the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, a series of influential McKinsey reports from the mid-2010s, which together made the case that corporate diversity was good for profits, is facing new criticism after a group of academics was unable to replicate its findings.
It’s evident that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) stand as one of the more contentious topics of our era, and also, remarkably, a thriving multibillion-dollar industry.
Some, like Elon Musk, vehemently argue that DEI, which aims to address systemic inequalities in society, amounts to nothing but reverse racism. On the other side of the spectrum, proponents assert that DEI initiatives are essential for fostering fair and harmonious workplaces, with the added benefit of improving companies’ financial performance. According to Inc. magazine, numerous studies have shown that diverse companies consistently outperform their less diverse counterparts. However, recent research suggests that these claims may not be as solid as they seem.
A study published in the Econ Journal Watch, a respected peer-reviewed academic journal, casts doubt on the validity of several influential studies conducted by McKinsey & Company. These studies purported to demonstrate a positive correlation between DEI initiatives and corporate profitability. However, the new research indicates that these findings cannot be replicated, raising questions about their reliability.
Moreover, scholars like Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas argue in the Harvard Business Review that the evidence supporting the financial benefits of DEI initiatives is not as robust as claimed. They caution against blindly accepting the notion that increased diversity automatically leads to improved financial performance.
This skepticism towards the purported benefits of DEI initiatives reflects a broader issue in academia known as the “replication crisis,” where many research findings fail to hold up under scrutiny. While diversity and inclusion are undoubtedly important, the means used to achieve them, particularly the concept of equity, have come under scrutiny. Some argue that pursuing social equity through policies that discriminate based on race may ultimately undermine the goal of equal treatment for all individuals, regardless of race or class.
As Coleman Hughes, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, suggests, the ideal approach should be to treat people equally without regard to race, both in personal interactions and public policy. This sentiment aligns with the vision articulated by Frederick Douglass in 1867, advocating for a society where individuals are judged not by their race or social status, but by their common humanity.
In light of these considerations, the DEI paradigm and industry may warrant reassessment. Rather than relying on the notion of DEI as a pathway to corporate success, a more equitable and inclusive society may be better served by pursuing a vision of equality that transcends race and class distinctions.
Tell your story #TheRidgewoodblog , #Indpendentnews, #information, #advertise, #guestpost, #affiliatemarketing,#NorthJersey, #NJ , #News, #localnews, #bergencounty, #sponsoredpost, #SponsoredContent, #contentplacement , #linkplacement, Email: Onlyonesmallvoice@gmail.com
I’ll stick with hiring those of competence instead of color preference.
In the interest of diversity, how about some asians on the basketball court or NFL.
Fair is fair
to the thumbs down… next time you need a doctor for your family be sure to visit a DEI doc who got pushed through the system. good luck
Perfect example: the Vice President!
Not to worry.
They’ll still push this agenda item.
Just repackage the lie and try again.
So sick of hearing about DEI and being woke. Just hire whoever is best fit with their abilities.
What pi$$ed me off if I hired a member of one of these protected groups who had excellent qualifications and interviewed very well……………..
Was that the only thing the front office cared about was the boxes that got checked off.
DEI is unfair to minorities who actually displayed competence and achieved their status
It basically promotes the notion that these people are unable to compete without getting special treatment for promotions, jobs, or college entrances and will be viewed upon as such.
It creates (thanks to Lyndon Johson) a depended attitude that as a ‘victim’ they are ‘entitled’
Its all part of the Democrat playbook to ‘divide’ since they are a party of zero ideas.
Remember FJB saying ‘you aint black if you dont vote for me’… Only an old school racist like Biden would infer that black people can’t think for themselves, or can’t use proper English.
I wouldn’t even focus on all that “soft bigotry” stuff. It’s more important to recognize that DEI isn’t about advancing minorities per se, it’s about advancing minorities who will be beholden to the class of people who are pushing DEI, and then using those minorities as a weapon against you. Unfortunately these minorities aren’t very bright, otherwise they’d recognize that just like the radicalized idiots that came before them, they too will be the first tossed in the bin the minute the revolution ends.