> I coach basketball and I say “we need more bigs”.

First, yes I'd say that is ridiculous. There are shorter NBA players, the fact we target "bigs" shows a lazy coach who's incapable of assessing the best way to form a team.

Second, size does play a factor [one of many] in basketball; In coding, neither the amount of melanin, hair color, eye color, nor gender play a role. We can argue a diversity of ideas or backgrounds are good. That's why we hired people with degrees in different fields; we hired people with different work experience. You don't want to say "we need less white people" or "we need less green eyed people". Sorry, but in your example it's equivalent to saying "I want more blonds in basketball" -- there is no relation.

> The fact that you didn’t get that would make me question if I wanted you on the team

I did not want to work with bigots of any kind.

> First, yes I'd say that is ridiculous. There are shorter NBA players, the fact we target "bigs" shows a lazy coach who's incapable of assessing the best way to form a team.

The fact that you speak so confidently about a topic you clearly know almost nothing about I think speaks to why maybe your old team seemed OK to let you go.

> You don't want to say "we need less white people" or "we need less green eyed people". Sorry, but in your example it's equivalent to saying "I want more blonds in basketball" -- there is no relation.

You clearly missed the point of the analogy. The point was that you can look for one attribute, while still having a need for another. You seem to have conflated this with an unrelated point. Maybe not surprising.

But now lets talk about your latter point. You seem to miss one of the main points of DEI. Let's use another basketball example :-)

Jeremy Lin. He went largely unrecruited in HS, despite winning the California state championship over powerhouse Mater Dei, winning Nor Cal player of the year and was 1st team all state. And basically had no D1 offers. Why? Largely because he was Asian.

So, he goes to Harvard and has a good career there. He went undrafted despite great measurables -- including being one of the fastest people in the combine -- think Kyrie quickness and John Wall speed. He was in many ways a generational athlete. He eventually signed as a free agent after summer league to languish on the bench.

It wasn't until one night, at the end of his contract, when he was likely done with his NBA career did he play and he played with a "if I'm ever gonna do it, I gotta do it now attitude". And he went on one of the most impressive runs in NBA history -- Linsanity. Go look it up.

Now I tell this story because his whole life he was discriminated against because he was Asian. He never asked to be played over people that were better than him. Simply to give him a chance. He would never show up in a referral from John Wall or Kobe Bryant. He doesn't run in those circles. His last name doesn't evoke images of a ridiculous skilled guard. But he was.

DEI is about saying, "you've done a sufficiently good job of demonizing everything that comes from POC -- so that you immediately discount the way they walk, talk, where they go to HS, go to college, etc... But set aside these biases and try to let some in the front door to at least give them a chance at the interview. Try not to assume because they went to Howard they are less than." Lin went to Harvard because no other D1s would give him a spot. He was a Duke level player at a low-level non-scholarship school.

And the thing is that sports/basketball are among the most meritocratic activities on this planet. Yet racial bias reared its heard. You don't think this happens everyday in investment banking? Or for consulting? All the places where its so much harder to objectively measure the quality of work done.

If you're a GM in basketball and you're not saying, "we need to look at more Asian player. We need to look around the globe for talent" then you're not doing your job. And coincidentally its now arguable that the four best basketball players in the NBA are all international: Giannis, Luka, Jokic, and Embid. Peoople had to open their eyes and see that it wasn't just an inner city game.

It could equally be argued that alternative players could have been better than Jeremy Lin. Then they promoted Lin at the time because they wanted to enter new markets. As it expanded in popularity new demos entered they pitched the “over coming race” angle because new people joined. Imo using it to make an example kinda proves the real use of DEI - to give people feels and sell stuff.

Teams are trying to sell seats. Businesses are trying to target various markets, but more importantly raise capital and get cheap labor.

You could argue the same thing in my case, and that’s fine. I won’t play the race game. For reference, me and others were offered an exorbitant amount to stay. But to your point, give those opportunities to others, who by definition didn’t earn their place.

I got it. So even when a member of an underrepresented group outperforms others you will still say it’s for some alternative reason, with no evidence for it. And you thought your old boss was a bigot??

> So even when a member of an underrepresented group outperforms others you will still say it’s for some alternative reason, with no evidence for it.

When you view everything through a racist lens, that's all you'll see -- it'll consume you.

I was proposing an alternative way to read the racism in the NBA (rather than overcoming racism, it was used as a ploy to increase revenues - oh hey, they opened the Chinese markets in 2010 https://lawaspect.com/nba-expansion-china/). In fact, in your prior post you were discussing all these forms of racism Lin faced without clear evidence (i.e. an email, paper trail, etc). That's what DEI is, people utilizing their race to shame others in attempt to gain wealth, power, etc. Ultimately, it's about claiming something is deserved due to your race; which in fact is no different than the opposite. From your prior post:

> DEI is about saying, "you've done a sufficiently good job of demonizing everything that comes from POC -- so that you immediately discount the way they walk, talk, where they go to HS, go to college, etc... But set aside these biases and try to let some in the front door to at least give them a chance at the interview. Try not to assume because they went to Howard they are less than."

Almost everyone agrees you should set aside the bias, but why give someone an interview based on their race? Why not equally pick at random from people at that point?

Regardless, what we were talking about were diversity quotas in management. Typically, that means promotions from within. Everyone had interviews, everyone has been working. DEI in the example I gave was a way to extract more power / wealth for a given group in the name of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion -- at the exclusion of others.

> And you thought your old boss was a bigot??

When you promote [or don't] based on race, what are you?

> the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

From Daryl Morey, GM of the Rockets whose own analytical models said Lin should be a lottery pick: “He’s incredibly athletic,” said Morey. “But the reality is that every fucking person, including me, thought he was unathletic. And I can’t think of any reason for it other than he was Asian.”

You love to dismiss anything with the appearance of racism, except when it negatively might impact white males. Than racism and bigotry is suddenly a huge problem.

And like Lin, people aren’t saying to promote based on race. But rather don’t neglect people based on race which is exactly what people like you do. I’d love to see the candidate pool randomly drawn from the general population. I bet you’d find problems with it.