Mark Cuban vs Rabbit: 𝕏 Conversations on DEI

Art by Wokely Correct

Introduction

For the better part of a month, I was engaged with Mark Cuban in conversations around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) over on 𝕏. This article will be my attempt to document the various twists and turns those exchanges took. Note that Mark Cuban had made several other comments on DEI by the point our interactions began (and while those talks were happening), but I am focusing on our exchanges since they provide a decent back-and-forth conversational narrative.

In several cases, Cuban provides lengthy answers which I attempt to dissect; in my replies, Cuban’s speech is typically covered in quotation marks with my responses following outside the quotations (e.g. “Cuban’s argument” rabbit’s response). Another example:

• “Cuban’s argument”

  • Rabbit’s response

The above shows the format I followed for most of the article. When in doubt reference the original tweets via the provided links.

Due to these exchanges occurring on 𝕏, several transcriptions will be partially incomplete due to the original Tweet quoting something or including images. For the sake of transparency, the corresponding Tweet will be linked wherever possible. I believe there is value in this transcription because many true believers of DEI refuse to engage in public discourse and it is worth seeing what a conversation with them looks like so we can better understand where they are coming from.

Background

Claudine Gay had been recently removed from her presidential post at Harvard and DEI was becoming the hot topic of debate on 𝕏. Elon Musk and other prominent figures were speaking out against DEI at which point Mark Cuban entered the discourse.

Elon Musk: Discrimination on the basis of race, which DEI does, is literally the definition of racism

Mark Cuban: Let me help you out and give you my thoughts on DEI

• 1. Diversity Good businesses look where others don't, to find the employees that will put your business in the best possible position to succeed. You may not agree, but I take it as a given that there are people of various races, ethnicities, orientation, etc that are regularly excluded from hiring consideration. By extending our hiring search to include them, we can find people that are more qualified. The loss of DEI-Phobic companies is my gain. 1a. We live in a country with very diverse demographics. In this era where trust of businesses can be hard to come by, people tend to connect more easily to people who are like them. Having a workforce that is diverse and representative of your stakeholders is good for business.

• 2. Equity Treating people equally does not mean treating them the same. I made the mistake for a lot of years thinking it did. Equity is a core principle of business. Put your employees in a position to succeed. Recognize their differences and play to their strengths where ever possible. It is not a hard concept. But it is not easy to implement. Most workforces don't have the depth of management to do this well. When it's not done well it can create tension and resentment.

• 3. Inclusion One of my favorite sayings is that "Great employees reduce the stress of those around them" Great companies create environments that reduce unnecessary stress of their employees (Im not talking hitting quota or getting the product out the door stress), which in turn increases productivity This is what Inclusion is all about. Making all employees, no matter who they are or how they see themselves, feel comfortable in their environment and able to do their jobs Again, it's not easy.

• 4. Why DEI is like HealthCare One of the lessons I've learned in healthcare is that most CEOs don't know and don't really want to know where their healthcare benefit dollars are going. In their minds, its not part of the core competency of their business. As a result they waste a shitload of money on less than quality care for their employees and more often than not it's their sickest and lowest paid employees that subsidize the rebates and deductibles (Sicker employees have to pay up to their deductible, healthy don't) So what does this have to do with DEI ? Like HealthCare, DEI is not seen as a core competency in most companies. It's just a huge expense. Intellectually they see the benefit of DEI. But they don't have time to focus on it So it turns into a check box that they hope they don't have to deal with beyond having HR do a report to the board and legal tells them they are covered. When anything that impacts all of your employees is pretty much a check list item to the CEO, there is a good chance that its not going work well and you are going to have employees who are not comfortable for a lot of different reasons. Which in turn creates resentment towards DEI policies and training. Which in turn makes it harder on the managers trying to implement it When companies do DEI well, you see a well run , successful company.

• 5. So what's the conclusion ? If you don't think there is a need for DEI and it doesn't create a competitive advantage for your company, just look at the @x posts/replies/quotes below. These are the same people that work for you or are your co-workers. Everyone is entitled to their POV, but these same feelings, even if they are not said out-loud, are heard loud and clear at work.

This reply from Cuban set off a series of back-and-forth conversations on the topic of DEI on 𝕏 which eventually led to us crossing paths on the platform.

January 04, 2024: First Contact

My initial interactions with Mark Cuban occurred on this date.

Rabbit: Answer the question: Why should an individual have a better or worse chance of obtaining a position on the basis of their group identity?

Mark Cuban: Because being part of that group can offer a better connection to potential customers/prospects who are part of that same group. Because being part of that group can bring a different perspective that helps the company prosper. Because being part of that group may offer a stronger connection into the community , which in turn helps the company

Rabbit: So you’re okay with Asian students being discriminated against during college admissions? I think that’s backwards personally and that we should judge people as individuals rather than on group identity.

Mark Cuban: You seem to believe that the ultimate goal of a university is to have the right admission policy. I wouldn't send my kids to a school that makes that their goal.

Frustrated by what I felt was a lack of direct response, I made my own post:

Rabbit: I directly asked Mark Cuban whether he thinks it is okay for Asians to face discrimination in college admissions. @mcuban dodged the question and gave a non-answer. I think that speaks volumes about his DEI inspired worldview. I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and that Cuban does the right thing by condemning demographic preferences.

Elon Musk: Mark Cuban is desperately trying to signal his “virtue”, but his hypocrisy convinces no one

Mark Cuban: Lol

Cuban’s reply to Musk on my thread was the last of our interactions on this date.

January 08, 2024: Airlines & College Admissions

These interactions focused on DEI at airlines & college admissions.

Rabbit: “DEl does not mean you dont hire on merit. Of course you hire based on merit.” — Mark Cuban

Elon Musk: The airline industry can’t find enough qualified pilots even without insane DEI requirements!

Mark Cuban: This is a training school. Once they graduate, it’s a multi year process to have an OPPORTUNITY to pilot for United Since I’m a nice guy and want you to be fully informed, I’ll share with you the benefit of the 60 seconds I spent looking for how the program works. BTW, looks like multiple layers of merit based evaluations before they can fly for United… Here is a link for you

Rabbit: You said DEI does not undermine meritocracy. There are many examples, like the attached, that indicate that statement is incorrect. DEI is not worth defending. Let’s work together to pursue colorblind meritocracy instead.

Mark Cuban: You are really bad at sourcing data. [Link] Is the original report. It doesn't reference data as the book you used suggests. In fact, as you can see from the attached, while there was a higher percentage of black physicians with complaints, of those investigated, a higher percentage of whites than blacks were disciplined. Which is really the number that matters. Isn't it ?

Rabbit: And your thoughts on the affirmative action data showing demographic preferences at work? I think the blatant discrimination there should be recognized. I’m also happy to grab the Harvard admissions table if you would rather look at that. See Richard’s attached reply regarding the complaints and discipline:

Mark Cuban [Tweet now deleted]: Why would I care who Harvard does or doesn't let in their school? It's their school. Are you against private organizations being able to determine who they want to sell their educational services to ? Don't you believe in capitalism ?

Rabbit: I thought the point of civil rights was to prevent institutions from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race? I doubt you think civil rights was a bad idea so let’s try to be consistent to those principles. I don’t want individuals to have a better or worse chance of getting a role on the basis of their group identity. Attached table shows admissions chances by race and academic decile. Source for table.

The second thread of interactions on this date will have some repeat messages for the sake of flow.

Mark Cuban: This is a training school. Once they graduate, it’s a multi year process to have an OPPORTUNITY to pilot for United Since I’m a nice guy and want you to be fully informed, I’ll share with you the benefit of the 60 seconds I spent looking for how the program works. BTW, looks like multiple layers of merit based evaluations before they can fly for United… Here is a link for you

Rabbit: The implication being made here is that demographic variables are okay to consider for candidate selection happening at the education level. Am I understanding Cuban correctly?

Mark Cuban [Tweet now deleted]: You don't actually read anything, do you? You should read the website. It's a for profit school. If they want primarily purple people eaters from Mars, it's their choice. In order for those Martians to become United pilots they first have to progress through a purely meritocratic system. They won't hire any Martians before they are qualified. Make Sense now?

Rabbit:

• “It's a for profit school. If they want primarily purple people eaters from Mars, it's their choice.”

  • This sounds like a violation of the civil rights act of 1964. Mark, we obviously disagree on what DEI does but I hope you understand and can at least appreciate my broader point that discrimination on the basis of demographics (e.g. sex and race) is not a noble goal.

Thinking through the implications of Cuban’s argument, I articulated my thoughts in a separate post:

Rabbit: Let's switch around some words:

• "It's a for profit school. If they want primarily White Men from Alabama, it's their choice."

• If the idea of an institution specifically seeking out White Male candidates makes you uncomfortable, then the idea of an institution specifically seeking out candidates of any specific demographic should make you uncomfortable.

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. If we are going to be a nation that opposes demographic discrimination, then let's be consistent in our principles.

• DEI is just bigotry with better branding. Don't fall for it and reject this horrible ideology.

The above post went viral on 𝕏 due to Elon Musk quoting it in a now-deleted tweet.

January 09, 2024: Good Sportsmanship

The next morning Cuban made a tweet that I assumed to be an indirect response to the DEI debates.

Mark Cuban: I have to say that over the last 24 hours I've found @X to be warm and welcoming. The diversity of responses in both tone and content has been heart warming. I did have to block one account with a large number of followers. But beyond that, I appreciate all the engagement !

Rabbit: Thank you for your willingness to engage in conversation. We obviously disagreed but I respect you a lot more than people who lack the courage to test their ideas. @mcuban if you’re comfortable, I am down to talk more on the topic over DMs. I’d rather convince you on the merits of my stance than publicly drag you. Completely understand if you don’t want to do this and wish you the best.

Given the amount of reach our conversations had gotten by this point, I had fully expected to wake up blocked by Cuban. The fact that he did not block me is something I appreciate Cuban for despite our continued disagreements.

January 18, 2024: Corporate Hiring & Meritocracy

The conversation on this date focused primarily on hiring practices and whether or not DEI subverts meritocracy.

Mark Cuban: I would love to hear from everyone who is currently employed, what objective measure or metric was used to determine you were the most qualified applicant when you were hired. And of course, if you could also mention the position you were hired for, that would help. Thanks in advance !

Scott Adams: I respect your efforts to get up to speed on this critical topic. Your blind spot is because white employees know they will end their careers if they are honest about their experiences. I don’t think employers can easily discern who would perform better. That’s why they don’t consider white applicants. Their bonuses depend on increasing diversity. In banking, I was finishing my MBA on top of my economics degree and was told they had to promote a woman with a high school degree over me because I am white and male. Same story when I moved to Pacific Bell. My bosses told me directly. No guessing on my part. This is NORMAL in ALL big American companies. I’m glad you are digging in. You’ll be flabbergasted.

Mark Cuban: Despite all of this Scott, white men, the demo you feel has gotten passed over, make more $ and have lower unemployment rates than the black people and women you feel are replacing them How do you reconcile this ?

Rabbit: Pledging to hire more members of a certain race is setting demographic composition goals.

Mark Cuban: [responded with a link]

Mark Cuban: With that in mind, 94% of new jobs in the S&P 100 going to people of color sounds about what we ought to expect. It’s not evidence of employers going to especially great lengths to hire minorities, or discriminating against White workers, or doing anything other than fishing where the fish are. If the percentage were much lower than 90%, that would be cause for concern.

Rabbit:

• “It’s not evidence of employers going to great lengths to hire minorities”

  • “Corporate America Pledged to Hire More People of Color”

  • Really?

Mark Cuban [Tweet now deleted; screenshot in Appendix]: I'll explain what the article says. When unemployment is 3.2 Oct for WMs, there is not much of a work pool to hire from. In addition because of the aging/retiring of the WM workforce, the actual number of employees available to hire declined. Compared to the non-WM workforce, which grew by 6.1m people and had an absolute greater number of people available to hire During the period reflected on this data, these companies surveyed rushed to hire people or support the growth they were experiencing. The available work force was predominantly РОС.

End Wokeness: Then why did they "pledge to hire more people of color" in the aftermath of the George Floyd video?

Mark Cuban:

• 1.I dont know the dates when companies committed to diversity. Most big companies made that decision long before George Floyd, although many reiterated it afterwards.

• 2. Probably because it would lead to greater profitability. Isnt this the reason why companies make the decisions they do ?

End Wokeness: So would you support discrimination against non-White applicants if a company decides that it’s better for their profit margins?

Rabbit: I doubt he would. He doesn’t seem to be understanding that DEI contradicts the civil rights act.

Mark Cuban: If I go to a single school job fair to fill the one SEO coordinator position that I have available, and that school is 100 pct white, am I violating the CRA ?

Rabbit: Kindly requesting you directly answer the question: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. How do you reconcile “Corporate America Pledged to Hire More People of Color” with the civil rights act?

Mark Cuban: I did answer the question

Rabbit: Where? Can you QT it as a reply? Thank you 🙏 I’m also curious how you reconcile these statements with the civil rights act:

Mark Cuban: I'll try again for you. Private companies can solicit any applicant pool they choose. There are no laws that I'm aware of that require that pool of applicants be diverse. Would you agree that historically, companies sometimes solicited potential employees where the pool of applicants were all white ?

Rabbit: Thank you for clarifying, Mark. The point I’ve been making isn’t regarding DEI laws; it is regarding DEI initiatives at the corporate level that violate the CRA.

Mark Cuban: They don't violate the CRA that I have seen. What companies are smart to do, as I said initially, is expand their pool of applicants to be far more diverse. When you have greater diversity in your applicant pool, you will end up finding more qualified people who are diverse That allows them to change the demographic mix of their employees. In all cases they don't hire based on race. They only hire the applicant they believe to be the most qualified Hey @StephenM , tell us how you think I'm wrong

Rabbit: That goes back to the question I have been posing: how do we reconcile an increased emphasis on race during the hiring process with the CRA?

Mark Cuban: I don't know how else to say it for you. You seem to think the final hiring decision is based on race. It's not. The most qualified candidate is hired. And it's ok when those hires are diverse. Diverse candidates can and are hired because they are more qualified.

Rabbit: My point is corporations are focusing on demographic factors: “Corporate America Pledged to Hire More People of Color.” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. How do we reconcile the increased corporate DEI emphasis on demographics with the CRA? You previously acknowledged this and seemed to think “private orgs can do whatever” which also doesn’t align with the CRA.

Mark Cuban quote tweeted one of my replies in the earlier conversation which created another thread of tweets:

From that point, the conversation did not develop much further between the two of us.

January 28, 2024: The Nature of DEI

The conversations on this date covered a lot of ground and can be summarized as fundamentally being about the nature of DEI. Due to the length of certain replies, I especially want to emphasize for this section that some items might have been missed so I recommend reading the original tweets via the provided links whenever possible for the exchanges on this date.

Mark Cuban: IYKYK [link]

Rabbit: When shown proof of how DEI discriminates, you wrote it off by stating private entities can do whatever they want. Since then the goalposts have repeatedly been shifted. Given the weak nature of your defenses of DEI, I suspect there is no real rebuttal to the criticisms myself and others have raised. The only hope is to keep moving the goalposts and pretending the evidence doesn't exist. The alternative would be doing the brave thing of acknowledging you were wrong - although this would do a lot of good, it does not seem you've arrived at this destination yet.

Mark Cuban: [Link]

Rabbit: Mark, the central question remains the same: Should candidate selection, at any level, consider non-merit based criteria like race and sex?

Mark Cuban:

• When you say candidate selection, do you mean actual hiring or building the applicant pool ? There is nothing about DEI that says you should hire anyone but who you feel is the most qualified candidate. In fact there is nothing about DEI that I know of that says that you can't hire the LEAST qualified candidate.

• If you determine that you want to hire the stupidest person you can find, as long as you don't discriminate, have at it. IMO, your mistake is that you think when United says they want a more diverse number of CANDIDATES to be pilots it's a quota. It's not. Candidates <> Hires.

• You can look at their EEO reports year to year to see the demographics of their workforce. In fact there are companies with DEI programs where the number of minority hires decreased. When you show companies that want to increase the number of minorities that apply for jobs by 20, 50, 27000000 percent, pick any number , it's not a hiring quota.

• It's a goal to expand the diversity of applicants, which may or may not lead to more hirings of minorities I'll ask you two questions

• 1. Do you believe there are CURRENTLY people with hiring authority in this country that discriminate against minorities and choose less qualified white candidates ?

• 2. Is it possible that if the number of diverse candidates increases, and more minorities are hired than non, it's possible that those minorities are MORE qualified for those positions and the company is a better company for hiring the most qualified candidates that happen to be minorities ?

Rabbit:

• "When you say candidate selection, do you mean actual hiring or building the applicant pool?"

  • Both - my argument is that demographics should not be a consideration. If the goal is to help disadvantaged people, then help disadvantaged people *regardless* of demographics.

• "IMO, your mistake is that you think when United says they want a more diverse number of CANDIDATES to be pilots it's a quota."

  • When United says they want 50% of pilots trained to be of a certain demographic, that is setting a demographic goal aka quota. There is no way to avoid the fact DEI entails quotas without changing the fundamental definition of words. Even if we ignore United specifically, the DEI pledges of 2020 are a giant smoking gun: [Link]

• "Do you believe there are CURRENTLY people with hiring authority in this country that discriminate against minorities and choose less qualified white candidates?"

  • Yes - the same way there are hiring authorities who choose less qualified candidates from other racial/demographic backgrounds as well. The article you linked earlier mentioned the Harvard case where the data indicated Asians and Whites were the ones facing discrimination - I'll attach the table to this tweet.

  • 

• "Is it possible that if the number of diverse candidates increases, and more minorities are hired than non, it's possible that those minorities are MORE qualified for those positions and the company is a better company for hiring the most qualified candidates that happen to be minorities ?"

  • My argument is not minorities can't be more qualified - Several Asian groups, as one example, have achieved greater levels of success in the West than the White majority (see second attached image).

  • 

  • My argument has been, and remains, demographics should not be a factor. I don't want Whites benefitting from demographic privilege and I don't want minorities benefitting from demographic privilege. Colorblind meritocracy should be the goal.

Mark Cuban:

• 1. The goal isn't to help disadvantaged people. That's what charities are for. Hence the donations. The goal is to help make a company the best it can be. As long as they don't discriminate, they can recruit and hire whoever they think helps them the most. That is the definition of "most qualified" , correct ?

• 2. I'll rephrase the question. If a company only recruits from HBCUs , are you good with it ? Are you ok if a company only recruits from schools that are or almost are exclusively white, are you good with it ?

• 3. Do you believe there are times when a company can be more profitable by hiring a specific demographic ? Say they want to sell to that demographic and they believe having a sales rep from that demographic gives them the best position to succeed ?

• 3. What should be done to the companies that discriminate against more qualified African Americans and hire white candidates instead ? You look at DEI programs as a "trigger" for what you mistakenly believe are quotas. How would you identify the companies that give preference to white candidates when it's comes to recruiting and hiring ?

Rabbit: The folly of these arguments is that you are attempting to decouple a demographic based ideology (DEI) from the demographic based policies that it inevitably ends up enacting. From the article you shared earlier in this thread: - "Make Non-Discrimination a Core Component of the DEI Policy." - "While most organizations have a separate strong non-discrimination policy, such a policy is not always incorporated into a DEI policy." Does it not raise red flags that (even according to the article you shared) DEI neglected to include non-discrimination?

• "The goal isn't to help disadvantaged people. That's what charities are for. Hence the donations. The goal is to help make a company the best it can be."

  • Then what is the point of DEI?

• "As long as they don't discriminate"

  • Even if we accept your euphemism of "expanding the candidate pool" as legitimate, doing this on the basis of demographics is discriminatory.

• "Do you believe there are times when a company can be more profitable by hiring a specific demographic ? Say they want to sell to that demographic and they believe having a sales rep from that demographic gives them the best position to succeed ?"

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Have you have hired people on the basis of demographics on the belief that doing so better positioned your companies to succeed?

• “3. What should be done to the companies that discriminate against more qualified African Americans and hire white candidates instead ?”

  • If the company is discriminating then Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should be relevant here. I also addressed this in my earlier message: My argument has been, and remains, demographics should not be a factor. I don't want Whites benefitting from demographic privilege and I don't want minorities benefitting from demographic privilege. Colorblind meritocracy should be the goal.

• "You look at DEI programs as a "trigger" for what you mistakenly believe are quotas."

  • I don't believe this; I have *observed* this with these being just a couple of examples: - Airbnb: By the end of 2021, 20% of its board of directors and executive team collectively would be made up of people of color. By the end of 2025, Airbnb said, its goal is to have 20% of U.S. employees be underrepresented minorities and for 50% of global employees who identify in the gender binary to be women. - Microsoft: Seeks to double the number of Black managers, senior individual contributors and senior leaders in the U.S. by 2025. The company pledges were grabbed from this compilation here: [Link]

• "How would you identify the companies that give preference to white candidates when it's comes to recruiting and hiring ?"

  • If there is hard evidence, use the CRA. The point is we shouldn't use discrimination to solve discrimination. Many people are falling into the trap of Kendi's mindset which is very regressive.

Mark Cuban: Lots of word salad from you and no answers to the questions Let's be clear. A person from a specific demographic can be the most qualified for a million different reasons and put the company in the best position to succeed. You think mentioning "demographics" is an immediate disqualifier. Anyone who has run a company of size would tell you otherwise. Being a member of a given demographic can be a plus for a company And as far as evidence a company only hires whites and using the CRA, given that a company that only hires whites doesn't tell other candidates they weren't hired for not being white, how do you suggest we find them ? Investigate every company that only has white employees ? Investigate companies that dont have DEI programs ? Both would be wrong. How would you identify them ? And now can you answer the rest of the questions ?

Rabbit:

• "Lots of word salad from you and no answers to the questions"

  • Do you lack self awareness? The entire DEI debate has been moving goalposts and semantic games on your part. Like I said earlier, you don't have a good response to the critiques we are making of DEI so are desperately floundering at this point.

• "Investigate companies that dont have DEI programs ?"

  • You are actually scratching on the surface of the sh*tshow that is discrimination law. Richard Hanania has done a good job of discussing this issue if you are open to checking him out. I reviewed his book [Link] and attached a relevant table as a reply.

• "And now can you answer the rest of the questions?"

  • List out which questions I have not addressed and I will attempt to do so. Thank you. Can you answer any of mine? From the article you shared earlier in this thread: - "Make Non-Discrimination a Core Component of the DEI Policy." - "While most organizations have a separate strong non-discrimination policy, such a policy is not always incorporated into a DEI policy." Does it not raise red flags that (even according to the article you shared) DEI neglected to include non-discrimination?

• "Do you believe there are times when a company can be more profitable by hiring a specific demographic ? Say they want to sell to that demographic and they believe having a sales rep from that demographic gives them the best position to succeed ?"

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Have you have hired people on the basis of demographics on the belief that doing so better positioned your companies to succeed?

Mark Cuban: There you go. Not answering the questions

Rabbit: Trust me. The feeling is mutual. My attached tweet [Link] took your previous reply paragraph by paragraph and attempted to directly address it. Please list any questions I did not answer and I will attempt to do so. Thank you.

At this point of the exchange, Mark Cuban quote tweeted one of my replies in the above exchange which created a new conversation thread. Many of his responses from this point were quote tweets, but the flow was still fairly easy to follow.

Mark Cuban: You start a company. Five successful years later you realize that all of your 30 employees are white men. You decide as CEO, that in order to profitably grow the company further you need diverse perspectives. You decide to find and hire the most qualified African American woman you can find You good with this ?

Rabbit:

• “You decide to find and hire the most qualified African American woman you can find. You good with this ?”

  • If you mean specifically seeking out members of a certain demographic to fill the role, then no. If you mean you ignored demographics during the process and the most qualified person happened to be of a certain demographic (African American woman in your example), then yes. Colorblind meritocracy should be the goal like I’ve been telling you. The issue with DEI is that it does the former, not the latter. See my attached reply for more information [Link]

Mark Cuban: So let's turn it around. You are a CEO of a successful company that has 30 employees that are all black women, and you think a different perspective will help you grow the firm. So you decide you want to hire a white man ? You would be against that right ?

Rabbit: Yes I would be against hiring a White person purely because they are a White person - don't hire anyone (whites, blacks, or otherwise) on the basis of demographics. Colorblind Meritocracy should be the goal like I've repeatedly said over and over. Ironically, your statements prove the point that was being made with the @WuWei113 for Mavericks campaign: [Link]

Mark Cuban: And you forgot to answer how you would identify companies that give preference to white people ?

Rabbit: Like I’ve been saying: My argument has been, and remains, demographics should not be a factor. I don't want Whites benefitting from demographic privilege and I don't want minorities benefitting from demographic privilege. Colorblind meritocracy should be the goal. Discrimination should not be the solution to discrimination.

Mark Cuban: Great. How would you identify the companies that give preference to white people so we can create as much change as you want to have against DEI Programs ?

Rabbit: Two examples from a compilation of DEI pledges in 2020: - Airbnb: By the end of 2021, 20% of its board of directors and executive team collectively would be made up of people of color. By the end of 2025, Airbnb said, its goal is to have 20% of U.S. employees be underrepresented minorities and for 50% of global employees who identify in the gender binary to be women. - Microsoft: Seeks to double the number of Black managers, senior individual contributors and senior leaders in the U.S. by 2025. If there are orgs setting similar quotas to hire Whites then I’m also against that lol. To make a more general statement: I am against the explicit bias we see from DEI and would still be against it if Whites were benefiting. Colorblind Meritocracy is the goal.

Mark Cuban: No companies do that. So How would you identify the companies that give preference to white people so we can create as much change as you want to have against DEI Programs ?

Rabbit:

• "No companies do that."

  • I literally gave examples of companies setting demographic target quotas. If you want to be blind to the truth, that's on you at this point.

• “So How would you identify the companies that give preference to white people so we can create as much change as you want to have against DEI Programs ?”

  • The same way we identified explicit DEI bias: examine corporate hiring policies and call them out when a certain group (regardless of whether it is Whites, Blacks, etc..) are being favored or discriminated against. No matter which way you try to spin it, the solution to discrimination is not more discrimination.

Mark Cuban: Companies that give preference to white hiring don't make proclamations. But you are fine with just waiting for someone using them and then what will you do ? And are you monitoring lawsuits ? And you don't examine actual hiring at all. I have yet to see you reference any actual hiring. No references to EEO reports at all. Or did I miss them ?

Rabbit: I’ve already made it clear I oppose demographic preferences regardless of who benefits. Why can’t you do the same?

I had quote-tweeted one of Cuban’s posts and applied his thought experiments to professional sports.

Mark Cuban: You start a company. Five successful years later you realize that all of your 30 employees are white men. You decide as CEO, that in order to profitably grow the company further you need diverse perspectives. You decide to find and hire the most qualified African American woman you can find You good with this ?

Rabbit:

• “You start a company. Five successful years later you realize that all of your 30 employees are white men. You decide as CEO, that in order to profitably grow the company further you need diverse perspectives. You decide to find and hire the most qualified African American woman you can find.”

  • “You start a basketball team. Five successful years later you realize that all of your 30 players are black men. You decide as coach, that in order to competitively grow the team further you need diverse perspectives. You decide to find and hire the most qualified Asian woman you can find.”

• And that is why @WuWei113 being on the Mavericks is a meme. Mark Cuban might not like it, but the point is entirely valid in regards to these absolutely ridiculous defenses of DEI that have been made.

Mark Cuban quote tweeted one of my earlier replies twice. That second quote tweet’s conversation flow is here:

Rabbit: Yes I would be against hiring a White person purely because they are a White person - don't hire anyone (whites, blacks, or otherwise) on the basis of demographics. Colorblind Meritocracy should be the goal like I've repeatedly said over and over. Ironically, your statements prove the point that was being made with the @WuWei113 for Mavericks campaign: [Link]

Mark Cuban: Now explain how far your demographics extend. Religion ? Politics? Ethnicity ? Geography ?

Rabbit: I believe in a colorblind meritocracy; this means I am against forms of hiring which undercut merit including forms of hiring which cut out merited individuals over their group association(s). I’ve answered plenty of your questions so can you do one for me: Title VIl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Have you have hired people on the basis of demographics on the belief that doing so better positioned your companies to succeed? Thank you 🙏

Mark Cuban:

• I’ve never hired anyone based exclusively on race, gender, religion. I only ever hire the person that will put my business in the best position to succeed.

• And yes, race and gender can be part of the equation. I view diversity as a competitive advantage

• Now how would you propose finding organizations that give preference to white people?

• Why aren’t you working as hard to show examples of white preference as you are DEI ? You claim to abhor both

Rabbit:

• “And yes, race and gender can be part of the equation.”

  • Thank you for your transparency. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

After this, our conversation for the day ended.

January 19, 2024: The EEOC Enters the Chat

The events of this day are particularly interesting as a commissioner of the EEOC chimed in on our conversation.

Mark Cuban: I’ve never hired anyone based exclusively on race, gender, religion. I only ever hire the person that will put my business in the best position to succeed. And yes, race and gender can be part of the equation. I view diversity as a competitive advantage Now how would you propose finding organizations that give preference to white people? Why aren’t you working as hard to show examples of white preference as you are DEI ? You claim to abhor both

Andrea R. Lucas: @mcuban , EEOC Commissioner here. Unfortunately you’re dead wrong on black-letter Title VII law. As a general rule, race/sex can’t even be a “motivating factor”—nor a plus factor, tie-breaker, or tipping point. It’s important employers understand the ground rules here.

Mark Cuban: "race conscious, but neutrally executed" "there is a significant difference between goals and quotas. " "Diversity is good for business". "DE! initiatives should be encouraged" This was a great conversation you had with Jocelyn [Link]. But your position that "people are inherently evil?" Do you truly believe that and think that's how conservatives think.

Rabbit: I don’t think arguing with the EEOC in defense of race/sex factors in hiring is a good idea but you do you.

Mark Cuban: You probably should watch the video. Not all EEOC commissioners agree on everything. In fact, in this video a commissioner gives her position on where you are wrong on goals vs quotas.

Rabbit: Euphemism: A mild, indirect, or vague term for one that is considered harsh, blunt, or offensive. Playing semantic games won’t work here. We all saw what she said in response to our earlier conversation.

The response from the EEOC commissioner resulted in widespread coverage from several outlets:

• Pirate Wires

• Babylon Bee

• Fox News

• New York Post

• The Hill

• Daily Caller

• Valuetainment

Amongst others.

February 03, 2024: Corporate DEI

The conversation on this day focused again on what DEI, in the context of corporations, entails.

Mark Cuban: Look at elonmusk and BillAckman looking to bring the Diversity in DEI to the USA ! And of course, we want all those legal immigrants of age to get jobs.

• So companies with DEI programs can include them in their applicant pools and if they are the most qualified, get a job. (D)

• Once hired, sure would be nice if their employer helped them with programs to asimilate into the workforce(E)

• And as new legal immigrants, hopefully they also were made to feel accepted in the company culture (I)

• You 2 are heros for your support of DEI at a macro level !

BillyM2k: DEI would heavily bias against asian / indian candidates in favor of other minorities please actually understand the problem

Mark Cuban: Where is that written ?

BillyM2k: it’s the result of the implementation of these kinds of programs actual diversity is fine, actually trying to get the best candidates for the job is fine, but that isn’t DEI despite the words that you like hyper focusing on race and “equity” - which is NOT equality, but assuming systemic racism is the reason for all differences in results and ignoring everything else, leads to poor outcomes for everyone! DEI is not about diversity or inclusion, it is about picking winners based on race and not merit - it’s a way to justify and get people like you to champion racism without realizing it please actually understand this, it’s not about the words, it’s about the implementation

Mark Cuban: So you think all businesses in the USA act like Harvard, a college, when it comes to their DEI programs ? That CEOs out there can't think for themselves?

Rabbit: The attached example [Link] addresses Whites but yes DEI discriminates. You admitted to using race/gender variables last week during our exchange.

At this point, Cuban navigated to the tweet I had attached to my reply.

Rabbit: From the 2022 survey: - 52% of Hiring Managers Believe Their Company Practices “Reverse Discrimination” in Hiring - 1 in 6 Have Been Told to Deprioritize Hiring White Men - 53% Believe They Could Be Fired if They Don’t Hire Enough Diverse Employees - 70% Believe Their Company Has DEI Initiatives in Place for Appearances’ Sake

Mark Cuban: So 84 percent of companies have never said not to hire a non-minorty. Correct?

Rabbit: “52% of Hiring Managers Believe Their Company Practices “Reverse Discrimination” in Hiring”

Mark Cuban: Believe is a whole lot different than know or have been told. Which is why they asked if they have been told. Your agree there is a difference? And why won't you use your real name ? I should have asked before. And for the record. Now you use the same 2 graphics and this article from 2022

Rabbit:

• "Believe is a whole lot different than know or have been told. Which is why they asked if they have been told. Your agree there is a difference?"

  • Most people aren't bold enough to outright admit they engage in hiring discrimination lol. When DEI policies are openly setting demographic quotas it isn't hard to put the pieces together.

• "And why won't you use your real name ? I should have asked before."

  • “There are only two ways of telling the complete truth – anonymously and posthumously” - Thomas Sowell

  • There are also concerns for my personal and familial safety. Please do not attempt to dox me.

Although I was initially perturbed by Cuban’s inquiry into my identity I am grateful he respected my request to not bring it up again. The rest of our conversation stayed on topic. The next collection of exchanges will include some duplicate tweets from earlier.

Mark Cuban: So you think all businesses in the USA act like Harvard, a college, when it comes to their DEI programs ? That CEOs out there can't think for themselves?

BillyM2k: obviously not, please don’t strawman or put words into my mouth, it’s very obnoxious and anti-good-faith-discourse you can agree that poor implementation of something that sounds good can lead to poor result, yes? i can agree that having a diverse group of applicants is good, yes? we can probably both agree that you should pick the candidate that is most qualified, correct? so the only actual point of disagreement is you believe your understanding and version of DEI is good - and it sounds to me like it’s fine and dandy - but you seem to discount poor implementations, poor results, and “equity of outcome” being a negative goal - that it makes just as little sense as calling the nba systemically racist because there aren’t enough asian players the argument does not need to be adversarial - in truth, most sane and good people don’t want to be racist and want to be fair - but it’s fair to raise concerns about the ideology being these things leading to unfair, discriminatory practices, can we agree on that?

Mark Cuban: We agree that there can be very poor implementations of DEI. I've said so before. And if you are not part of the DEI is by definition "racist" as @elonmusk has said, we agree there as well. Where we disagree, and my experience says differently, is that DEI is a business "ideology" DEI implementation is a choice. How you implement it is a choice for each business Like any business choice it can be done well or poorly. But to many on this platform, it can t work and they point to anecdotal examples whether Harvard or discussions of goals as proof it's discriminatory. Which IMHO is the real straw man argument There are plenty of companies that have done spectacularly well that have DEI programs Look at the top performing or trillion dollar market cap stocks and find one that doesn't have a DEI program. Why do you think they have done so well in spite of their DEI programs ? Thanks for the discussion

Rabbit: Where I personally disagree is whether race/gender variables should be used - I don’t think these should be a part of the hiring equation at all.

Mark Cuban: Then don't use them in your business. Don't work with companies that do if it bothers you that much. It's that simple

Rabbit: I don’t think anyone should use them. Dont you think it’s backwards to use race and gender in hiring equations? It’s in some sense a debate between colorblindness and discrimination cycles.

At this point, the exchanges between Cuban and myself ended for the day. Although, the conversations in the thread picked up the following day.

February 04, 2024: Equity

The conversation on this day focused primarily on whether the “E” in DEI (Equity) implies equal outcomes. Some earlier tweets from the previous section will be replicated as there are replies to exchanges from the previous day.

Mark Cuban: We agree that there can be very poor implementations of DEI. I've said so before. And if you are not part of the DEI is by definition "racist" as @elonmusk has said, we agree there as well. Where we disagree, and my experience says differently, is that DEI is a business "ideology" DEI implementation is a choice. How you implement it is a choice for each business Like any business choice it can be done well or poorly. But to many on this platform, it can t work and they point to anecdotal examples whether Harvard or discussions of goals as proof it's discriminatory. Which IMHO is the real straw man argument There are plenty of companies that have done spectacularly well that have DEI programs Look at the top performing or trillion dollar market cap stocks and find one that doesn't have a DEI program. Why do you think they have done so well in spite of their DEI programs ? Thanks for the discussion

BillyM2k: i think we can agree on most things while i do think it's still important to understand the greater context of DEI related to the oppressor vs oppressed ideology, equity meaning equal outcome rather than equal opportunity, and other related context and poor implementations and a general underlying movement that i think is quite negative to both business and society as a whole (and is the context behind things elon is saying), at a surface level i can fully understand why it doesn't sound good to say things adjacent to "DEI is bad" however, i follow your general argument that if you decide to implement some kind of diversity programs in a truly positive and fair and business understanding way, it can lead to results that can help companies my guess is the NBA broadening its interview process for coaching has led to more diversity in coaches, which has led to a lot more former basketball player coaches who may not have even been had a chance to be interviewed before, for example so i personally don't think a good, fair, thought out and purposeful diversity program is a bad thing if it involves equality of opportunity and hiring the best possible candidates being the goal to me, this is different than dogmatic DEI ideology, which, in my opinion, doesn't have any potential of good outcomes because it starts with a faulty premise - that all outcomes should be equal for all people does that all make sense? i think in general it's just that people are talking about different things with different contexts xD

Mark Cuban: Who specifically practices dogmatic DEI ideology ? What forces any business to follow what they do ? Why can't they just ignore those who are dogmatic and run their businesses the way they choose ?

BillyM2k: i personally don’t know the full scope, but anecdotally there are companies out there, for example IBM received complaints for it (linked article), from what i can tell it feels like tech companies and universities that are being captured by the more dogmatic ideology so to your point, it’s more of a social contagion than a legally applied one afaik - companies like coinbase, for example, just completely reject the premise and hire the best candidates

Mark Cuban: With all respect, imo, saying “it feels like tech companies and universities that are being captured by the more dogmatic ideology “, is not a solid foundation to dismiss DEI, especially if you agree with some of its principles. The Anti-DEI “movement” here on X refer to the same companies IBM, United, etc and their proclaimed hiring goals as the equivalent of quotas. They are not. And that is evidenced by looking at their EEO reports that show number of employees and trends by demographic But you never see anyone post these reports because it ruins their argument. There are companies with DEI programs where the number of diverse employees has declined Point being that merely having a DEI program, with or wo hiring goals does not mean the number of diverse employees, particularly in management , will increase Wanting to increase the number of diverse applicants by some percentage and actually hiring them are two different things And look at Coinbase ‘s website. They not only have diversity programs, and support for diverse employee groups, they also encourage their vendors to enable the same programs And of course there is @tesla which despite @elonmusk ’s public dismissal of DEI programs, has very rigorous DEI programs on their website and is a majority minority company I know we disagree on this, and that’s fine. But DEI is not an “ideology”. It is a set of business processes that when done well makes a company more profitable. When done poorly, like any other business process , hurts financial results and that company either resolves the problem or finds itself in a difficult position

BillyM2k: hey mark, thanks for the discussion! i think i generally follow your position - i really think the only place we disagree is on semantics, i would consider a good diversity program just a diversity program, and a bad one a “DEI” program with “equity” as its main goal i would also really encourage you to look into “equity” as part of DEI - “What is equity? Equity is about everyone achieving equal outcomes. We all have the same value and deserve a good life, but we all start from a different place.” it’s the key to understanding the more rational arguments against “DEI” as opposed to the more hyperbolic ones - again, if taken more dogmatically, it is not actually about the best for the job or business but about providing equal outcomes for different races regardless of merit, which isn’t particularly good for business and in general doesn’t make sense as there’s a much larger context than “systemic racism” to account for discrepancies in race in different contexts example: the NBA is 70% black and the black population in the usa is 14%, so “equity” would say it is inherently a systemically racist organization, not representative of the us population, and needs to have equal outcomes for every race and every skill level and every height and is generally total nonsense lol and i’m not saying that companies that have a diversity program all do that of course, just that’s what equity really means as part of the greater discourse, and what places like harvard are internally pushing otherwise i don’t have any problem with diversity programs looking for equal opportunities and hiring the best candidates for the jobs, which is what you are calling DEI and i would just call a diversity program and if the E in DEI stood for “equality” rather than “equity” - equal opportunity - i personally wouldn’t have a problem with it other than companies and institutions implementing it without actual business and merit goals in mind!

Mark Cuban: Im sorry. I can say with 100 pct confidence that anyone who believes “Equity” is “about providing equal outcomes” does not understand what the Equity in DEI is. “Equal Outcomes” is the disclaimer the Anti DEI movement uses to try to scapegoat DEI as unusable and unsuitable. You will not find that in any corporate DEI program. Ever. (Feel free to provide a company website that says equality of outcomes to prove me wrong ) It’s just the usual ridiculous commentary. How would that even work? Have everyone who started the same day at comparable jobs all have the exact same career progression ? I look forward to all the “at the company my brother’s ex-gf’s cousin worked at so and so didn’t get the job because they promoted all the diverse candidates. Even though everyone knew he was the most qualified and the HR manager even told him so” reports in the replies 😂

Rabbit:

• “Im sorry. I can say with 100 pct confidence that anyone who believes “Equity” is “about providing equal outcomes” does not understand what the Equity in DEI is.”

  • Will you say that about Kamala Harris?

Mark Cuban: What company has she written the DEI policy for ? And I don’t even know who the other guy you use all the time is. But unless he puts together programs for a company, I don’t care What one person says is irrelevant. Show me the written company policy or their website talking about it. Not some one off commentary from people who are not in the business world And here is the entire Kamala Harris video [Link]

Rabbit:

• "What company has she written the DEI policy for ?"

  • DEI is a specific ideology. You are either practicing it or you ain't. E means Equity which means mechanisms to equalize outcomes. No amount of self conceived fan fictions of DEI will change its nature.

• "And I don’t even know who the other guy you use all the time is. But unless he puts together programs for a company, I don’t care"

  • Are you referring to Ibram X Kendi? That would be the anti-racist speaker who was given millions by individuals like Jack Dorsey to promote his ideology.

• "Show me the written company policy or their website talking about it. Not some one off commentary from people who are not in the business world"

  • Where are the people in the business world getting the inspiration for DEI from? Something as silly as DEI did not sprout in the business sector - it was the brain child of obscure college departments that eventually graduated into the broader workforce. I can understand wanting businesses to be left alone to do their thing but they do not exist in a vacuum. The VP of the United States stating equity means equal outcomes isn't something you can casually write off as a "one off commentary."

From here the conversation shifted threads.

Mythinformed: Why do the Equity activists say themselves that it means equal outcomes??? They admit it, yet you deny it.

Mark Cuban: You have to ask them. Maybe they try to be performative like the anti Equity Activists are on here. All I know is that none of them have ever had any influence on anything I have ever done. Nor has anyone asked me questions about it (outside of on here ). Equity is a pretty simple concept for an entrepreneur. Put people in a position to succeed and then let’s all do our best to make the company successful so we all benefit. In the companies I have started it’s really easy because I give every employee stock and everyone has gotten paid when I sold the company. No equality of outcomes. Just aligning incentives as best we can.

Rabbit: You stated this earlier: “Equal Outcomes is the disclaimer the Anti DEI movement uses to try to scapegoat DEI as unusable and unsuitable.” That explanation doesn't hold up considering the VP of the United States has stated equity entails equal outcomes.

• "All I know is that none of them have ever had any influence on anything I have ever done."

  • The VPOTUS has no influence on anything you ever do?

Mark Cuban: lol. Maybe you are easily influenced. I’m not. So I can say with certainty that I have never been influenced in my decision making in any way by any POTUS or VP

Rabbit:

• "Maybe you are easily influenced. I’m not"

  • I mean you got fooled into being a DEI apologist so there's that 🤷‍♂️

As of this article being written, that was the last exchange I had with Mark Cuban. Although he did not respond, I did compile a series of examples showcasing Equity entailing equal outcomes with some help from James Lindsay.

Final Thoughts

One thing these exchanges with Mark Cuban have made clear to me is that it seems like it will take a lot more effort to convince DEI Apologists that they have been unwitting participants in a bigoted ideology. Some of that will come from social stigma as popular sentiment continues to turn against DEI programs and other progress will come as a result of more people becoming aware of what DEI entails. In addition, an official from the EEOC publicly taking an anti-DEI stance might have wider ramifications outside the scope of our conversations.

I will end this article off on a somewhat positive note: despite our disagreements, I greatly appreciate Mark Cuban for not blocking me at any point. I gained more respect for Mark Cuban due to his willingness to engage in tough conversations and the courage he displayed by standing up for his ideas. Many on all sides of the political spectrum should follow Cuban’s example in this regard and engage with those they disagree with. I hope we get to engage more in the future on 𝕏.

Appendix

Evidence for deleted tweets that was not provided in other parts of the article:

01/18/2024:

Additional Tweets from 𝕏 that were not included in the main parts of the article and are still relevant to the DEI dialogue with Mark Cuban.

Link

Link

Thread from Malibu Stacy on the moving goalposts in the DEI talks:

Stacy:

• The thing that bothers me most in this still-ongoing Mark Cuban/DEI saga is that rather than picking a particular principle or premise to defend (even a bad one), he just keeps moving the goalposts. I've seen him argue all of the following four points (see next tweet):

• 1. DEI doesn't lead to discrimination; it just expands the applicant pool 2. Private companies can do what they want, so it's ok if they favor certain groups 3. DEI isn't in conflict with merit-based hiring 4. Hiring is *always* subjective; who's to say what merit even means?

• This sort of behavior in arguments actually bothers me more than when people stick to a consistent but wrong position. It reminds me of @Rationalist69 's former bio, which sums up so many Twitter arguments: "Right when you think you have the answers, I change the questions."

• Lest I be accused of strawmanning, here are screenshots of Cuban arguing points 1-4 I mentioned: 1. DEI isn't about discrimination; it just expands the applicant pool to include more qualified candidates.

  

• 2. Private companies can do what they want, so demographic preferences are ok.

  

• 3. DEI isn't in conflict with merit-based hiring

  

• 4. Who's to say what merit-based hiring is? Is it even real?

  

  

• I think the "motivated incoherence" here comes from the fact that Cuban wants to defend both of the following positions: 1. DEI simply expands recruitment rather than leading to racial discrimination. 2. To the extent that DEI does lead to racial discrimination, it is justified.

• In other words, he's trying to make an "it's not happening, but it's good that it is" argument. I think these arguments lead to a lot of motivated incoherence and goalpost-shifting to draw attention away from the contradiction at the heart of the position being defended.