I don’t think I was and you saying that I was doesn’t make it so.
Figured you were being less than honest about not having “time.”
I was being quite honest. I’m now probably staying up all night.
That was my point. You can’t look at the value of diversity in its inherent and un-contaminated form when assessing Grossman’s statement. You have to view it as it was being made — as opposition to a political platform of the Democratic party who use “diversity” in ways entirely divorced from the meaning you ascribe, even as reflected in the examples you provided.
Whatever. MY point was that no discussion on “diversity” is a proxy for believing that people are not equal. That’s hardly controversial. The people who promote diversity aren’t suggesting that, and the people who criticize diversity aren’t suggesting that.
Your choice is obvious and it is not based on the genetic race of the candidate.
Sure. But the corporation would never go out and say “hire me an Arab”; they’d say “we need to hire someone who understands that culture.” And the vast majority of your candidates would be of Arabic background.
That’s the difference. You apparently don’t recognize that your appreciation for “diversity” is not predicated upon what the person “is” but what the person has experienced.
Pfft. I’m a stats person. I work on probabilities, not outliers. You’re working off the assumption that if you can find an exception to the rule (e.g., your white american who lived 10 years in the KSA) then you’ve disproven the value of diversity. That’s simply incorrect.
The Democratic version of “diversity” however, has nothing whatever to do with selecting a candidate based on background, experience or anything else identifiably relevant.
We continue to agree on that point, so I am not sure why you think you have to keep bringing it up.
If I create a team with the precise demographic distribution of all races, all genders (and no one will say how many of those there are) that does not mean I will have the best team for my objective.
Correct. However, if you have a team with mixed demographics, there is a higher probability that, when faced with a problem where cultural/ethnic experience is needed, that I’ll already have working for me somebody who has the needed background.
Meaning I don’t have to (a) go to management and get a headcount, (b) find a set of candidates, (c ) spend a month interviewing them, (d) make an offer (and go through a offer/counteroffer cycle), (e) have them accept the offer (and if that doesn’t happen, wash/rinse/repeat), (f) get them onboarded, before I can (g) get the input from them I need.
And if that roomful of white guys all happen to have resumes establishing exceedingly high market share of African Americans regarding the products they represent
Then I got lucky. But the probability is that I will not.
This remark by you clearly reflects that judge ability according to race.
Incorrect. I am again working on probability. The roomful of white guys is less likely to have the experience needed.
Well, I don’t know what business you’re in, but that is an awfully juvenile way of assessing markets.
Well, then, there are a lot of major corporations assessing their markets in a juvenile fashion.
But to be clear, you are saying, in response to my original query, that you would choose an African American candidate over a Native American candidate for a marketing position simply on the basis that your sales are not proportionate to African Americans generally, even if the Native American had a proven track record of sales to that demographic and your African American candidate did not?
Incorrect. You’re moving the goalposts by including variables which were not in the original analogy.
The GOAL is to hire the person who can get you from point A to point B. Stating that the PROBABILITY that that person is of a particular demographic group isn’t racist; it’s math.
Democratic dogma would have you hire, for example, a Black candidate over a White candidate regardless of how well your company was doing among African Americans if your workforce was not statistically proportional along racial lines. I use the black/white example simply for that purpose, as there is no end to the “selected” diversity criteria deemed necessary to make your workforce “better.”
Again, we agree on this. “Diversity” is not an end goal; my position is that it can, however, be a means to an end, under certain circumstances.
And there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that simply because there is a measure of a particular kind of diversity divorced from the need of the company that it provides any benefit.
The point of the Democratic ideology of diversity for diversity sake is to have a perceived unfairly disadvantaged group and they will create as many as they can for as long as they can under the banner that diversity is necessarily a good thing and diversity to them means proportionate distribution.
Well, the Dems don’t support it because they care about those groups; they care about it because they want those groups to give them votes.
Interesting. Did they use sexual orientation as a criteria for hiring? Because that’s illegal. I mean, before the job offer, how did they even know?
They advertised for a marketer who had a proven track record with product development (or positioning, can’t recall which) into the LGBT market. I was told that the majority of the applicants happened to be gay.
So you are saying that your company actively discriminated against heterosexual people in their search? And you think that’s okay?
Not my company. I was doing some data analysis consulting for another company.
Do I think it’s OK? The libertarian in me believes that a company ought to be able to hire anyone they want. I never got pissed at a company that didn’t want to hire me because of my headscarf.
So if a company wishes to appeal to white heterosexual males, it’s okay to exclude from consideration all females, all homosexual men, all non-white men? I sure hope that is not what you meant to imply.
They hired for a skill.