3 ms·

is it really that fuzzy? if so, I'd like to hear how divergent the views are on what diversity means in first place.

uberman 6y ago
It could easily be argued that the diversity you describe (one where color, gender, ethnicity is not considered) is better described as a meritocracy. Some believe that a meritocracy leads naturally to a diverse workforce, while others oppose this viewpoint believing that a meritocracy inherently privileges some select group. I don't see a way to reconcile these perspectives. Some believe that members of selected groups should be privileged over others to make up for historic/systemic biases and that is diversity. Others see this as hypocritical new form of *-ism. Some believe that diversity is achieved when your pool of talent is reflective of, and represents the community, but what community? Is it the community that represents your clients, the community that represents your job applicants, the community that represents the region you do business in? Some believe that diversity is achieved when your pool of talent is reflective of all possible communities. Some believe that diversity means "not the privileged class" (however they want to define it). Some believe a predominantly white college is not diverse, while a predominantly black college is, others will say neither college is diverse as they don't have the requisite representation of some other community of interest. Finally, I believe it is not possible at the moment to pick a universal definition for diversity given the diametrically opposed views surrounding "affirmative action" and "meritocracy". Each camp believes their perspective leads to diversity while the other's lead to oppression. These are just the various (potentially conflicting) interpretations of diversity that come to mind. I want to be clear here that I am not taking a stand on any definition of "diversity" just that this term clearly means different things to different people. I also want to be clear that I believe companies can pick a definition and strive to actualize it. Even giant multi-nationals. In the end, any objective to promote diversity is probably better than no objective to do so. For what it is worth, Forbes maintains a list of the "Best Workplaces for Diversity". https://fortune.com/best-workplaces-for-diversity/ https://fortune.com/best-workplaces-for-diversity/ That seems as good a place to start as any.

It could easily be argued that the diversity you describe (one where color, gender, ethnicity is not considered) is better described as a meritocracy. Some believe that a meritocracy leads naturally to a diverse workforce, while others oppose this viewpoint believing that a meritocracy inherently privileges some select group. I don't see a way to reconcile these perspectives. Some believe that members of selected groups should be privileged over others to make up for historic/systemic biases and that is diversity. Others see this as hypocritical new form of *-ism. Some believe that diversity is achieved when your pool of talent is reflective of, and represents the community, but what community? Is it the community that represents your clients, the community that represents your job applicants, the community that represents the region you do business in? Some believe that diversity is achieved when your pool of talent is reflective of all possible communities. Some believe that diversity means "not the privileged class" (however they want to define it). Some believe a predominantly white college is not diverse, while a predominantly black college is, others will say neither college is diverse as they don't have the requisite representation of some other community of interest. Finally, I believe it is not possible at the moment to pick a universal definition for diversity given the diametrically opposed views surrounding "affirmative action" and "meritocracy". Each camp believes their perspective leads to diversity while the other's lead to oppression. These are just the various (potentially conflicting) interpretations of diversity that come to mind. I want to be clear here that I am not taking a stand on any definition of "diversity" just that this term clearly means different things to different people. I also want to be clear that I believe companies can pick a definition and strive to actualize it. Even giant multi-nationals. In the end, any objective to promote diversity is probably better than no objective to do so. For what it is worth, Forbes maintains a list of the "Best Workplaces for Diversity". https://fortune.com/best-workplaces-for-diversity/ https://fortune.com/best-workplaces-for-diversity/ That seems as good a place to start as any.