Diversity.

[Fenixgoon]

diversity itself can be good.

i do not know a way in which mandated diversity is beneficial.

 

[Craig234]

diversity itself can be good.

i do not know a way in which mandated diversity is beneficial.

Well, let's say that something is preventing diversity for no good reason. Mandating diversity can overcome that obstacle and provide various benefits of diversity.

For example, a company has a bit of a culture problem, and women are not highered or promoted much to leadership.

So HR mandates that more efforts should be made to improve that - targetting women to recruit, training not to discriminate, etc. Overcomes bad culture, get diversity.

 

[nehalem256]

Where did you get that idea?

I think it was called the Civil Rights movement.

Believing that there is some important difference between say white people and black people is what leads to things like Jim Crow laws.

Why is a person's skin color any more important to "diversity" than their eye color or height?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think it was called the Civil Rights movement.

You think the Civil Rights Movement was about making "everyone the same regardless of race"? Seriously?

Believing that there is some important difference between say white people and black people is what leads to things like Jim Crow laws.

No, it isn't. That was racism.

Why is a person's skin color any more important to "diversity" than their eye color or height?

I don't know. Did I say that it should be?

 

[zsdersw]

Diversity should make you aware that there are people who look and act different than you and that being different isn't automatically something to fear or be avoided; that it's OK that we're not all the same.

 

[nehalem256]

You think the Civil Rights Movement was about making "everyone the same regardless of race"? Seriously?

I think an important part of the civil rights movement is the idea that there is no more real difference between a black and white person than between a person with blue eyes and with green eyes.

No, it isn't. That was racism.

And saying that black people have some kind of special insights isn't racism?

How is that any different than an organization saying they only want to hire whites because whites are smarter?

I don't know. Did I say that it should be?

Imagine someone said we need to hire more people with green eyes to increase diversity!

Everyone would look at him like he was crazy. But replace "people with green eyes" with "black people" and all of a sudden people will take him seriously.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think an important part of the civil rights movement is the idea that there is no more real difference between a black and white person than between a person with blue eyes and with green eyes.

But that isn't what you said, and thus it does not answer the question. Care to try again?

And saying that black people have some kind of special insights isn't racism?

Who has said that? Did I say that?

How is that any different than an organization saying they only want to hire whites because whites are smarter?

Why do you constantly ask me to defend claims I have not made? Are you really that disconnected from reality? I guess that would explain a whole lot.

Imagine someone said we need to hire more people with green eyes to increase diversity!

What would that accomplish? Are we talking about hiring practices?

Everyone would look at him like he was crazy. But replace "people with green eyes" with "black people" and all of a sudden people will take him seriously.

Do you think people of differing eye color have the same divergence in life experience as that for people of differing skin colors?

 

[Craig234]

Saying people deserve some equality of rights isn't saying they're 'exactly the same'.

There are two points relevant here:

1. There are different cultures, experiences, 'groups'. That's part of 'diversity'.

2. There is a history of some groups discriminating against other groups. Sometimes that involves 'race' as with the US history; or, nationality or other dividing lines, such as the history with some asian races such as Japan and others; or, there's the case of India's caste system history, and many others. The US experience has also included that, such as with anti-Irish prejudice for a period.

That sort of group conflict is different than 'different eye color'. There has never been a situation where a group of some eye color has discriminated against another eye color.

So, an argument to justify equal rights is that 'skin color is no justification for unequal rights any more than eye color'.

But that's not to say that 'diversity' is the same between different cultural groups and different eye colors.

Diversity includes both reducing discrimination, and benefitting from there not being people left out of things for no good reason but prejudice/bigotry/legacy racism etc.