Hired by DEI, fired by DEI. That's as it should be. Those so fired are more than welcome to reapply to be hired on the basis of merit (should the position still exist after DOGE's examination). Even better, those former employees will have experience at the job working in their favor. Good luck!
Hired by DEI, fired by DEI. That's as it should be. Those so fired are more than welcome to reapply to be hired on the basis of merit (should the position still exist after DOGE's examination). Even better, those former employees will have experience at the job working in their favor. Good luck!
Wouldn't it be more efficient to evaluate current hires' (ones whom you have labeled "DEI hires") competence and skillset and determine whether they would still qualify for the job, instead of just firing them all without analysis?
It's an exercise to demonstrate (and inculcate) institutional meritocracy. A little inefficiency in the process is a feature, not a bug. As well, the DEI hire should be made to pay a small price for taking the job on other than a meritocratic basis to begin with.
Hired by DEI, fired by DEI. That's as it should be. Those so fired are more than welcome to reapply to be hired on the basis of merit (should the position still exist after DOGE's examination). Even better, those former employees will have experience at the job working in their favor. Good luck!
Wouldn't it be more efficient to evaluate current hires' (ones whom you have labeled "DEI hires") competence and skillset and determine whether they would still qualify for the job, instead of just firing them all without analysis?
It's an exercise to demonstrate (and inculcate) institutional meritocracy. A little inefficiency in the process is a feature, not a bug. As well, the DEI hire should be made to pay a small price for taking the job on other than a meritocratic basis to begin with.