4 ms·

A big part of the rational and moral justification for diversity initiatives and affirmative action programs, as I understand them, is as a means to help correc

A big part of the rational and moral justification for diversity initiatives and affirmative action programs, as I understand them, is as a means to help correct the history of institutional racism and discrimination in this country. So while the idea that meeting and working "with folks from all over the world—Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, and others" is appealing, for me it sidesteps the major issues diversity efforts should be addressing. And as an outsourcing mechanism, it can serve as a means of wage suppression, which has also exacerbated social divisions in this country.

forinti 9y ago
I think more emphasis should be given on the benefit that diversity brings to the organization. A university or a company with lots of young white middle-class people will miss a lot of ideias that people from other backgrounds might bring.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  This gets trotted out a lot, but has anyone actually compared the benefits of diversity versus monoculture in terms of long-term corporate performance? If we look at something like nations, its not immediately clear that diversity is a benefit: sure, it brings a plethora of perspectives and components from which the nation can draw, but it also makes it harder to develop a unified identity from which cooperative actions can extend and is a frequent source of internal conflict. At first blush, both of these factors are present in companies as well. I'm not "anti-diversity" or whatever pejorative people are going to trot out to ignore the question, I just don't know that we should be basing pro-diversity arguments on dubious claims.
  - j45 9y ago
    It makes it harder to develop a unified national identity if any one group believes they are the truth path and owners of universal values like kindness and goodness. The thing is, we all have in common these universal skills of kindness, goodness, neighborliness, hard work, love of family, value of education for children, value of opportunities, etc. Looking in a place like Canada, while not perfect, it is a lot better, and it starts with not as much overt righteousness.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      We can look at places like Scandanavia (historically) for an example of a very healthy populace in a monoculture, and the present struggles there for problems with diversifying a monoculture. You seem to have a very strawman version of what a monoculture means: you don't have to be putting down other cultures, but taking advantage of in-group feeling by, eg, dressing alike can confer a greater sense of community, which can benefit the organization as a whole. Similarly, the things you listed are empty platitudes -- where cultures vary is how they implement those ideals and the trade-offs between ideals that they settle on in that implementation. To use an exaggeration: pointing out to sheep that wolves just want a happy life too doesn't do anything to alleviate the problem that for the wolves, that means eating sheep and for the sheep, that means not being eaten.
      - j45 9y ago
        Um, not really a strawman or reasoning bias, my world viewpoint is one from a lens of diversity. I don't believe I said anything against monoculture, or at all, and I would appreciate it if words aren't put in my mouth on that. In the interest of a productive conversation, it would be nice if we can talk about diversity first as it's the topic at hand. I'll try my best to not trivialize or presumptively interpret your words and the motivation behind them, especially where it seems holes are being poked to lessen the relevance of having a conversation about openly entertaining a viewpoint that may not align with your own as may be happening. It's not clear to me what's giving the presumption or perception of authority to be tell anyone how their experience is or is not valid and how it may be trivialized into an empty platitude. A two way street of respect isn't easy and participating in it requires both parties to do work, even if one finds it a chore and wishes everyone should just be like them. I believe deeply in, and practice meaningful intercultural exchange to bring societies together, beyond entry level introductions of sipping chai lattes and yoga. This isn't easy, of course as every group has it's idiot fringe. Not being sure what your perspective or experience is. I'm a visible minority in both numbers and other ways. From that experience, I can share a bit more. This experience includes being part of a monoculture that can require perceived outsiders to be twice as monocultural as native monoculturalists to be monocultural enough from the monocultural authorities. Diversity requires being open minded to find commonalities from all citizens participating in it, reluctantly or not. Some may say that form of diversity may be a universal monocultural. My points are based on direct experiences that shouldn't be trivialized or summed up nicely in a few sentences to fit another's mental model. Happy to hop on a skype call if you want to chat. I excel in environments where two people are willing to look at themselves as much as wanting others to only look at themselves, and totally open to learning more about monoculture.
- jklinger410 9y ago
  Has anyone ever done a study showing that teams with diverse backgrounds manage to come up with better ideas than homogeneous ones? I hear this line of logic quite a bit, that "white middle-class people" can only think within their demographic. It seems like a rather regressive kind of logic, that someone's perception, ability to empathize and problem solve, is limited by stereotypes about the demographic they belong to.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    This has been extensively studied. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diversity+causing+better+outcomes&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA9ZSOneHVAhWpr1QKHQs6BtsQgQMIIzAA https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diversity+causing+bette...
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Could you point out specific articles? There seems to be a lot about learners, evolution, and theory on that page, but actual measurements seem sparse. (Only 2 in the first 10 are even on this topic.) One of the relevant links mentions: > Empirical research on whether and how diversity is actually related to work group functioning is limited, however, and the evidence is mixed, depending in part on what kinds of differences constitute the "diversity" in question (see Milliken and Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996, for reviews). Researchers have examined the impact of diversity in identity group memberships, such as race and sex (e.g., Cox, 1993; Jackson and Ruderman, 1995); organizational group memberships, such as hierarchical position or organizational function (e.g., Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992); and individual characteristics, such as idiosyncratic attitudes, values, and preferences (e.g., Hoffman, 1959; Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins, 1989; Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Although certain types of diversity appear to be beneficial, studies focused on race and gender have demonstrated both positive and negative outcomes (see Williams and O'Reilly, 1998, for review), suggesting that certain conditions may moderate these outcomes. To date, however, most scholars have only speculated as to what these conditions might be. As a result, consultants and managers interested in diversity have had to rely largely on some combination of common sense and good faith for the rationales they advance about why and how companies should address the issue. (The other relevant link is a book, which doesn't have an abstract in the same sense.)
- devmunchies 9y ago
  This is dangerous thinking. Its skin-deep diversity. This makes it ok to look at a person and assume they have a typical middle class upbringing, but you don't know anything about that person. They could have grew up doing hard labor on an almond farm in central California and then lived a few years in haiti before going to college. Diversity does increase innovation, but its a diversity of experience and a diversity of thought and not based on skin color and gender.
  - j45 9y ago
    Skin deep diversity is a little dangerous maybe if it's the only kind of diversity. With gender diversity, and all other types of diversity, the goals of diversity would be ironic if they want to cut visible minorities (by percentage of population and representation).
  - roguecoder 9y ago
    You can't have a representative group without diversity of gender and race. They may not be sufficient, but they are necessary precursors. Additionally, of course, a system that even implicitly excludes people on the basis of gender or race is inherently unjust, whereas experience can reasonably be a requirement for a particular position when it results in necessary skills.
    - jasode 9y ago
      >You can't have a representative group without diversity of gender and race. I think devmunchies' point is that if you have a finite set of job positions... e.g. 3 jobs, you might have the following situations: Group 1: 1) white man (Democrat Stanford grad) 2) white woman (Democrat Stanford grad) 3) black man (Democrat Stanford grad) Group 2: 1) white man (Democrat Stanford grad) 3) white man (Libertarian Kansas kid self-taught) 2) white man (South Africa bootcamp grad) Depending on what's important, Group 2 would be seen as "more diverse and representative" even though the skin color is all the same. In that case, diversity of thought is valued more than diversity of skin color.
mixmastamyk 9y ago
Obviously, not everyone lives in this country. Assuming the US, I'm also regularly amused that Americans think they invented racism.

forinti 9y ago

I think more emphasis should be given on the benefit that diversity brings to the organization. A university or a company with lots of young white middle-class people will miss a lot of ideias that people from other backgrounds might bring.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
This gets trotted out a lot, but has anyone actually compared the benefits of diversity versus monoculture in terms of long-term corporate performance? If we look at something like nations, its not immediately clear that diversity is a benefit: sure, it brings a plethora of perspectives and components from which the nation can draw, but it also makes it harder to develop a unified identity from which cooperative actions can extend and is a frequent source of internal conflict. At first blush, both of these factors are present in companies as well. I'm not "anti-diversity" or whatever pejorative people are going to trot out to ignore the question, I just don't know that we should be basing pro-diversity arguments on dubious claims.
- j45 9y ago
  It makes it harder to develop a unified national identity if any one group believes they are the truth path and owners of universal values like kindness and goodness. The thing is, we all have in common these universal skills of kindness, goodness, neighborliness, hard work, love of family, value of education for children, value of opportunities, etc. Looking in a place like Canada, while not perfect, it is a lot better, and it starts with not as much overt righteousness.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    We can look at places like Scandanavia (historically) for an example of a very healthy populace in a monoculture, and the present struggles there for problems with diversifying a monoculture. You seem to have a very strawman version of what a monoculture means: you don't have to be putting down other cultures, but taking advantage of in-group feeling by, eg, dressing alike can confer a greater sense of community, which can benefit the organization as a whole. Similarly, the things you listed are empty platitudes -- where cultures vary is how they implement those ideals and the trade-offs between ideals that they settle on in that implementation. To use an exaggeration: pointing out to sheep that wolves just want a happy life too doesn't do anything to alleviate the problem that for the wolves, that means eating sheep and for the sheep, that means not being eaten.
    - j45 9y ago
      Um, not really a strawman or reasoning bias, my world viewpoint is one from a lens of diversity. I don't believe I said anything against monoculture, or at all, and I would appreciate it if words aren't put in my mouth on that. In the interest of a productive conversation, it would be nice if we can talk about diversity first as it's the topic at hand. I'll try my best to not trivialize or presumptively interpret your words and the motivation behind them, especially where it seems holes are being poked to lessen the relevance of having a conversation about openly entertaining a viewpoint that may not align with your own as may be happening. It's not clear to me what's giving the presumption or perception of authority to be tell anyone how their experience is or is not valid and how it may be trivialized into an empty platitude. A two way street of respect isn't easy and participating in it requires both parties to do work, even if one finds it a chore and wishes everyone should just be like them. I believe deeply in, and practice meaningful intercultural exchange to bring societies together, beyond entry level introductions of sipping chai lattes and yoga. This isn't easy, of course as every group has it's idiot fringe. Not being sure what your perspective or experience is. I'm a visible minority in both numbers and other ways. From that experience, I can share a bit more. This experience includes being part of a monoculture that can require perceived outsiders to be twice as monocultural as native monoculturalists to be monocultural enough from the monocultural authorities. Diversity requires being open minded to find commonalities from all citizens participating in it, reluctantly or not. Some may say that form of diversity may be a universal monocultural. My points are based on direct experiences that shouldn't be trivialized or summed up nicely in a few sentences to fit another's mental model. Happy to hop on a skype call if you want to chat. I excel in environments where two people are willing to look at themselves as much as wanting others to only look at themselves, and totally open to learning more about monoculture.
jklinger410 9y ago
Has anyone ever done a study showing that teams with diverse backgrounds manage to come up with better ideas than homogeneous ones? I hear this line of logic quite a bit, that "white middle-class people" can only think within their demographic. It seems like a rather regressive kind of logic, that someone's perception, ability to empathize and problem solve, is limited by stereotypes about the demographic they belong to.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  This has been extensively studied. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diversity+causing+better+outcomes&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA9ZSOneHVAhWpr1QKHQs6BtsQgQMIIzAA https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diversity+causing+bette...
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Could you point out specific articles? There seems to be a lot about learners, evolution, and theory on that page, but actual measurements seem sparse. (Only 2 in the first 10 are even on this topic.) One of the relevant links mentions: > Empirical research on whether and how diversity is actually related to work group functioning is limited, however, and the evidence is mixed, depending in part on what kinds of differences constitute the "diversity" in question (see Milliken and Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996, for reviews). Researchers have examined the impact of diversity in identity group memberships, such as race and sex (e.g., Cox, 1993; Jackson and Ruderman, 1995); organizational group memberships, such as hierarchical position or organizational function (e.g., Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992); and individual characteristics, such as idiosyncratic attitudes, values, and preferences (e.g., Hoffman, 1959; Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins, 1989; Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Although certain types of diversity appear to be beneficial, studies focused on race and gender have demonstrated both positive and negative outcomes (see Williams and O'Reilly, 1998, for review), suggesting that certain conditions may moderate these outcomes. To date, however, most scholars have only speculated as to what these conditions might be. As a result, consultants and managers interested in diversity have had to rely largely on some combination of common sense and good faith for the rationales they advance about why and how companies should address the issue. (The other relevant link is a book, which doesn't have an abstract in the same sense.)
devmunchies 9y ago
This is dangerous thinking. Its skin-deep diversity. This makes it ok to look at a person and assume they have a typical middle class upbringing, but you don't know anything about that person. They could have grew up doing hard labor on an almond farm in central California and then lived a few years in haiti before going to college. Diversity does increase innovation, but its a diversity of experience and a diversity of thought and not based on skin color and gender.
- j45 9y ago
  Skin deep diversity is a little dangerous maybe if it's the only kind of diversity. With gender diversity, and all other types of diversity, the goals of diversity would be ironic if they want to cut visible minorities (by percentage of population and representation).
- roguecoder 9y ago
  You can't have a representative group without diversity of gender and race. They may not be sufficient, but they are necessary precursors. Additionally, of course, a system that even implicitly excludes people on the basis of gender or race is inherently unjust, whereas experience can reasonably be a requirement for a particular position when it results in necessary skills.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >You can't have a representative group without diversity of gender and race. I think devmunchies' point is that if you have a finite set of job positions... e.g. 3 jobs, you might have the following situations: Group 1: 1) white man (Democrat Stanford grad) 2) white woman (Democrat Stanford grad) 3) black man (Democrat Stanford grad) Group 2: 1) white man (Democrat Stanford grad) 3) white man (Libertarian Kansas kid self-taught) 2) white man (South Africa bootcamp grad) Depending on what's important, Group 2 would be seen as "more diverse and representative" even though the skin color is all the same. In that case, diversity of thought is valued more than diversity of skin color.

mixmastamyk 9y ago

Obviously, not everyone lives in this country. Assuming the US, I'm also regularly amused that Americans think they invented racism.