Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was simply trying to clarify the direction of his questioning as while you didnt understand, it made perfect sense to me.
Also, who said anything about weakening your staff? Are you assuming increasing diversity would weaken your staff? Because i never once proposed hiring someone who was under qualified(or less qualified) simply due to their race.
selecting people based on their race rather than qualities you feel are really pertinent to the job is weakening your staff.
But if the two are both about equally qualified, i think there is a benefit to leaning towards increasing the diversity of the group.
Why?
How do you know which candidate is more 'diverse' than the other?
What criteria would you use to determine that?
The most critical criteria to introduce new ideas and concepts in jobs where, that is highly prized, must be determined on an individual basis. It is individual ideas, vision and achievement that makes diversity valuable.
Unfortunately diversity has been hijacked and all manner of categorical differences made to qualify as 'desirable'. In that way anyone who endorses the fedral/social justice definition of 'diversity' is not intelligent enough to work with as they are too biased and foster a less than efficient workplace. More prevelant in business who have to deal with federal regs and want to make nice to curry favor.
Qualified, as in job experience can be almost irrelevant depending on the needs of the position and predicted behavior which must be assessed during an interview. It would be a huge mistake to look only at experience and not comportment and personal presentation.
How do you know which candidate is more 'diverse' than the other?
What criteria would you use to determine that?
The most critical criteria to introduce new ideas and concepts in jobs where, that is highly prized, must be determined on an individual basis. It is individual ideas, vision and achievement that makes diversity valuable.
Unfortunately diversity has been hijacked and all manner of categorical differences made to qualify as 'desirable'. In that way anyone who endorses the fedral/social justice definition of 'diversity' is not intelligent enough to work with as they are too biased and foster a less than efficient workplace. More prevelant in business who have to deal with federal regs and want to make nice to curry favor.
Qualified, as in job experience can be almost irrelevant depending on the needs of the position and predicted behavior which must be assessed during an interview. It would be a huge mistake to look only at experience and not comportment and personal presentation.
Why? Because the current system is flawed. Look at companies and you will see the percentage of minorities in the higher positions is no where close to that of the population. This is due to a number of complex reasons, but one of which is people doing the hiring aren't necessarily giving them a fair chance because they dont feel they are qualified. I am with you that people need to be judged on an individual basis but thats not whats being done out there. And then you wonder why we have threads about why newark hasn't gotten better. Its because many of the people there arent getting a fair shake when they try to get a job. Times that by like 5+ generations and the fact that its the same in most of our other institutions (education, legal, financial) and well.... you have a vicious cycle of poverty.
You're probably right. It's just that the tenor of Cap'n's posts can sometimes raise certain questions......
Diversity should not be the only consideration, but it benefits all of us if people from all groups get chances for inclusion.
Diversity should not be a criterion at all. The criteria should be those factors which will have the greatest positive effect upon the desired output. These are typically education/training, certifications, experience, skill set, etc.
Real diversity is organic, not the result of a process designed to select individuals on the basis of some desired trait.
Times that by like 5+ generations and the fact that its the same in most of our other institutions (education, legal, financial) and well.... you have a vicious cycle of poverty.
Diversity should not be a criterion at all. The criteria should be those factors which will have the greatest positive effect upon the desired output. These are typically education/training, certifications, experience, skill set, etc.
Real diversity is organic, not the result of a process designed to select individuals on the basis of some desired trait.
Not in a defined number per company or institution maybe. But if diversity was not a consideration, we'd still have a lilywhite, WASP elite at all the Ivy League schools and large firms. No Jews, Asians, blacks, hispanics, etc. To refer to a Dave Chappelle skit, Jews have only been given honorary whiteness in the last 50-60 years. Condi Rice & Colin Powell sneaked in too.
"Diversity" in this day and age is just Political Correctness speak to justify hiring as few white males as possible regardless of whatever their qualifications.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
