@ EY Another white male named CEO of a firm who’s really “investing in diversity” 🤔🤔

Non white female here. If he hasn't done anything to question his investment in diversity, don't discount him. My biggest supporter at work, and someone who is super in tune with inequalities and ALWAYS calls it out as if his life depends on it, is a white male who's about 3 ranks higher than me.

Carmine is awesome. Wonder why everyone’s looking at him as just another white guy and not a self made immigrant who came here with nothing

If people of color and women were considered, and he was chosen as the best candidate then there is no issue.

True, they should have made a lesser deserving person CEO just to prove how committed EY is to diversity! You are really a manager? This is sad...

It should be the best person for the job. Period. But was it really? Who knows, I certainly wasn’t in that room making the decisions. All we can do is speculate. But we can work in our immediate circles to change things if we don’t like what we see. An immigrant man making his way to the top, for me is one of many examples of diversity (talk to some of your non WASP immigrant male friends who may be “white” to get a sense of how easy it is for them to join the old boy’s club - not that one has to to succeed, just an illustrative example). I sure have. For that reason, I do think Carmine is a représentant of diversity and might bring good things to the table. From an outsider looking in, I do feel sad for America. Thank you OP for the post. Thank you for opening the dialogue, it is a must. It is such an Anglo Saxon cultural behavior to not talk about “uncomfortable” subjects but those issues are fundamental, given how much of an impact they have on your people.

Sadly though, based on some of the imperialistic pseudo intellectual posts I’ve read here, there is much work to be done. Please stop invalidating people’s experience. You haven’t walked in their shoes! I can completely understand where OP is coming from yet, I don’t entirely agree with the original post but won’t bash her for opening the dialogue and subsequently express her opinions respectfully. Instead I chose to recognize her perspective as a valid outcome to the path she lead thus far and reflect on it so that next time, i can better understand the struggle, the remarks, the reactions etc. Lastly I stand by my ground. Love, above all else will often make us go above and beyond and fight the good fight against racism ( by opposition of just “doing something” or worse, nothing when confronted by racist acts in our social circles). Be it love for a friend we’ve seen struggle, our brother’s mixed kids we adore, our SOs we cherish or simply our love for humanity. Peace to all of you, and god bless your wonderful, yet peculiar country :)

In a thread full of people complaining about "the millenialz" and oversensitivity, it seems to me there are a lot of people who are defensive and offended at the idea of even discussing the idea of bias or the fact that we don't live in a fair world.

Talking about the fact that it's easier for white dudes to get positions of authority doesn't mean that those white dudes aren't also intelligent and qualified and hard working. It just means that they're generally more likely to have their intelligence, hard work and qualifications be acknowledged.

Why is everyone so scared of acknowledging privilege / the fact that we all walk around with some stereotypes in our heads, and that those stereotypes affect how hard or easy some things are?

I know if I'm working with a client, it will take more work for me to convince them I'm a tech expert than my less qualified male colleague. And I know that I'm taken more seriously than the Asian woman I work with because the client keeps treating her like she's 10 years younger even though we're the same age.

None of that is fair. The advantages aren't the *fault* of me, or my male colleague. But yeah, I'd kind of be an asshole if I looked at the other woman and went "well obviously it's just because you're not as qualified as I am"

Why exactly is everyone so scared of acknowledging that the world is not some utopian level playing field? Things like being pretty, being born into a wealthy family, being part of the racial majority in the place you're working, having interests that match the positive stereotypes of your demographic, etc, all make life easier. And they have a cumulative effect: not having to work through university means you build a more impressive resume. A lower threshold for being acknowledged for skill means an easier time accumulating credentials.

Im not upset at a white dude in charge. By all measures he looks like he is very well qualified for the position. And I'm also pragmatist enough to realise that in the current cultural environment, a white dude is actually more likely to be able to put through progressive cultural change, because he won't be dealing with people questioning that he's doing it out of some bitterness, or having to fight against conscious and unconscious bias, and all the backlash from people afraid to face their stereotyped beliefs while complaining about affirmative action.

tl;dr Can we all please stop being so fragile and offended whenever someone brings up the concept of privilege?

Whoever wrote this post is very misguided in their political beliefs. No matter what race/ethnicity/gender a person is, the most qualified candidate should be the CEO. Making someone a CEO who is less qualified just to “prove diversity” is reverse racism if anything because it discounts white males from being leaders in the future. Equality involves all genders/ethnicities, and the best candidate deserves the job bottom line.

It's not just the hiring that's an issue, retention of minorities is the knockout blow. As a AA male that had worked in consulting for over six years, bias's are far more damaging than explicit racism.
When we bring up diversity and inclusion, we are not saying that we want advantage; we just want a level playing field.

Those who simply default to the "Why can't we just hire people based on skill and quals...?" position are missing the entire point of the conversation. There are minorities with similar qualifications and experience that are passed up because they are a "bad culture fit".

When it comes to rentention, minoroties are not promoted through the ranks at the same rate as their white colleagues. If you think that is hyperbole, just look at your network or the networks of your colleagues.

I’m not discounting, nor questioning his character. I’m just simply pointing out a missed opportunity for EY to really back up their diversity and inclusion “investment”. All I’m really pointing at is the bigger problem, which to me is, that we don’t have or have not built a diverse bench of people who can run the firm.

All fair comments but how can you not roll your eyes when it’s a white male. Again. Bound to be some skepticism

Carmine was the obvious choice. I don’t think anyone is surprised. Carmine is 55 so calm down, Kelly Grier will likely be CEO in 5 years or less.

So I am not from the US. Are we saying Italians are white now? I am even more confused. Guess I am stuck in the past with my fondness of NY based movies from the seventies. I can’t keep- up with all that PC stuff, lol!

I have no glaring issues with the new CEO.

All I will say is when there is a diverse candidate that becomes CEO, I better not hear he/she got the position just to fill a quota.

It goes both ways people. Check your biases.

Ex EY here, if there was a woman that was better qualified she would have been named CEO. I'm a non white female myself, and i see no issue in naming Carmine.

Is Deloitte sexist because it chose not to renew their female CEO? Is McKinsey rejecting D&I in choosing an Irishman? Let’s just assume the best candidate was chosen.

@KPMG4- a CEO is not hired based on solely on “qualifications and experience.” It is about the confidence they induce, the extent of their followership and their ability to lead. Neither of those comes from a resume.

EY11 I read your last two posts. Regarding the second one. I’d suggest being more clear what you mean by “white dudeness is a factor”. Are you suggesting that during the hiring/promotion process there were similarly qualified minorities but the white guy was chosen because the decision maker had a bias toward white people? Or are you suggesting being white you likely had all kinds of advantages many minorities didn’t (better education, family support, didn’t need to work through school, didn’t face some overt racism)? Or both?

Yeah I’m ambivalent about this. On one hand it’s so important to have visible representation. On the other, I personally know white men who are probably more in tune to issues of discrimination than I am as a non-white person (some times even a little too aware lol), so I don’t want to discount his ability to do this role service.

Wtf happened to picking a person based on merit and qualifications? Who cares if someone is black, blue, gay, short, tall, lesbian. If he/she/etc is the most qualified then let them have the job.