[redthrowaway]

>if you want to hire talented, passionate engineers like me, you will get serious about building teams with people from diverse backgrounds.

There's a pretty major leap in logic, there. What does diversity have to do with talented, passionate engineering teams? Companies like Honda and Toyota have some of the least diverse engineering teams on the planet, and yet they have a well-earned reputation for engineering excellence.

You may want a company to take diversity seriously, and there are many others who feel the same way. But it doesn't follow that maximizing diversity is therefor an imperative for companies that want to have world-class teams. In fact diversity seems to be orthogonal to competence.

[zephharben]

I'll rephrase that - if you want to hire ME, you need to take this stuff seriously.

I wasn't delving into the merits of diversity - I believe in it; I'm seeing it put to the test every day at my company, and I like what I see.

> it doesn't follow that maximizing diversity is therefor an imperative for companies that want to have world-class teams.

Diversity isn't about addition/subtraction, nor is it calculus; it's not even sociology, macroeconomics, or socioeconomics.

Diversity is about adaptive systems.

> In fact diversity seems to be orthogonal to competence.

I'll concede this point, but only with the substitution of "productivity" for "competence". Homogenous teams can outperform diverse teams, IN THE SHORT TERM.

Diversity may lead directly to inefficiency and conflict. In the short term, these are painful inhibitors to productivity.

In the long term, diversity of backgrounds, capabilities and perspectives - properly aligned - can be a huge asset.

If you are building a new company, and you want to beat the world, you'd be foolish to hire a bunch of people who think about things the same way that you do.