Being a woman or black is not unorthodox, though. And priding yourself for hiring somebody black or female seems odd. It should be a normal thing - if the skills (or whatever unorthodox aspects you fancy) are a match.
I agree with everything you said. I don't pride myself for hiring anybody based on their appearance. However, I dispassionately acknowledge that it is because other firms do not do the normal thing that if I do it, I'm at an advantage to them. It doesn't mean I'm a better person, or I have something to be proud of. It only means that I am more competent than folks who are incompetent.
They never said that. They said unorthodox background that doesn’t fit the pattern matching at a big company. i.e. resume is a bit off but they have potential.
Maybe they meant the actual "diversity" of ideas and personalities. It is just that these days if you say "diversity", it has become synonymous with more women, different racial backgrounds, and for some reason also sexual orientation.
It should be normal but unfortunately it is not. I don't see the problem with applauding people who actually make a difference here. In the future it will be nothing noteworthy but right now, again unfortunately, it is.
I'm not convinced that it is not normal. Disproportionate numbers of females and black people in certain professions are more likely because of different proportions in applications. And perhaps also in different distributions of skills and education.
Indeed. I don’t see anyone wringing their hands over most nurses, K-12 teachers, and child care professionals being female, that a majority of the trades are male (construction, welding, electricians, plumbers, pipe fitters), nor that a majority of professional athletes are people of color. I’ve only seen it in tech (disproportionate gender and race composition) described as a “crisis”.