I don’t value “diversity”. While the term is a very effective buzzword promulgated by feminists, a closer inspection reveals it to be little more than feminist gobbledygook that obscures the genuine intention, or perhaps more to the point, one that creates a smoke screen designed to help infiltrate a presupposition into the listener’s mind.
Diversity: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety; especially : the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>
Diversity implies that there is a certain value in the mere sex or race of an individual, and that by somehow randomly tossing ingredients into the soup, that we will all enjoy a tastier meal.
Nonsense. I most certainly value a diversity of talents and of skills–when it is relevant to the issue at hand. A diversity of voice in a choral may be wonderful, or not, depending on one’s goals. Do you really want one’s criteria for choose someone who will manage your stock portfolio being sex: female, race: Asian?
Or do you want the best qualified individual for the particular position, regardless of sex or race?
Does being in a wheelchair, or being gay in anyway have an impact on an individual’s capabilities in this respect?
One might be inclined to claim that what is sought after is a meritocracy that ignores sex, race or other factors. If so, then the very value of “diversity” is a non sequitur. But Radical Feminist actions belie this notion by attempting to implement “gender” quotas.
The term is demonstrates the Feminist’s hypocrisy or average person who parrots the term’s ignorance in a number of ways. The notion of “diversity” is popularly promoted as meaning “non-discriminatory”. The very act of selecting individual based on sex or race is in itself discrimination. Further as many use the term, especially in leftist, feminists or “Social Justice Warrior” contexts, diversity is in reality little more than a buzzword meaning “women and people of colour”, a phrase than encompasses the entire human race, save for white males.
Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation. Style guides for writing from American Heritage, the Stanford Graduate School of Business,Mount Holyoke College, recommend the term over these alternatives. It may also be used with other collective categories of people such as students of color, men of color and women of color.
If the notion of “diversity” is that of equity and fairness to all, regardless of race or sex, then it seems that race or sex must be secondary to all practical considerations. True non-discrimination implies an essential and natural inattention to race or sex, unless that given element is specifically a required element for the task.
I suggest that “diversity” in any group serving any purpose other than promoting “diversity” would be much better served by selecting for skill, merit and talent. Should it so occur that the group be sex and race diverse, this would be a mere matter of a momentary observation while the group gets on to fulfilling the purpose for it’s formation.
The test for whether or not you can hold a job should not be the arrangement of your chromosomes.