Merit, achievements and qualification should be the only criteria for hiring/promotion and not this artificial DEI nonsense. It is actually discriminatory for the best candidates.

Here an example:

A diversity, equity and inclusion expert had her former boss placed on administrative leave for reportedly prioritizing merit over personal identity when hiring new employees, according to a report…

Megan Donecker, who formerly served as the Oregon Department of Forestry’s DEI strategy officer, complained about the agency’s management, criticizing her boss Mike Shaw for looking “beyond gender and identity in hiring, seeking only candidates most qualified for the job,” OregonLive reported.

= = =

And here another one as reported on the always worthwhile Tom Woods daily Newsletter.

You may have heard about the black and female applicants to the Maryland state police force who are likely to receive $2.75 million for "discrimination" because they failed the state police test. The test, you see, was "discriminatory"! And how can we know it was discriminatory? Well, because white men passed it at a higher rate, silly. I want to show you some of the questions on that test. I'm not picking out the easy ones. They're all like this.

I'm skipping the reading comprehension section because it takes up too much space, but I promise you it is also at this level. Now for some grammar. You'll note that one does not exactly need to consult the Chicago Manual of Style to answer these:

You may wonder how anyone in his right mind could call a test like this discriminatory. The doctrine in question is called "disparate impact," and a mere seven years after the passage of what is today the universally lauded Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was already in place. Since this test, however simple, had a "disparate impact" on the races, it is declared discriminatory regardless of the intentions of the people who created it. Because discrimination is difficult to prove (we can't read people's minds or physically see their intentions, after all), the thinking was that outcomes, which can be seen, must be our guide. So if an employer requires a test, or a high school diploma, or that applicants not have dishonorable military discharges, and the net result of such requirements is a disproportionate percentage of white people qualifying, that employer can be taken to court and forced to justify its employment criteria -- not always an easy thing to do. So the reason it makes sense to oppose antidiscrimination law, apart from its violation of private property and freedom of contract, is that it all but inevitably degenerates into nonsense like this.   = = =

Luckily most of that DEI crap happens in "the west" and not much in Thailand.

 

Someone suggested this is a long term strategy from Russia for the Americans to destroy themselves from within.

I don't know if the Russians did it, but if, then it seems it worked well - for Russia.