Well a lot of the current diversity zeitgeist is (mis)represented in terms that are too simplistic.
diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation. This kind of thinking is most clearly visible in when companies state that they try to hire X underrepresented people to some position, as if you just need to get a certain number (and/or when corporations lower meaningful meritocratic barriers to hire people that otherwise wouldn't have been in the ballpark).
"meaningful meritocratic barrier" to me means "show me you can do fizzbuzz", rather than "tell me which ivy you came from"
There is obviously a case to be made for diversity (independent of morality), but most modern literature doesn't seem to address that at any meaningful level of complexity. I discovered this when talking to a colleague who was annoyed with what seemed to be a devaluing of potential hires just because they weren't "diverse" enough.
> diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation.
when blog posts that make such absolutely ridiculous claims get commented on here, then we can discuss that and heartily agree, ok? :D but in this discussion here, you are the one who said that this action implies minority founders are more valuable. this is simply not true.
i do agree that affirmative action is a bit crude, but it's done for a greater social good, by people who recognize the problem, sympathise, and want to help. the field is, after all, uneven. an asymmetric situation that needs asymmetric action to correct it.
diversity is good/desirable -> minorities are more valuable than white people at your company (since you clearly already have enough white people) seems to be the point of a lot of blog posts/conversation. This kind of thinking is most clearly visible in when companies state that they try to hire X underrepresented people to some position, as if you just need to get a certain number (and/or when corporations lower meaningful meritocratic barriers to hire people that otherwise wouldn't have been in the ballpark).
"meaningful meritocratic barrier" to me means "show me you can do fizzbuzz", rather than "tell me which ivy you came from"
There is obviously a case to be made for diversity (independent of morality), but most modern literature doesn't seem to address that at any meaningful level of complexity. I discovered this when talking to a colleague who was annoyed with what seemed to be a devaluing of potential hires just because they weren't "diverse" enough.