I skimmed through the article but wasn't able to find such.
What I read on diversity seems to make sense to me; that, if all other factors equal (degree and such), then you hire the most marginalized person. It might seem unfair (and on a micro level it might be) but on a macro level it is fair since the least marginalized personae are going to be able to easier get the job elsewhere where they don't prioritize the marginalized personae.
This almost never happens btw since HR looks further than degree. We also have the issue of old age (due to babyboomer dominance) and these babyboomers mean there's an ample amount of jobs available.
Also, you can exploit the unique abilities of a marginalized person. For example, their bilingual expertise (example being customer support) or their knowledge on LGBT issues (for example, a quest in a game involving such) or their first hand experience and/or literature derived knowledge on disabilities (for example usability issues with a product) or spot say (even unintentional) racism in the product (example being AI/ML)
Are you describing what is in the article, or what happens in the real world? If you are describing what happens in real life, I basically agree, it is good that we’re pushing for diversity. But the article has quotes like:
> For example, within hedge funds, the ideal entry-level candidate might be an experienced former investment banker who went to a top MBA program. This preferred pedigree sets a minimum bar for both competence and work ethic. This first-pass filter enormously winnows the field of underrepresented candidates. To relax requirements for diversity’s sake, this will be diluted in various ways. First, the work experience might be stripped. Next, the role gets offered to MBA interns.
And
> By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement. During the period from 1961 to 1972, a series of Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and laws—most critically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—put meritocracy and the new political imperative of protected-group diversity on a collision course.
I don’t see how it could be read in a way that is compatible with your description.
What I read on diversity seems to make sense to me; that, if all other factors equal (degree and such), then you hire the most marginalized person. It might seem unfair (and on a micro level it might be) but on a macro level it is fair since the least marginalized personae are going to be able to easier get the job elsewhere where they don't prioritize the marginalized personae.
This almost never happens btw since HR looks further than degree. We also have the issue of old age (due to babyboomer dominance) and these babyboomers mean there's an ample amount of jobs available.
Also, you can exploit the unique abilities of a marginalized person. For example, their bilingual expertise (example being customer support) or their knowledge on LGBT issues (for example, a quest in a game involving such) or their first hand experience and/or literature derived knowledge on disabilities (for example usability issues with a product) or spot say (even unintentional) racism in the product (example being AI/ML)