I’m trying to establish what people think “diversity” means. The foundational premise of the civil rights movement is that race is a superficial characteristic and people are the same. Accepting that as true, the concept of “diversity” makes sense only as a confirmation about the absence of irrational racial discrimination.
But OP suggested that diversity itself was a good thing, which makes no sense because racial differences aren’t meaningful. All else being equal, it’s not possible for a “racially diverse” team to function differently than a racially homogenous one.
> All else being equal, it’s not possible for a “racially diverse” team to function differently than a racially homogenous one.
And if all horses are perfectly spherical, they'd be awfully hard to ride.
The plain fact is that people are discriminated, for and against, based solely on their appearance. It happens today and it sure happened 100 years ago.
> The plain fact is that people are discriminated, for and against, based solely on their appearance. It happens today and it sure happened 100 years ago.
What does that have to do with how someone does their job?
The subject is preferential admission to harvard, what do you mean who does a job?
This thread is about diversity in the workplace. OP said: “Personally I fully agree that building a diverse workforce is more profitable…” I’m asking how that’s possible when race is a superficial and meaningless.