It seems like Mark Cuban's argument is pointing to correlation and claiming causation. The biggest companies are the ones most likely to be criticized for *not* having DEI initiatives, so instead they have them. They also have the profitability and resources, pre-DEI, to spend more extensively on DEI HR-type personnel.
This seems like yet another example of institutional capture - where those at the top support costly regulations, requirements, and practices because they're the only ones who can afford it and then use it to bash (or freeze out) competitors who simply can't spare the coin for this kind of frivolity or (potentially) inefficiency. In other words, as a Fortune-20 vs. a Fortune-500, the Fortune-20 can afford some empty suits and lavish seminars; the Fortune-500 cannot.
And - no doubt - the Fortune-20 would have a much easier time hiring qualified candidates who are both "diversity hires" and among the best candidates. Just because there's fewer "diversity candidates" across an entire industry doesn't mean the top companies won't have first dibs on those select few.
I work adjacent to accounting and this is a "thing" in my industry. The Big 4 accounting firms (Deloitte, KPMG, E&Y, PwC) get first pick of the brightest and best, and if they want to zero in on those of that cohort with black and brown skin, they can do that - and not have a drop off in talent. It becomes an issue the further down the totem pole you go in terms of "employer prestige" - those top black and brown candidates dry up more quickly than the white applicant pool - just by sheer numbers - so if you're not a top 4 accounting firm but #100, you face either hiring whites or picking from a much, much smaller population, of less desirable minority candidates you want diversity as #100, you're looking at minority candidate pools that have already been picked over by the companies at the top.
Mark Cuban has proven time and again that he isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, good sport or no. There is ZERO intelligence in DEI, zero! Meritocracy is the only choice and for most businesses it is/was used honestly. Of course there are those who will discriminate, as you point out Mark Cuban’s hiring practices, there always has been.
But in my decades of HR experience, hiring for the sports world is no different than hiring for the vast majority of jobs…hire the best person for the job that you can afford. Winning teams and successful companies are made up of winners not “also rans”. DEI, like the insane practice of giving trophies to every child player - even the losers - just creates complacency.
We all need to have a mindset of striving for a goal, to be better than the competition and for the most part that is what we had in the before times…before Covid, before Obama Hussein. Now we’ve a lot of entitlement from poorly educated people, many of whom hold advanced degrees!! But, as in most of my comments, I have to add that This. Is. All. By. Design.
Anyone who claims that DEI is about “hiring the most qualified person” is either deluded, or more likely, dishonest. DEI is exactly the opposite. These activists are able to pull off this verbal gymnastics because the terms Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have double-meanings that are swapped to match the situation. In private, they know full well that DEI and Merit are opposites, but in public they claim the opposite. Don’t fall for it.
You can read more here in my article on the subject:
I gotta say, Mark Cuban was being an impressively good sport compared to most by having responded to your reporting with anything but invective. I hope he does take up the debate offer -- seems like it would be genuinely beneficial for all.
It seems like Mark Cuban's argument is pointing to correlation and claiming causation. The biggest companies are the ones most likely to be criticized for *not* having DEI initiatives, so instead they have them. They also have the profitability and resources, pre-DEI, to spend more extensively on DEI HR-type personnel.
This seems like yet another example of institutional capture - where those at the top support costly regulations, requirements, and practices because they're the only ones who can afford it and then use it to bash (or freeze out) competitors who simply can't spare the coin for this kind of frivolity or (potentially) inefficiency. In other words, as a Fortune-20 vs. a Fortune-500, the Fortune-20 can afford some empty suits and lavish seminars; the Fortune-500 cannot.
And - no doubt - the Fortune-20 would have a much easier time hiring qualified candidates who are both "diversity hires" and among the best candidates. Just because there's fewer "diversity candidates" across an entire industry doesn't mean the top companies won't have first dibs on those select few.
I work adjacent to accounting and this is a "thing" in my industry. The Big 4 accounting firms (Deloitte, KPMG, E&Y, PwC) get first pick of the brightest and best, and if they want to zero in on those of that cohort with black and brown skin, they can do that - and not have a drop off in talent. It becomes an issue the further down the totem pole you go in terms of "employer prestige" - those top black and brown candidates dry up more quickly than the white applicant pool - just by sheer numbers - so if you're not a top 4 accounting firm but #100, you face either hiring whites or picking from a much, much smaller population, of less desirable minority candidates you want diversity as #100, you're looking at minority candidate pools that have already been picked over by the companies at the top.
My uncle has a country place, no one knows about...
Mark Cuban has proven time and again that he isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, good sport or no. There is ZERO intelligence in DEI, zero! Meritocracy is the only choice and for most businesses it is/was used honestly. Of course there are those who will discriminate, as you point out Mark Cuban’s hiring practices, there always has been.
But in my decades of HR experience, hiring for the sports world is no different than hiring for the vast majority of jobs…hire the best person for the job that you can afford. Winning teams and successful companies are made up of winners not “also rans”. DEI, like the insane practice of giving trophies to every child player - even the losers - just creates complacency.
We all need to have a mindset of striving for a goal, to be better than the competition and for the most part that is what we had in the before times…before Covid, before Obama Hussein. Now we’ve a lot of entitlement from poorly educated people, many of whom hold advanced degrees!! But, as in most of my comments, I have to add that This. Is. All. By. Design.
Anyone who claims that DEI is about “hiring the most qualified person” is either deluded, or more likely, dishonest. DEI is exactly the opposite. These activists are able to pull off this verbal gymnastics because the terms Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have double-meanings that are swapped to match the situation. In private, they know full well that DEI and Merit are opposites, but in public they claim the opposite. Don’t fall for it.
You can read more here in my article on the subject:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/understanding-diversity-equity-and
I gotta say, Mark Cuban was being an impressively good sport compared to most by having responded to your reporting with anything but invective. I hope he does take up the debate offer -- seems like it would be genuinely beneficial for all.
Mark Cuban is demonstrably a moron of Logic.
Please ask him why he chose Cuban rather than Dominican Republic or Trinidad and Tobago to be his surname.
EDIT: with due credit to Sam Hyde
GET HIM
"The number one rule of corporate DEI is hire the most qualified person, or in case of an NBA team, player..."
yeah sure, but can corporate DEI get new hires the same great sneaker deals as NBA team, huh?