective networking). In countries like China, this factor - competition - is especially evident ("nèijuǎn"). Even without DEI, the likelihood of you getting an IB job would still be invariably low. That's life. What I would focus on is in improving those existing flaws and exemplifying a balance of grit and adaptability. Maybe that means starting at an LMM or lower tier bank or choosing other paths like AM - what matters is not your starting point but your journey. Action trumps complaining.
Most importantly, what is not mentioned at all on WSO is the higher order dimension behind all of this; namely, the political orchestrators. I know I'll get MS'ed for this due to its controversy but it matters. Who are the people pushing this DEI stuff? Why? What you’ll find is that these are the same people that were intimately connected to Epstein and his entourage, the same people that are bonafide war criminals and fraudsters (gold bars, anyone?), and are the same people that transformed and/or were birthed in the Marxist halls of modern day academia. They are the people that are being constantly promoted by the biased media apparatus and have pioneered the seeds of censorship. They are the same people that are dangerously pushing America into war with Iran right now. It's not a right or left thing. I think it’s pointless to fall into the trap of hurling insults against each other because of DEI rather than directing these concerns at those who fabricated this. How is it that loving your country and proudly waving the American flag something that is now considered a symbol of white supremacy? These people and the agendas they promote, by extension, are fundamentally un-American. Wake up, America!
Finally some common sense, very real post. Poor outcomes on BS initiatives, and Entitled losers who think they've lost something that was never theirs.
One thing id mention is that some banks don't claim to start these programs for the under-privileged, its for the underrepresented. They literally just want more women/ethnically underrepresented employees, so they target them regardless of their economic background. I don't think there's anything wrong with this considering they genuinely were pretty rare to see for a long time, and at the end of the day its their right to do so.
As you said though, some banks do seem to put up an altruistic, socially aware front, when in reality diversity programs further widen socio-economic class disparities.
Also, there's probably some DEI hires who were pretty unqualified relatively speaking, but that was the case with hires even before DEI was a thing. Truth is most of them had good grades, are hard-working and are a cultural fit to where they are applying to, I never understood why failed interns would act as if banks just pick women/ethnic minorities off the street and buy them a suit. These are competent individuals going into these programs for the most part.
If the projected goal was to simply be more inclusive then DEI is doing its job, but for the employers who put up a front of altruism, the programs as they are now are genuinely a shame.
Error est iure consequuntur est et hic. Incidunt soluta quisquam quia necessitatibus aperiam ut illo. Illo ut cum blanditiis beatae rerum voluptas. Occaecati dicta non assumenda sint ipsum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...