3 ms·

That's a bit of what I mean though...what counts as diverse? Diversity is such a vague word that anyone with some attribute outside of the norm in an industry m

That's a bit of what I mean though...what counts as diverse? Diversity is such a vague word that anyone with some attribute outside of the norm in an industry might qualify. Do we discriminate against some forms of diversity, and not others? I think that hirings/firings should be done because of performance, as that is the only way to really make it fair in the long run. Its great to have people from different backgrounds be on the team, but that shouldn't be the sole defining decision.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> Diversity is such a vague word that anyone with some attribute outside of the norm in an industry might qualify. Right, the term has no inherent abstract usefulness, it must be defined in each specific case. You can assess diversity of a group on a certain axis, but not generic "diversity" without defining it. But you're still thinking of it as something possessed by an individual and that's making it hard to see the value. Adding a specific person may increase the diversity of the team on a certain axis, but that's a trait of the team not that person. > as that is the only way to really make it fair in the long run. I don't think this is wrong, but the way you state it makes me think there are several assumptions under it that are worth prodding at. Like, is fairness the goal? To whom? only the members of the team being discussed, or all potential candidates, or society as a whole, or what? Or, what is "performance?" and defined by whom? If a member of the team underperforms their peers on technical assessments but, for example, speaks an uncommon language that gives them access to and business-valuable insight into their users, is that performance? These are judgements that need to be made, not objective facts that can be derived from the world. I don't know of anyone seriously proposing that "diversity" be the sole deciding factor in a hiring or firing. But that assessing the overall diversity of a team on certain axes can surely be one of several things weighed when making these decisions, along with things like tenure, performance, communication skills, morale, etc.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> Diversity is such a vague word that anyone with some attribute outside of the norm in an industry might qualify. Right, the term has no inherent abstract usefulness, it must be defined in each specific case. You can assess diversity of a group on a certain axis, but not generic "diversity" without defining it. But you're still thinking of it as something possessed by an individual and that's making it hard to see the value. Adding a specific person may increase the diversity of the team on a certain axis, but that's a trait of the team not that person. > as that is the only way to really make it fair in the long run. I don't think this is wrong, but the way you state it makes me think there are several assumptions under it that are worth prodding at. Like, is fairness the goal? To whom? only the members of the team being discussed, or all potential candidates, or society as a whole, or what? Or, what is "performance?" and defined by whom? If a member of the team underperforms their peers on technical assessments but, for example, speaks an uncommon language that gives them access to and business-valuable insight into their users, is that performance? These are judgements that need to be made, not objective facts that can be derived from the world. I don't know of anyone seriously proposing that "diversity" be the sole deciding factor in a hiring or firing. But that assessing the overall diversity of a team on certain axes can surely be one of several things weighed when making these decisions, along with things like tenure, performance, communication skills, morale, etc.