top of page

Diverse recruitment? “We don’t want to lower our standards"

Writer's picture: Dominique BergiersDominique Bergiers

That kind of response—“we don’t do positive discrimination” or “we don’t want to lower our standards”—is not only problematic but also deeply revealing of the bias embedded in the very idea of leadership and competence.


Let’s break it down:


1. The “Best Candidate” Fallacy


When organizations claim they “hire the best person for the job,” they often fail to acknowledge that the entire process is shaped by bias—from how leadership is defined, to who is considered “qualified,” to the networks through which people are recruited.


👉🏾 Who decided what “qualified” looks like?

👉🏾 Who created the leadership criteria?

👉🏾 Who had access to mentorship, networks, and opportunities that made them a “better” candidate in the first place?


More often than not, what is labeled as "merit" is just privilege that has been institutionalized.


If an organization consistently hires or promotes people from the same racial, cultural, or educational backgrounds, that’s not because others weren’t “qualified”—it’s because the system was built to favor a certain type of person.


💡 The real question isn’t “Why aren’t there enough qualified Black and Brown candidates?” but rather, “Why does our system keep filtering them out?”



2. The Problem with the “Lowering Standards” Argument


This statement is not just offensive, it’s logically flawed. It assumes that hiring more Black and Brown leaders requires compromising on quality—which directly implies that whiteness is the default for excellence.


If leadership was truly about merit, we wouldn’t see so many mediocre white leaders occupying top positions while talented Black and Brown professionals are overlooked. The reality is, diversifying leadership doesn’t mean lowering standards—it means finally recognizing talent that has been ignored.


Diversity is not about hiring unqualified people. It’s about removing the systemic barriers that keep qualified people out.


If an organization is struggling to find diverse talent, the problem is not a “pipeline issue.” It’s a recruitment, retention, and bias issue.



3. What “Positive Discrimination” Really Means


When people argue against “positive discrimination,” they’re often perfectly comfortable with the actual positive discrimination that already exists—which overwhelmingly benefits white people, and white men in particular.


🔹 Hiring through informal networks that exclude marginalized groups? That’s positive discrimination.


🔹 Job descriptions that favor leadership styles typically associated with white men (e.g., “assertive,” “strong executive presence”) while dismissing those associated with Black and Brown leaders? That’s positive discrimination.


🔹 The elite school pipelines, nepotism, and class-based access to top universities? That’s just privilege masquerading as merit


Yet, these forms of favoritism are rarely called out. Only when equity efforts seek to rebalance the scales does the word “fairness” suddenly come into play.


💡 If someone claims they don’t believe in “positive discrimination,” ask them why they have never questioned the positive discrimination that has upheld white dominance for centuries.



4. The Real Standard We Should Be Holding Organizations To


If we’re serious about excellence, then we need to be serious about rethinking leadership criteria and dismantling bias in hiring and promotions.


  • Expand the Definition of Leadership: Too often, leadership is defined through a Eurocentric, white-male lens that prioritizes certain experiences over others. True leadership includes cultural intelligence, adaptability, and lived experience navigating diverse spaces—qualities that many Black and Brown professionals excel in.


  • Audit Hiring and Promotion Criteria: Who created them? Who do they benefit? Are they actually measuring skill, or just cultural fit?


  • Fix Structural Barriers: If an organization claims it “can’t find diverse talent,” the problem is the system, not the talent. Look at where you’re recruiting, who gets mentorship, and who gets fast-tracked for leadership.



Flipping the Question


When someone says, “We don’t want to lower our standards,” respond with:


💬 “What makes you assume that hiring more Black and Brown leaders means lowering standards? Are you suggesting that whiteness is the baseline for excellence?”


💬 “If your definition of leadership keeps producing the same kind of leaders from the same backgrounds, is it really measuring talent—or just reinforcing privilege?”


💬 “If diversity efforts make you uncomfortable, maybe the real issue isn’t standards, but the fact that the existing system has never truly been fair to begin with.”



Fairness Isn’t Radical—Exclusion Is

Exposing the Real Bias Behind “Merit”


There is nothing radical about hiring qualified Black and Brown leaders. What’s radical is pretending that an exclusionary system is fair and then resisting change when it gets challenged.


💡 If an organization truly cares about high standards, then it should be eager to remove the systemic barriers that have long prevented brilliant, diverse talent from thriving.


👉🏾 Diversity doesn’t lower the bar. It just exposes that the bar was never as objective as people claimed. Period.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


©2024-2025 BLACK.BY.US

    bottom of page