How Popular is DEI Really—Both in Finance and the Wider Public?
Pew Research recently found that only 52% of workers see DEI efforts as a good thing, down from 56% in early 2023. You always see studies and HR pushing the idea that DEI is widely supported, though that seems to be happening less now that Trump is calling the shots again.
In finance, DEI is still a big talking point, but from my experience, most people who aren’t directly benefiting from it don’t like it. There’s general agreement that diversity is important, and most people are fine with initiatives like Women in Finance events. However, many draw the line at hiring decisions being influenced by gender, race, sexuality, or religion, most believe recruitment should be purely merit-based. Quotas, in particular, seem to be a major turnoff, with many seeing them as unfair and counterproductive.
More broadly, public opinion seems to be shifting. While DEI was strongly pushed after 2020, enthusiasm is fading even in liberal spaces, especially when it affects hiring or promotions. I go to a UK high-semi target university that’s known for being very very liberal (you can probably guess which one) and come from a middle-class area that mainly votes Labour but has flipped Tory occasionally. Even among fairly liberal people in these places, the general vibe seems to be pro-diversity but anti-DEI, unless you’re extremely left-wing (e.g., pro-Palestine activists, communists, etc.).
Curious to hear thoughts, how is DEI actually perceived in your circles? Is finance still fully on board, or is it just for show at this point? And how do people outside of finance see it now?
No one ever really criticizes out loud. However, we know they are all there, and the beneficiaries had it at least marginally easier than who are not. Even while attending college, it was clear that girls who rarely knew anything about finance got pretty good gigs while guys who were grinding their ass off generally landed somewhere worse. No, I don't want to here how those technical gap/knowledge is negligible difference that can will be mitigated in the near future; then why the fuck do you take the SAT that takes less than 6 months to crack +1550 if you study decently hard? I remember a female banker telling me that she got the job through a girl's summit or some shit but was still complaining to me that it's harder for females to build a career because they eventually have to give birth and take time off.
Could just be me, but you sound kind of bitter. And soft. You're a 1st year analyst?
If you want to argue, you should give me better than that I sound bitter and soft. I pity kids who are deserving not get jobs they worked very hard for, while rich girls and people who simply fit in the dei category from Exeter/Choate get it easily.
The fact that you immediately attacked their character speaks to your own personality
Also, you keep saying “females” and brush off having to give birth as though it’s nothing. Be honest champ are you a virgin?
In the United States of America, we believe in meritocracy. Where are you from?
-
No disrespect, but this is such an irrelevant topic. People always find a way to blame anyone but themselves. I say this as an A2A. Frankly, the only thing less relevant than DEI is the UK. Wages of a third-world country, dreadful weather, all without the quality of life and social welfare of certain European countries. It's like a humiliation kink. Without London, the UK has a GDP per capita worse than Mississippi. At least Mississippi has some good BBQ. Also, how is being pro-Palestine "extremely left-wing"? And "high semi-target university" — what does that mean?
I mean pro-Palestine activists, as in the people who are doing the encampments and spray painting and smashing the windows of banks, they are typically extremely left-wing university students or slightly older who have no connection to the conflict, but are vehemently anti-Israel.
Also, I am not blaming DEI, just curious on how popular it actually is.
No connection to the conflict? Okay… ? Also you just repeated the phrase “extremely left wing” in your explanation.
Way too many prospects and second rate bankers on here. SAD!
And without its investment bank Goldman Sachs doesn’t make a lot of money. See how that’s a useless comment?
Anyone who was a part of internal hiring conversations in the early 2010s could tell you there was an enormous bias against “overrepresented” groups and bias in favor of “underrepresented” groups. It was driven by external pressures, be it public perception, shareholders, or LPs. Speaking out against it as a junior was career suicide, but it was a widely known practice. Pendulum has rightfully swung back hard because, any rational person will tell you, any/all discrimination is bad.
Yeah this is accurate. Also people outside of the regular targets / semi-targets were getting more opportunities. My college (non-target) used to never send anyone to Wall Street IB roles. Now it's not that uncommon.
I felt this type of outcome at undergrad schools like mine was exceedingly rare up until the mid 2010s. Everyone I know who ended up in banking went to schools like Stern / Wharton.
General sentiment is against just because it has been a common experience for analysts and associates that diversity candidates struggle to help on projects that they are staffed on.
I also would say there’s a solid separation between racial diversity and gender diversity support. I think there are a fair amount of people who support women’s programs to fast track female applicants in finance. When I was an applicant, I despised this practice. However, I have seen women pull their weight from these programs at least from my experience. Additionally, women are just more pleasant to be around compared to men (most VP+ will agree with me especially if they are hot). That’s not to say that most of us in general still view all of these DEI hiring initiatives as unfair and discriminatory at least from my circle.
I’m actually much more in support of an underrepresented minority or an individual from a low socioeconomic background than I am a woman who got in just on the basis of being a woman, because in almost all cases they attended extremely expensive private schools and lived more privileged lives than almost all their male counterparts.
Yes, DEI is condemnable but one must clearly outline what counts as DEI as per HR policies. In corporate North America, women (any color), black / hispanic / indigenous males, and LGBTQ are recognized under the DEI umbrella. White / Arab / Brown / Asian males are not part of any DEI program. There is no such thing as “religious” DEI / quotas unless your main goal is to attack Palestinian supporters.
Based on internal data, largest beneficiaries of DEI quotas are incompetent women, especially white. Simply, as DEI in its current shape of ~50% gender target in promotions / hirings is nothing but another form of white supremacy in pink. Based on my 3 years as staffer at a BB, can attest that DEI targets are proactively enforced to benefit women (often white), and seniors (primarily white males) have preference for that for unethical reasons. You can’t be pro-merit and then support gender diversity as it benefits your agenda. DEI in its current form is dysfunctional and should instead be based on economic background of candidates regardless of race / gender / sexual orientation.
How much of that 52% are beneficiaries of DEI?
52% sounds like a clear majority to me
If 2% is enough to constitute a clear majority, then Trump won by clear majority in the popular vote in 2024.
Do you agree?
Except he didn't win by 2%, nor did he carry a simple majority.
I don't really care to be honest, but it's pretty unpopular in my experience, even in the UK. Spring weeks make it very apparent how broken the system is
What do you mean spring weeks?
Freshman classes in the UK do structured 2/3 day - 1 week stints at banks + other internships during their easter holidays as a 'taster' for the role. These can be converted into an SA position in their 2nd year and then FT role at the end of their 3rd. It has to be said that, in my experience, spring week classes in London are generally DEI heavy and easy to convert into SA and FT roles.
I'm not sure if there is any empirical data on this but it is said that most people who get FT roles as part of these initiatives are not of an adequate standard when compared with the rest of their analyst class.
What’s most disgusting about DEI is how it’s been hijacked such that privileged white women get to pretend they’re part of an oppressed class and get preferential treatment in hiring processes while almost none of the assistance goes towards those most in need (the poor inner city Detroit kid from a single mother who has brains but never got the opportunity to push himself).
Anyone who has worked in finance with the aforementioned type or who has been a part of hiring decisions has seen the blatant discrimination there is against men (particularly white and Asian men who aren’t from upper crust backgrounds) and the opposite towards POC and particularly towards women. As the other poster said though, you couldn’t say anything else you’d get fired.
Conveniently, when people start firing back at DEI, it seems most of the brunt goes towards minorities and POC and IMO they actually don’t deserve it.
I think you know who I think deserves the blowback.
Not even just white women, but in general. You wanna tell me, that the average black kid at HYP isnt rich?
This line of reasoning can be virtually extrapolated to pretty much every single sub group if you refine the scope to HYP (A very small set of schools on a global basis)
How many times do we have to have this discussion thinly veiled under yet another person who seemingly wants to "hear others perspectives" (read: be vindicated in their existing perspective)?
Regardless of what side you're on, is this not boring now...
Should we evaluate candidates on any immutable characteristics? Absolutely not. Phenotype is irrelevant.
Del
Have never had a super pro DEI supporter able to justify why all of these programs exclude Asians, another minority group. Be it affirmative action in college admissions (group hurt the most by these programs are Asians, not white people) or in corporate settings ("bamboo ceiling" is a phrase for a reason), and specifically finance (pretty much all diverse manager programs excl. Asian founded firms, despite only being 0.3% of the industry's AUM).
Have always been of the mind that socioeconomic upbringing is what matters more here and should in large part still proxy race, for those that believe that is what matters most.
"There’s general agreement that diversity is important"
Why? Is an all-black African company, or all asian Japanese company, or all white Norwegian company inherently lower performing than a diverse company?
If you took a high-performing team of all black people, and added one high-performing white person, is that team now better? or if a high performing black person joined a high performing all-white team, is that team now better?
I reject the premise that diversity is inherently good.
Depends on your definition of diversity - if it's targeting just race, I think no. But diversity is inherently valuable IMO - take your all white Norwegian investment firm, if you add a white American, that American probably has quite different sourcing relationships and can bring lessons learned from an American lens that could be valuable to the rest of the team.
You're talking about experience/familiarity with America, not exclusively diversity. What if the person was a Norwegian who lived in America for a few decades? Same result, but not due to diversity.
It's not inherently good but it often can be.
Been watching Mad Men recently and it conveys this in a simple way. The show is set in the 70s in an advertisement agency (if you're unfamiliar). Generally at the time women were secretaries or cleaners etc. Part of the show is about one of the secretaries becoming an "ad man". The reason she gets there is because she presents ideas for ads to women that the men simply wouldn't have come up with because she has different experiences as a woman. The show doesn't read to me like it has an agenda (I mean it's like 15 years old at this point, not new enough to be overly "woke"), it just happens to display that diversity can matter.
I would agree that diversity doesn't always, but it can. Within finance, well it depends. I've seen it matter in ER. Does that benefit warrant the attention it gets? Debatable.
Diversity benefit in marketing is plausible. However, what you're really looking for is diversity of experience- someone who can understand and market to black people, women, Hispanics, etc etc. A black woman adopted by a white family in Maine is going to qualify as diversity even if her experience is essentially identical to her white siblings.
The best marketer to women is likely going to be a woman, but that doesn't mean all women are better marketers to women- surely there are some who didn't have the common female experience.
Point being that in this case, people are using gender/race as a proxy for a certain experience, but then get too fixated on the proxy rather than the actual experience.
And that is not addressing the fact that some experiences are just not useful in all settings
Based on your profile, you are a Kremlin bot.
I reject your premise.
SAD!
You looked one comment deep, where I said that Trump isn't "favoring Russia" by finally putting tarriffs on our (so-called) allies who have been tariffing us for decades.
I'll note that in the last few days I have been vindicated- Trump has been threatening sanctions on Russia.
Enjoy your boomer, cold-war era, TV-assigned foreign policy.
Eos quidem molestiae hic tempora distinctio. Corporis quibusdam quam porro dolores reiciendis. Corporis occaecati neque occaecati occaecati aut cupiditate est eos. Sint maiores nisi sapiente delectus itaque est. Sunt ullam occaecati sapiente ipsam incidunt dolores modi.
Praesentium beatae reprehenderit aut beatae. Ullam qui voluptate expedita alias molestias voluptatem aliquid. Iure iste nam pariatur eos consequatur repellat. Saepe commodi vero tenetur aut iste vel.
Hic impedit fugit commodi natus error quisquam veniam. Fuga ab rerum delectus quidem perferendis quidem dignissimos.
Corporis architecto non maxime enim suscipit aut. Voluptates esse voluptatem voluptas id excepturi sit tenetur vero. Porro et voluptatibus magni quam vitae rem porro laudantium.
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...
Sint autem perferendis placeat non ex. Ipsam non nam alias hic ex eos. Ut et neque exercitationem dicta accusantium vel. Blanditiis saepe veritatis sequi dolor minima.
Repellat expedita repudiandae quia. Et quia qui eum iusto. Magni impedit illum eum et vero id sunt.
Consequatur ipsum sit rerum non. Id non ducimus ad. Ut veritatis voluptatem eaque alias rerum necessitatibus quam.
Sapiente culpa alias quo nostrum at odit eum consequatur. Placeat incidunt corrupti quo unde atque sit perferendis labore. Natus itaque qui possimus rerum. Et dignissimos delectus sunt ut fugiat et sed. Quaerat debitis quo possimus. Ratione qui et similique qui rerum nisi reiciendis.