Related Posts
Deloitte FDD vs PwC FDD? NYC
Cameras must be on!
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
New to Fishbowl?
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Trending Topics
Billable Hours discussions
Senior Project Manager Salary discussions
Specialist Leader Jobs discussions
Solution Principal Interview discussions
Consulting Manager Salary discussions
Investment Banking Analyst Interview discussions
Assurance Manager Salary discussions
Airports: IAD discussions
Hotels Hilton discussions
Manager Layoffs discussions
Coach
Hopeful we go back to merit at some point and eliminate DEI discrimination but not holding my breath. Many large clients have already rolled back.
Let’s see if new rules come out of agencies (eeoc) which will force the end of the madness. Litigation may also help.
Coach
MD5. The legal aspect of dei discrimination and affirmative action has always been weak.
The basic laws are clearly colorblind when you read them (constitution and civils right act). But many administrations and lower courts have been ambiguous and tolerated positive discrimination and so called affirmative actions in education and business.
What changed:
- it has gone way too far after 2020
- a large number of people and organizations are not ok with any discrimination anymore and want to enforce the colorblind laws. They have clout, resources and are collaborating!
- the supreme court ruling in sffa vs harvard clarified the legal situation (ie race discrimination is illegal, regardless of the intent)
- the executive order killed the illegal discrimination for federal agencies, this will trickle to contractors and their contractors, which is a huge chunk of the economy
- the EO (section 3) also killed a number of previous EOs which people had been relying upon to justify unlawful race discrimination, particularly the LBJ one (11246) which was the basis for affirmative action.
- The EEOC will likely change its tune and throw the full power of the federal gov behind employee complaints against quotas and race discrimination. That could trigger heavy fines, compliance agreements with large companies.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. We need meritocratic and diverse teams. Both actually go well together when meritocracy is the primary paradigm. Prior eras were not truly meritocratic from a broader standpoint but this era has seen such toxic execution of DEI policies that most people cannot see the forest from the trees. As someone who was affected by DEI policies (with a non performance, quota related layoff), I still hope future iniatives are present BUT balanced.
The problem as with many are nuanced. But when you have black and white guidance or execution is where people fall short.
I see no change in our firm. Our CEO’s firmwide message on MLK Day affirmed our commitment to DEI strategies in recruitment, culture, and retention. We aren’t doing it for show or compliance. We believe embracing DEI is the right thing and know there is plenty of evidence out there that effective DEI promotes high performance.
Firm not changing stance - where the stance was, is and always should be “merit and merit only”. No discrimination on DEI, and similarly no additional favor just because of DEI. At a ground level, we try and create diverse teams just so that the work output can be better. But there are no KPIs that ‘mandate’ it and no reprimand of teams aren’t always diverse.
Sounds like you have the non toxic no quotas version.
Nope - message went out about our commitment to it yesterday
Yes - huge practice
Mentor
DEI to make sure we have the broadest pool and bring diversity of candidates to the table is a huge driver of growth. We cannot leave that.
“DEI” that was crudely implemented as quotas for URM promotions became demotivating reverse discrimination. I expect that to go away. But we didn’t need the overtly reactionary and racists new overtones to make that happen.
Mentor
Does this mean we won’t have to hear the “TOO WHITE, TOO MALE!!!!!” on partner admission review calls anymore?
Amen.
DEI will still play a meaningful role.
Kamala will be back in 2028! I know that it feels like a long time from now, but she will save us.
Kamala 2.0 baby, can’t wait! DEI 2.0
Have yall been pulling talent from bottom of barrel? Never occurred this was an issue…
Rumor has it if you've ever interned at McK you get an automatic Partner offer
In at least my industry (but probably in most) our client bases were already diversified beyond what some DEI initiatives could do. Unless that drastically changes I don’t see firms moving on this matter significantly.
Big-4 blow like the wind to what ever the compliance metrics of the day are.
I think we need to take a step back and not look at DEI as one broad issue. When you break it down, I think most people likely believe in the E and the I. Everyone should have an Equitable chance at being successful. And our teams and organizations should be Inclusive. The main issue is around one of the three letters, the D (diversity). The question is if organizations should consider the D in decisions (hiring, promotion, layoffs, etc.) or if the D should be “anonymous” similar to the Supreme Court recently ruled for college admissions.
Coach
Actually, the main issue is E. DEI E stands here for equity which is equal outcomes (quotas). Equality of opportunities which you refer to is very different.