Today, we're going to discuss diversity quotas and how they are not as advantageous as progressives would like you to believe. Before we start reviewing the attached presentation, let's find out what all those numbers and colors represent.

If anyone can point out any flaws in my presentation or ways to improve its effectiveness, please address in detail.

Each table represents a different hiring strategy used to fill positions within a company. Each of the 45 cells within each represents a job applicant. However, each of the 20 red-bordered cells represents a position that needs to be filled. Therefore, in each of the three scenarios, the company is looking to hire 20 new employees, so they must interview all 45 applicants before narrowing down their choices.

The varying color tones represent different ethnic groups. It is assumed that, in the given geographical area where the hiring is taking place, red consists of 44.44% of the population (20 of 45 cells), orange 22.22%, and the remaining colors 11.11% for each group. For simplicity of crunching numbers, the number of applicants is also 100% proportionate to their demographic representation in the area.

Lastly, the numbers within the cells themselves represent the percentage of qualification for the position being applied for. 100 means the applicant meets 100% of the job requirements, 80 means 80%, and so on. These numbers do not represent skill tiers, so a 100 is not necessarily a senior-level applicant and a 50 is not necessarily a mid-level applicant. A 100 could, in fact, be an entry-level applicant who meets all qualifications for an entry-level position.

Now let's get started, beginning with the merit-based model. In this model, the company hires only the most qualified applicants and completely ignores ethnicity. Therefore, they first pick from the 100 pool then the 85 pool, the total applicants coming to 18. They need 2 more to reach their goal of 20, so they pick randomly from the pool of 50 since the 100 and 85 pools have been tapped out. In this model, while the chosen applicants consist mainly of red, all groups are fairly represented according to their demographic representation.

Now let's move to the diversity-based model. In this model, they must ensure that the applicants they hire consist of an even number of ethnic groups. They choose from the 100 pool first, depleting it. They now have 4 reds, but only 2 oranges, 1 blue, 1 green, and 1 purple which is, so far, not compliant with the diversity requirements. This means they can't fully clear out the 85 pool as was the case with the merit-based model because they would end up with too many reds. Instead, to even it out, they choose 2 more from orange to come to a total of 4 orange applicants which now reaches parity with the 4 red applicants. For the remaining positions, they have no choice but to pick from the lesser-qualified pools of 20 and 50 in order for there to be 4 applicants from the blue, green, and purple groups. In this model, you can easily see the distinct disadvantage of not being able to pick any more red applicants from the 85 pool. This means that, while your company is more diverse ethnically, there is also a greater percentage of lesser-qualified employees.

Lastly, we come to the racism-based model where the company gravitates toward hiring only applicants of a specific ethnicity which, in this case, is red. They need to fill 20 positions just as in the previous scenarios, but, in this case, they choose only from the pool of red applicants. Clearly, this is also a bad choice, even worse than the diversity-based model because now they have an even greater percentage of lesser-qualified employees. Because they favor reds, they consciously refused to pick highly qualified applicants from the 100 and 85 pools of the other color groups.

I hope this lesson in the various hiring practices has been enlightening. Please share with your progressive managers, teachers, district representatives, and senators. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.