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 think diversity is a great thing for the benefits of exchanging ideas among various cultures and people of different education and experiences.
Many times, however, it seems as though diversity is wanted only to show that a company has equality and the benefits of diversity seem irrelavant. For example, if a particular organization or disipline is composed of 93% men and only 7% women, some people will clammer that "we need more women in (this or that)." If that is the case, many people seem to make the case that women are being excluded from that situation. What if they aren't being excluded, but just don't want to be a part of this or that? Should we have them there just to be there?
I have heard of companies going out of their way to hire people of a certain race, sex, nationality or whatever just to say they have so many of "this or that" type of quality, with no regard to the quality of the personnel being obtained. Another example: If I advertise a need for 7 people who have a certain training and 6 of these people who are qualified and HIRED are chinese, why should it matter that I am not diverse enough (for some people) if qualified people get the jobs?
So, I ask, is this country advocating diversity just for diversity's sake?
I think diversity is a great thing for the benefits of exchanging ideas among various cultures and people of different education and experiences.
Many times, however, it seems as though diversity is wanted only to show that a company has equality and the benefits of diversity seem irrelavant. For example, if a particular organization or disipline is composed of 93% men and only 7% women, some people will clammer that "we need more women in (this or that)." If that is the case, many people seem to make the case that women are being excluded from that situation. What if they aren't being excluded, but just don't want to be a part of this or that? Should we have them there just to be there?
I have heard of companies going out of their way to hire people of a certain race, sex, nationality or whatever just to say they have so many of "this or that" type of quality, with no regard to the quality of the personnel being obtained. Another example: If I advertise a need for 7 people who have a certain training and 6 of these people who are qualified and HIRED are chinese, why should it matter that I am not diverse enough (for some people) if qualified people get the jobs?
So, I ask, is this country advocating diversity just for diversity's sake?
Good question, I had a similar thread while back no one could explain what the diversity thing is about.....just be prepared to be called a racist for asking the question.
Why did you leap to the country at large in your final line? I do think that in corporate settings (the workplace, the university), "diversity" has become a pretty empty slogan based on getting a few non-white faces into the company photo rather than any serious interest in getting people from different backgrounds working together and learning from each other.
I still think it's important for any institution that wants its members to have a good grasp on (or be able to sell to, or to learn about) a pluralist society to have people from different backgrounds within it. The question is whether the implementation of our current diversity initiatives is effective in this regard.
If a company or organization wants diversity for the sake of diversity, then that's their business. It's up to the individual businesses to implement diversity policies as they see fit.
I don't get any heartburn about diversity. It's not a big deal to me.
Diversity only got about as deep as melanin and genitalia differences and seems to have gotten stuck there.
Many that crow the loudest about "diversity" don't seem comfortable with the diversity of ideas and thoughts any more than those they accuse of being "judgemental" or "close minded".
If a company or organization wants diversity for the sake of diversity, then that's their business. It's up to the individual businesses to implement diversity policies as they see fit.
I don't get any heartburn about diversity. It's not a big deal to me.
To everyone so far:
Now that it was brought up, naming the country as a whole doesn't seem logical. You are right, it is only the company's business why they have diversity policies, but if the policy gets someone hired OVER someone more qualified - assuming diversity is the real and only reason - they are now counteracting other "priorities".
Diversity based on gender and color of skin is illusion.
Diversity of ideas and thoughts is relatively uncommon.
As long as everyone believes that social stratification and hegemony are fantastic concepts to embrace and promote then all is wonderful in the land of America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1
Diversity only got about as deep as melanin and genitalia differences and seems to have gotten stuck there.
Many that crow the loudest about "diversity" don't seem comfortable with the diversity of ideas and thoughts any more than those they accuse of being "judgemental" or "close minded".
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.
