[throwme_123]

If you're (much) less competent but the only reason why you get the job is "diversity", then yes we have a problem.

There can be diverse good candidates of course, there's no racism here.

[PromKwing]

Right, so if you're not the hiring manager, how do you know someone is a "diversity hire" though? Isn't it racist to just assume someone was hired as a "diversity hire"? Most importantly, people tend to hire people like themselves, if the hiring manager is white it's most likely they'll hire someone who is white regardless if they're more qualified, but I doubt anyone ever questions those hires.

[throwme_123]

That's the point.

You should not know and should not take it in consideration but in the USA this is part of the application. I understand the whole point is to make sure diverse candidate are not discriminated against (and of course that would be a ridiculous thing to do), but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.

[PromKwing]

> but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.

That's a crazy claim told without any proof. I don't see any studies, sources linked in your comment. That just sounds like your own anecdotal perspective.

[mcphage]

> You should not know and should not take it in consideration

Then how do you suppose we ended up with fields where nearly everyone was a white male, if race was never taken into consideration?

[jimbob45]

Because whites were 85% of the US population for a long time and being a SAHM used to be a viable strategy.