You sit at your desk when an email from the Head of HR arrives in your inbox titled, “Summer Internship Recruiting Policies and Procedures.” As a senior analyst, you’ve been given more responsibility, including the chance to screen internship candidates, conduct first-round interviews, and participate in superdays. Eagerly, you open the email:
“…As a company, we are committed to building a truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive (‘DE&I’) workplace. We actively seek candidates from historically underrepresented backgrounds, embracing diversity in race, ethnicity, gender identity, and socioeconomic experiences. This summer, we are implementing a policy to fill your summer analyst classes with a majority of DE&I candidates. Although 90% of our applicants are Caucasian or Asian males, this does not imply that 90% of our class should fall into those categories. More details will be provided in tomorrow’s training…”
“That’s nice,” you think, grateful to work for a firm that values all people, regardless of background.
The next day, you attend the mandatory DE&I training related to summer analyst recruiting. A panel of eight HR leaders sits in front of a group of analysts and associates leading the recruitment efforts. You notice that the panel consists of seven Caucasian females as well as the firm’s non-binary recruiter, Neil. “Wow,” you think, “truly a diverse group of individuals.” Again, you’re grateful for your firm’s commitment to inclusivity.
The Head of HR starts speaking, “This year, as you review resumes and interview candidates, we want you to eliminate unconscious bias and focus on hiring candidates who fall into key DE&I categories.” A bright, rainbow-colored word cloud flashes on the screen. Words like “LGBTQ+,” “Female,” “BIPOC,” and “Latinx” stand out, but you notice some omissions—“Caucasian,” “Asian,” and “Male” don’t appear in the cloud. “Totally makes sense,” you think.
That afternoon, you begin reviewing resumes, with the DE&I training fresh in your mind. You decide to make two piles: one for DE&I candidates and another for non-DE&I candidates.
The first resume reads, “Jake Maxwell, Harvard, Varsity Rowing, sophomore summer internship at Blackstone.” You quickly drop Jake’s resume into the non-DE&I pile. “Definitely a Caucasian male,” you think. The next resume: “Molly Smith (she/her), USC, sophomore internship as the Treasury Secretary at Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority at USC.” You place Molly’s resume in the DE&I pile.
You continue through several more resumes, expertly performing the mental gymnastics required to find ideal DE&I candidates. Two final resumes remain on your desk: “Gunner Knox, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Green Beret, post-military internship at KKR.” You hesitate, pondering whether Gunner qualifies as diverse, considering his veteran status. You set his resume aside to review the final one: “Riley Maddix (they/them), Kent State, sophomore summer at Northwestern Mutual.” Immediately, you place Riley’s resume in the DE&I pile after spotting the non-binary pronouns. “Easy decision,” you reckon. Returning to Gunner, you quickly Google, “Is veteran status part of DE&I?” You find a couple of articles suggesting that it is, so Gunner joins the DE&I pile.
After weeks of interviews, super day arrives. You sit in an empty office as the first candidate, Molly Smith (she/her), enters. You lob her a softball question: “Can you walk me through how depreciation flows through the financial statements?” Molly admits she’s never dealt with depreciation but talks about managing budgets as Treasury Secretary for her sorority. You decide to give her the benefit of the doubt. You then ask Molly a behavioral question: “How do you handle working under pressure?” Molly responds that she takes time off anytime she feels overwhelmed to “refresh my mind and restore my peace”—not quite the answer you were hoping for.
Next up is Riley Maddix, the non-binary candidate, a target DE&I subcategory, who interned at Northwestern Mutual. Within a few minutes, it’s clear that (1) Riley gained no relevant experience at Northwestern Mutual, and (2) they still work there part-time, pitching you annuities and insurance policies while asking for contacts at your firm.
Finally, Gunner Knox arrives. Right away, you realize that Gunner is not Caucasian, as you initially assumed, but is of mixed race. “Maybe he does, in fact, qualify as a DE&I candidate,” you tell yourself. You ask Gunner, “Tell me about yourself.” Gunner’s background is most impressive – two military tours as a Green Beret and a successful transition into a post-military finance internship at KKR. You learn that his father is a hard-working, blue-collar Caucasian from Middle America, and his mother is a Japanese immigrant who was an elementary school teacher in his hometown. It then dawns upon you… Gunner is half Caucasian and half Asian—two non-DE&I categories, according to the Head of HR at your firm. Your brain hurts as you ponder the paradox of Gunner’s DE&I status, “A half white, half Asian male—not diverse… although he’s a veteran, which is diverse but feels like a non-target DE&I subcategory.” Throughout the interview, you work hard to overcome your “unconscious bias” toward Gunner, as he expertly answers every question you ask.
At the end of the day, it's time to make offer decisions. The panel, including the Head of HR and Neil (they/them), starts filling spots with DE&I candidates, including Molly Smith (she/her), the female DE&I qualifier. With one spot left, two candidates remain: Riley Maddix, the non-binary human, and Gunner Knox, former Green Beret turned finance pro. The Head of HR says, “Let’s take a quick break before deciding between these two candidates,” then looks directly at you and says, “You interviewed both candidates during the superday. We’ll look to your recommendation on who should receive the offer after the break.”
You quickly rush to the bathroom, mildly sweating and nervous. How do you choose between two DE&I candidates? How do you know which DE&I subcategory is most prestigious?
Desperately, you open the ChatGPT app and ask, “You have one spot left in your investment banking summer analyst internship class, and two candidates remain—a non-binary individual and a Green Beret veteran. Which one should I choose?”
You anxiously await ChatGPT’s response:
“I'd consider the unique perspectives each brings:
- Veteran: Offers a disciplined, structured approach learned in the military, with strong leadership and teamwork skills—valuable in fast-paced, high-stress environments.
- Non-binary individual: Brings a fresh perspective on diversity and inclusion, fostering creativity and diverse viewpoints—especially valuable in industries focused on innovation.
In this case, I’d lean toward the non-binary individual to promote a more inclusive, diverse environment.
And based on DE&I prestige, I'd choose the non-binary candidate. Gender inclusivity and LGBTQ+ representation are increasingly seen as marks of progressive, forward-thinking companies that support underrepresented identities, enhancing the firm's reputation in industries prioritizing social progress.”
Relieved, you confidently return to the group with your decision made, grateful, again that you work for a firm that values all people, regardless of background.
DE&I recruiting is paradise.
Based on the highest ranked content on WSO, here are some key points and insights related to DE&I recruiting and the challenges faced during the process:
Commitment to DE&I:
Training and Bias Elimination:
Resume Screening:
Interview Process:
Decision Making:
Challenges and Paradoxes:
Veteran Status:
Final Recommendations:
These insights highlight the complexities and considerations involved in DE&I recruiting, emphasizing the importance of a structured and thoughtful approach to building a diverse and inclusive workplace.
Sources: The Types of Investment Banking Summer Analyst Applicants, 20 Most Frequently Asked Questions - London Edition, If You Lose Your Spot to a Diversity Candidate You Probably Suck Anyway, Why We Hired a Non-Target 1st Year - IB Analyst, Being Black is Paradise
If this is anything more than a joke (I think a lot of it is), your company's behavior is grossly illegal. You absolutely cannot consider things like race and sex in hiring decisions.
This right here is a direct admission to systemic employment discrimination:
This summer, we are implementing a policy to fill your summer analyst classes with a majority of DE&I candidates. Although 90% of our applicants are Caucasian or Asian males, this does not imply that 90% of our class should fall into those categories. More details will be provided in tomorrow’s training…”
And this:
“This year, as you review resumes and interview candidates, we want you to eliminate unconscious bias and focus on hiring candidates who fall into key DE&I categories.”
https://whistleblower.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/whistleblower.house…
While there's some satire here, this isn't just something I made up on a whim. Ironically, it's more accurate than not. When I was a second-year analyst at a MM investment bank (a publicly traded one), a recruiter sat down with the group of analysts and associates and asked us to fill half the class with DE&I candidates. The recruiter literally said which groups to focus on and which ones to not focus on... The same thing happened during my time in private equity. A principal told me when I was an associate, 'Some of our institutional LPs are giving us a hard time about how non-diverse our team is (mostly white males). Please go through alumni from your school in banking or consulting and find DE&I candidates,' and we ended up hiring one. That being said, some of the sharpest and best co-workers I've ever had fall into "DE&I" as defined by society. For me, it's the process that is broken, not the candidates.
Tell me you work at RBC without telling me lol. Not trying to hate but 95% sure that's your bank.
It’s illegal to consider, and yet for some reason internship cohorts do not resemble the applicant pool.
Some illegal activity afoot, methinks.
The hypocrisy of WSO users. They all hate race- and sex-based discrimination (particularly against themselves) and when I suggest that they blow the whistle on their company's illegal and unconstitutional behavior, they also hate that. Y'all get what you deserve. I can tell you that if my company were engaged in blatantly illegal behavior like that I'd blow the whistle because I actually stand behind what I believe, unlike the effeminate user base of WSO.
Banana to post ratio implies how much everyone agrees with this but are too afraid to say anything lol.
Thankfully not in US and no company I've worked with in past 10 years had active intern/grad scheme
I work for a very left-wing Wall Street firm, and I can happily report that our recruiting is surprisingly race/gender-blind. There's been essentially no mention of DEI at all. The only time I've heard of it at all was when my male boss said something to the effect of, "I'm hiring too many women for our internship program and people are going to start thinking I've got ulterior motives" so the next two intern hires were males.
I work for a firm with no externally communicated dei program and was told to only consider female candidates. This is the second firm at which that has happened
Not sure if you’re aware, but the U.S. prohibited U.S citizens from reading, attending well-funded integrated primary schools and universities, or work in certain occupations — because of their identify. There are far too many incidents to cite.
For many groups, there were 0 reparations. Centuries of slavery. 1 century of segregation.
Some form of preferential treatment is the least the U.S. could do to repair the harms it has caused. Germany could be a good use case.
There absolutely have been reparations paid, and they've been harmful to the black community they were intended to help. 1965 through 2021, $25 trillion, inflation adjusted, has been spent on the war on poverty, a disproportionate amount which has gone to the black community. That has largely led to the complete collapse of the black family, with nearly 80% of black kids born out of wedlock today, which is a total disaster for the black community and the country. So there's your reparations for you--it locked people into a cycle of subsistence living and destroyed the nuclear family. Congrats. A reminder that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Ha, text book rebuttal.
You missed a critical point in the historical discussion of economic disenfranchisement: Black Americans were systematically redlined out of the real estate market due to HUD and FHA guidelines. These policies directly barred Black veterans from fully accessing the GI Bill benefits that were available to their white counterparts. While white veterans were able to attend universities and purchase homes—assets that have appreciated in value over decades—Black veterans were locked out of these opportunities. The wealth generated by homeownership and higher education for white families became a cornerstone of their economic stability, creating a racial wealth gap that persists today.
And we can’t ignore what happened during the 1980s when the U.S. government allowed, or at worst directed, the flooding of crack cocaine and other hard drugs into major cities, predominantly Black communities, to fund the Contra war in Nicaragua. This led to socioeconomic decline similar to what we’re witnessing with the opioid crisis today. The crack epidemic not only devastated Black families but also fed the cycle of mass incarceration, deepening reliance on federal housing and food assistance programs. These programs, as you noted, trap recipients in poverty by requiring them to remain below certain income thresholds to qualify—offering no real pathway to economic prosperity.
If you want to dive deeper into this, look at the Nicaragua Contra War and the congressional spending restrictions at the time. Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance series sheds light on how these dynamics played out on the streets of American cities.
The bottom line is this: when a group has been systematically denied the right to participate in society based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation, it is only fair that they should be granted access based on those same factors. This is not about special treatment, but about rectifying long-standing inequities.
MAGA 2024! Trump 2024!
Appreciate how even in this satire there's no supposedly underqualified black candidate "taking" someone's place.
Vitae enim aut et consequatur. Adipisci voluptatem ut id laborum cum. Qui alias quo aliquid voluptatibus. Molestias iste sequi dignissimos velit.
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...