3 ms·
I think the post boils down to him not wanting to spend any effort accommodating diversity. It's a valid opinion but I don't see how anything he wrote would swa
by tootie 4y ago
I think the post boils down to him not wanting to spend any effort accommodating diversity. It's a valid opinion but I don't see how anything he wrote would sway anyone one way or the other.
I think he's also wrong in the factual sense about what diversity initiatives are for. It's not actually that diversity is an automatic net win for companies because diverse workers are better. It exists specifically to combat bias and discrimination. Both conscious and unconscious. It's literally anti racism (or anti misogyny or anti homophobia etc). I support DEI programs because that's a laudable goal unto itself. Even if it makes a company less profitable. I think the goal of any human endeavor should be to make the world a marginally better place. Not just to maximize profit.
- tptacek 4y agoHe's hung up on the Supreme Court's rationalization of Affirmative Action, which is why he's wedged in this one embarrassingly narrow notion of what "diversity" is for. Even within that notion, he hasn't actually made a valid argument; by the logic he's using, you could evaluate a diversity program based on how many flat-earthers it admits.
- defen 4y ago> Even within that notion, he hasn't actually made a valid argument; by the logic he's using, you could evaluate a diversity program based on how many flat-earthers it admits. This single sentence is a far better rebuttal of the post than your initial one which generated a lot of heat :)