The evidence says yes. Reminds me of a fun uni group project I had once. It was a business class with a lot of adjacent majors in it.
spoiler
There were half a dozen groups and you could see three which were according to all I know of them from parties mostly cis hetero dudes and one was the "alpha" group. With that I mean it was filled with five dudebros who all thought they are hot shit and people should just listen to them.
Needless to say that one group had a lot of conflict ending in them. All of them tried to be "the leader" of the group, undercut the others in the group etc. The grade was the same for everyone within a group except a small part for the presentation and a slightly larger part for how your team mates rated you in terms of willingness to do another project with you (I disliked the grading cause it could've been bad for neurodivergent people and forcing people to present stuff is bad in any case).
With the other groups we had a common chat in which we discussed that we could just give everyone the highest mark and thus ensure that everyone passes and most would improve the grades for their stipends and such. So naturally nearly all other groups just gave maximum points to their team mates. Not so the "alpha" group in which people would give zero points to each other meaning their final marks were nearly failing grades.
One of them ended up working for Deutsche Bank so it did track after all.
Anecdotally: I work in a field that is basically 100% white dudes. The one company I worked for that approached 50% not white dudes in that role... was by far the most competent team I worked with. To me, the lack of diversity seems obviously to having nothing to do with "meritocracy" and everything to do with networking and a lack of imagination by white dude hiring managers who have never had a friend who wasn't another white dude.
Isn't it the opposite? That you get better results by not excluding 50% of the population in your hiring process.
The evidence says yes. Reminds me of a fun uni group project I had once. It was a business class with a lot of adjacent majors in it.
spoiler
There were half a dozen groups and you could see three which were according to all I know of them from parties mostly cis hetero dudes and one was the "alpha" group. With that I mean it was filled with five dudebros who all thought they are hot shit and people should just listen to them.
Needless to say that one group had a lot of conflict ending in them. All of them tried to be "the leader" of the group, undercut the others in the group etc. The grade was the same for everyone within a group except a small part for the presentation and a slightly larger part for how your team mates rated you in terms of willingness to do another project with you (I disliked the grading cause it could've been bad for neurodivergent people and forcing people to present stuff is bad in any case).
With the other groups we had a common chat in which we discussed that we could just give everyone the highest mark and thus ensure that everyone passes and most would improve the grades for their stipends and such. So naturally nearly all other groups just gave maximum points to their team mates. Not so the "alpha" group in which people would give zero points to each other meaning their final marks were nearly failing grades.
One of them ended up working for Deutsche Bank so it did track after all.
White dudes can fail miserably and still get a cushy job at a huge bank.
That's what these anti-diversity bros think 'merit' is.
Anecdotally: I work in a field that is basically 100% white dudes. The one company I worked for that approached 50% not white dudes in that role... was by far the most competent team I worked with. To me, the lack of diversity seems obviously to having nothing to do with "meritocracy" and everything to do with networking and a lack of imagination by white dude hiring managers who have never had a friend who wasn't another white dude.