Regardless of your political disposition, Elizabeth Warren's DNA results shine a spotlight on the practice of "diversity" hiring. Namely, if diversity is so important, how can companies rely solely on the word of an applicant to identify their ethnicity? Especially when we're constantly reminded in these DNA Testing commercials that most Americans are honestly mistaken about their actual heritage.
I repeatedly brought up this issue, 20 years ago, when I worked for the Department of Undergraduate Admissions at the University of Notre Dame. Admissions officers would go to great lengths to corroborate a student's test scores, GPA, legacy status, place of birth, etc. Yet, they blindly accepted whatever box a student checked to identify their background. When this was just as important as the other factors in determining whether or not they, or more importantly, another applicant, was admitted into the next year's Freshman class. It made no sense.
But, back then, verifying the veracity of a student's heritage was either totally inaccessible or cost prohibitive. Today, it costs less to take a 23 and Me test than it does to send in a college application. If Universities, like corporations, espouse the importance of "diversity", then they had better depend on more than just an applicant's word. If diversity really matters, than a serious interviewer must Insist on DNA results from all candidates for any position in which race or heritage are considered in the final decision.
The only alternative is something even more radical. Something I fear to even put down in words. We could try to ignore the person's race, gender, sexuality, affiliations, religion and other factors which have no impact on their qualifications and...
Dare I speak it?
Try hiring applicants based on merit.