3 ms·

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

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.

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.