Well, affirmative action mandates diversity hires.

I don't think affirmative action affects "sleeping their way to the top".

> Well, affirmative action mandates diversity hires.

I mean... this isn't what AA does at all.

> Well, affirmative action mandates diversity hires.

No, it doesn’t.

Disparate impact jurisprudence does https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dead...

"Despite this assertion, the development of the Griggs doctrine has proved anything but friendly to meritocratic objectives. Although the Supreme Court has never held that all workplaces must be racially balanced, lower courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is charged with administering Title VII, have firmly embraced the presumption that the racial profiles of particular workplaces should reflect the racial composition of the broader population."

"Recently, prompted by the racially adverse impact of measures of verbal and abstract analysis — areas in which some minority groups underperform — experts have also developed alternative instruments that employ audio or video techniques, or that make use of so-called "assessment center" protocols based on job simulations, real-time problem solving, or actual work samples."

"Although few disparate-impact lawsuits are actually filed, and though defendants win most of those that are, the specter of disparate-impact lawsuits nonetheless dangles like a Sword of Damocles over employers' heads. The prospect of onerous, unpredictable, and protracted litigation provides employers with a strong incentive to find some way to avoid being sued. One temptation is to satisfy diversity targets by relaxing personnel-selection standards across the board. Firms can also switch to more haphazard staffing methods that tend to obscure informal affirmative action or other race-conscious practices. Some of these tactics pose the risk of yielding a less effective work force, while others (such as the use of race-based criteria) are legally suspect or even expressly forbidden under Title VII."

By definition, it means some people were extended offers that would not have absent positive discrimination. Well, I suppose it could be the case that the level of positive discrimination didn't alter the outcomes, but then the affirmative action program achieved literally nothing.

At least, that's with the typical meaning of "affirmative action". It's a nebulous term that some use to encompass things like blind orchestra auditions. In the tech world this could be equated with anonymous resumes and blind zoom interviews with modulated voices. But few tech companies seem to be interested in this type of affirmative action.

I recently went down a bit of a rabbit hole and learned about "pre-code" Hollywood. There's actually a 1933 movie called "Baby Face" that features a woman who does basically sleep her way to the top of a company (despite being pre-code, it's still quite chaste by modern standards and much is left to implication, but it's not subtle). So the trope does indeed have some history.

The notion that the reason certain groups of people aren't taken seriously in certain roles is because of "D&I" or "AA" is flatly ahistorical.

Certain people just refuse to accept certain groups of people are capable of accomplishment without outside help or uniquely uncommon circumstances.

But every generation finds some excuse that their prejudices are "rational".

   Certain people just refuse to accept certain groups of people are capable of accomplishment without outside help or uniquely uncommon circumstances.

Sounds like the solution then is to remove that outside help, and thus all doubt. Right?

Not until you can remove the reason the help is needed.

> "diversity hires", or having "slept their way to top"

Those seem like quite distinct issues, like you might as well lump in 'good at office politics' into it