The Rise and Fall of the Chief Diversity Officer(wsj.com)
wsj.com
The Rise and Fall of the Chief Diversity Officer
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chief-diversity-officer-cdo-business-corporations-e110a82f
54 comments
https://archive.is/dokfe
> He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago.
Seems to be a natural optimization. A new type of role comes along, experiences rapid initial growth, then orgs figure out that it’s really just another spin on an HR role, so they get merged into mainstream HR.
I expect the same thing to happen to “Chief AI Officer” roles - they will be absorbed back into CIO/CTO roles.
Seems to be a natural optimization. A new type of role comes along, experiences rapid initial growth, then orgs figure out that it’s really just another spin on an HR role, so they get merged into mainstream HR.
I expect the same thing to happen to “Chief AI Officer” roles - they will be absorbed back into CIO/CTO roles.
And Chief Ethical AI back into the Sales Department.
[deleted]
These CDOs are, sorry, dumb as bricks. They were hired so the real executives didn't have to hear complaints anymore; the whole existence of the position is a blatant attempt to reabsorb and deflect any material changes back into the standard hierarchy of capital. If they had any clue and desire for change they'd be forming unions.
My company started sending out "Eid Mubarak" letters the same year they announced they would no longer have the resources to sponsor MENA visas. They're offering anti-harassment training at the same time the sales team is chasing down far-right orgs with huge contracts. It's all a farce. The rank and file know it, the executives know, the minorities who can't get hired and promoted at real jobs know it; the only people who don't are the DEI teams.
My company started sending out "Eid Mubarak" letters the same year they announced they would no longer have the resources to sponsor MENA visas. They're offering anti-harassment training at the same time the sales team is chasing down far-right orgs with huge contracts. It's all a farce. The rank and file know it, the executives know, the minorities who can't get hired and promoted at real jobs know it; the only people who don't are the DEI teams.
How do the companies justify spending money on diversity executives to their shareholders? Genuinely asking. Do they say it will make them more money?
1. Companies whose staff are not representative of their customers risk becoming out of touch with their customers.
2. ESG credentials attract investors with ESG goals.
3. Diversity is associated with positive goodwill, so it can be exploited to gain an edge in marketing.
I’m not saying I agree these are valid justifications (#1 particularly could be spun as an argument against diversity), but these are some of the reasons that get deployed.
2. ESG credentials attract investors with ESG goals.
3. Diversity is associated with positive goodwill, so it can be exploited to gain an edge in marketing.
I’m not saying I agree these are valid justifications (#1 particularly could be spun as an argument against diversity), but these are some of the reasons that get deployed.
It also doesn't cost that much compared to other things, so there probably isn't that much to justify.
2 is a big one. There are large ESG funds with very political agenda. Shareholders don't care about the agenda, but want the ESG money, and if all it takes is creating a "diversity officer" role, they'll do it. But right now the ESG funds are experiencing financial difficulties, and so the shareholders are dumping them.
"It will help us not loose money due to bad optics"?
“Let me in so I can save you”
“Save me from what?”
“From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in”
“Save me from what?”
“From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in”
I hate all these oh they’re just being a woke company articles, blah, blah, they completely misunderstand the point of diversity from an HR perspective. Yes there is a good reason to promote diversity in a company that isnt necessarily an immediate make more money thing, but does contribute. Basically companies have a lot of problems with recruiting and retaining talent, having good talent will increase performance. Showing you are accepting of a diverse set of people is on some levels a recruitment marketing exercise.
The amount of money spent on diversity executives, well yeah probably a bit high, but about the amount you’d pay an HR exec at that level
As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose?
Not just in diversity, but I’d far more prefer to work for a company that has values that align with me, eg I wouldnt want to work for a company that is involved with arms dealing, sure this will make you a lot of money for shareholders, but do you want to hand out pain, misery and death? Not all of us work for the bottom line. I recognise I am working for a business, but Id much prefer to think of my job as creating something, making things easier for people rather than just making money as a mission, that sounds like a miserable way to live.
The amount of money spent on diversity executives, well yeah probably a bit high, but about the amount you’d pay an HR exec at that level
As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose?
Not just in diversity, but I’d far more prefer to work for a company that has values that align with me, eg I wouldnt want to work for a company that is involved with arms dealing, sure this will make you a lot of money for shareholders, but do you want to hand out pain, misery and death? Not all of us work for the bottom line. I recognise I am working for a business, but Id much prefer to think of my job as creating something, making things easier for people rather than just making money as a mission, that sounds like a miserable way to live.
> As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose?
As a contrarian data point, as a black man, when I see a company or other organization hit all the DEI talking points about embracing minorities, etc....I throw up in my mouth a little bit and head in the opposite direction. I prefer blind meritocracies, which is what both the Army and Marine Corps used to be when I joined them. Now....even the Marine Corps is looking to staff a DEI Officer in the National Capital Region (seriously).
As a contrarian data point, as a black man, when I see a company or other organization hit all the DEI talking points about embracing minorities, etc....I throw up in my mouth a little bit and head in the opposite direction. I prefer blind meritocracies, which is what both the Army and Marine Corps used to be when I joined them. Now....even the Marine Corps is looking to staff a DEI Officer in the National Capital Region (seriously).
Were the army or Marines truly blind meritocracies at every level, even within the officer corps? Because that would be impressive, and a sad thing to lose for vanity metrics.
I was enlisted in the Army, and an officer in the Marine Corps. No organization is perfect but by-and-large, yes, I found even the officer ranks to be reasonably meritocratic. If anything the organization's biases were caused by your career background: Infantry Officers rule the Corps as a whole. Fighter pilots rule the Marine Aircraft Wings; every other professional specialty is definitely a second-class citizen.
The Marines don’t have any race problems. They treat everybody like they’re black.”- Gen Daniel “Chappie” James Jr., USAF, circa 1970.
> As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose?
I honestly don't know. Do you seriously think that a company that has a diversity officer "believes" anything differently than one that doesn't?
We should not confuse promoting diversity with enshrining this into bureaucracy in a very specific and, in my opinion, misguided way. There are plenty of examples of these officers making the problem worse.
I honestly don't know. Do you seriously think that a company that has a diversity officer "believes" anything differently than one that doesn't?
We should not confuse promoting diversity with enshrining this into bureaucracy in a very specific and, in my opinion, misguided way. There are plenty of examples of these officers making the problem worse.
I'd go with the one that hasn't lied to you yet ...
... the one that said nothing.
... the one that said nothing.
This isn’t wrong, but in my experience working at both types of companies, the companies that say nothing often tolerate all sorts of toxic behavior that wouldn’t be tolerated elsewhere. So, I now use explicit commitment to DEI as a filter.
> As a gay man, if I have 2 similar job offers, one with a company that shows they are accepting and dont accept prejudice, and another that says nothing. Which one do you think I’ll choose?
Are you implying that companies that don't beat the pride war drum publicly are prejudiced against you? Do you extend this to other people as well? I've never been to a pride march, I post nothing about supporting this or that movement, yet I don't have prejudice against gay people. They live their lives. I live mine.
This seems like more manufactured victimhood than anything else. Given that companies are driven by profit, and companies find doing this kind of thing profitable, do you think the ones that are "out in the open" are telling the truth? How much kow-towing does a company have to do before you believe them?
> Not all of us work for the bottom line. I recognise I am working for a business, but Id much prefer to think of my job as creating something, making things easier for people rather than just making money as a mission, that sounds like a miserable way to live.
Making money is the mission. The reason a company can afford these supposed "diversity efforts" that you use to judge good from bad are because they are making money. You may be different. I, and many people like me, want to go to work and go home with the least amount of song and dance possible. I don't want to have to sit through another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of song-and-dance, just to have a job. It feels so very forced. I have no evidence it's drives out bad actors either. All it does it give people another job risk where if you don't tow the line perfectly, sing the right song, or march with everyone else you will get fired (canceled). In fact, this sounds like the exact opposite of diversity to me.
Are you implying that companies that don't beat the pride war drum publicly are prejudiced against you? Do you extend this to other people as well? I've never been to a pride march, I post nothing about supporting this or that movement, yet I don't have prejudice against gay people. They live their lives. I live mine.
This seems like more manufactured victimhood than anything else. Given that companies are driven by profit, and companies find doing this kind of thing profitable, do you think the ones that are "out in the open" are telling the truth? How much kow-towing does a company have to do before you believe them?
> Not all of us work for the bottom line. I recognise I am working for a business, but Id much prefer to think of my job as creating something, making things easier for people rather than just making money as a mission, that sounds like a miserable way to live.
Making money is the mission. The reason a company can afford these supposed "diversity efforts" that you use to judge good from bad are because they are making money. You may be different. I, and many people like me, want to go to work and go home with the least amount of song and dance possible. I don't want to have to sit through another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of song-and-dance, just to have a job. It feels so very forced. I have no evidence it's drives out bad actors either. All it does it give people another job risk where if you don't tow the line perfectly, sing the right song, or march with everyone else you will get fired (canceled). In fact, this sounds like the exact opposite of diversity to me.
> Are you implying that companies that don't beat the pride war drum publicly are prejudiced against you?
Maybe, maybe not. But if one company explicitly says they have your back, and another doesn’t, most people will go with the one saying the right thing.
That’s no guarantee of protection either, inclusivity is superficial at a lot of companies, but there is a better chance that you will have a good experience.
Maybe, maybe not. But if one company explicitly says they have your back, and another doesn’t, most people will go with the one saying the right thing.
That’s no guarantee of protection either, inclusivity is superficial at a lot of companies, but there is a better chance that you will have a good experience.
it's pretty much just another HR role. I don't think you'll get much pushback if HR isn't making money, most people ignore it to be avoid being cancelled.
Yes. There’s enough stats out there showing diverse companies do better. Stock price is a commonly cited metric. It’s not hard to find. That is the justification.
What isn’t clear is whether these analyses are well controlled. E.g. is it over indexing on companies flourishing in wealthy coastal cities. I doubt it’s a causal effect personally. But I don’t have numbers either way.
What isn’t clear is whether these analyses are well controlled. E.g. is it over indexing on companies flourishing in wealthy coastal cities. I doubt it’s a causal effect personally. But I don’t have numbers either way.
I tried to look into this once, and it’s hard to find these studies. It’s easy to find studies that _cite_ these studies, but it’s hard to actually find the studies themselves, and even harder to figure out exactly what they mean by “diversity”. Where I could find data, it was significant that the studies took place before diversity included sexual orientation (and _long_ before it included gender identity), but those both seem to be the main driver of diversity initiatives these days
Eh… I don’t think there’s anything to say there. Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of their employees. Such studies are not possible to do.
Promoting inclusivity for sexual orientation and gender is different from trying to improve diversity. I think it’s pretty rare to see the latter relative to racial diversity efforts.
Promoting inclusivity for sexual orientation and gender is different from trying to improve diversity. I think it’s pretty rare to see the latter relative to racial diversity efforts.
It sounds to me like what you're saying is "data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion."
These diversity "studies", as the grandparent points out, are light on data and heavy on marketing. Several years back when I looked up the McKinsey 2012 (or 2013, whichever) study that started all this, it was a marketing flyer with zero data.
It's really convenient you can make such a hefty claim and provide essentially no evidence to back it up.
These diversity "studies", as the grandparent points out, are light on data and heavy on marketing. Several years back when I looked up the McKinsey 2012 (or 2013, whichever) study that started all this, it was a marketing flyer with zero data.
It's really convenient you can make such a hefty claim and provide essentially no evidence to back it up.
Please provide a quote of the claim you say I’m making without data. Because it seems to me you’re just overly sensitive about this and attacking without even bothering to read me saying I doubt it’s a causal relationship.
The McKinsey stuff and other stuff is generally publically available data. It is real. I think you can find it for some resources at least. The question is whether it’s compelling.
The McKinsey stuff and other stuff is generally publically available data. It is real. I think you can find it for some resources at least. The question is whether it’s compelling.
> Please provide a quote of the claim you say I’m making without data.
As requested, the quote:
> Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of their employees. Such studies are not possible to do.
The studies are absolutely possible to do. Throwing up our hands because companies "tend not to have data on sexual orientation" reads like a cop-out when the comment you responded to was attempting to get at some data around this very issue.
> The McKinsey stuff and other stuff is generally publically available data.
Is it? I found a report [1], which isn't the one which I previously remember seeing but it'll have to do since that older one evades me now.
Look at the footnotes. Several pages say their source is the "McKinsey Diversity Database". I searched for it on Google and DuckDuckGo and it didn't show up for me. Do you have a link to the underlying data for this database? I tried and failed to find one.
Lastly, review the authors at the end of the doc. If you put the authors' bios at the top of the report, the conclusion would be surprising to exactly zero people. That doesn't mean their conclusion is invalid, but given that much of their data is tied up in a "diversity database" that I can't find is VERY suspect.
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functio...
As requested, the quote:
> Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of their employees. Such studies are not possible to do.
The studies are absolutely possible to do. Throwing up our hands because companies "tend not to have data on sexual orientation" reads like a cop-out when the comment you responded to was attempting to get at some data around this very issue.
> The McKinsey stuff and other stuff is generally publically available data.
Is it? I found a report [1], which isn't the one which I previously remember seeing but it'll have to do since that older one evades me now.
Look at the footnotes. Several pages say their source is the "McKinsey Diversity Database". I searched for it on Google and DuckDuckGo and it didn't show up for me. Do you have a link to the underlying data for this database? I tried and failed to find one.
Lastly, review the authors at the end of the doc. If you put the authors' bios at the top of the report, the conclusion would be surprising to exactly zero people. That doesn't mean their conclusion is invalid, but given that much of their data is tied up in a "diversity database" that I can't find is VERY suspect.
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functio...
You said I was claiming
> data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion
Your quote does not contain a claim that pretends data is not important so long as I agree with the conclusion. It in fact contains a claim that the data is not possible to acquire. And I think it’s kind of dumb of you to pretend otherwise. You cannot practically do a good study or even surface stats on company performance vs sexual orientation diversity when companies do not collect sexual orientation data. That is not a controversial statement. Observe how I am not making a claim that pretends what that data would say in either direction.
I’m not really interested in trying to find this thing. But I don’t feel like you’re reading what I’m saying. It is very likely a real dataset. It’s just not very deep. It’s public info like stock prices, leadership profiles, and published diversity stats. You can find similar datasets if not this one precisely. And if you would again look at what I said originally, it should be expected that there is a relationship. Why? Because the fastest growing companies of the recent past are generally growth stocks based on the coast in naturally more diverse areas. As I already stated it’s probably not causal.
I think it’s unnecessary to suggest anything here is “VERY suspect”. That’s unlikely. It’s just not very interesting. Like, they’re showing p values of 0.1 on some pages. Shrug. You’re reframing this discussion, which could have been mild agreement off the top of insufficient evidence to identify a causal effect, to an annoying about whether the exercise is a lying conspiracy or not. I’m just not interested in engaging with that.
> data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion
Your quote does not contain a claim that pretends data is not important so long as I agree with the conclusion. It in fact contains a claim that the data is not possible to acquire. And I think it’s kind of dumb of you to pretend otherwise. You cannot practically do a good study or even surface stats on company performance vs sexual orientation diversity when companies do not collect sexual orientation data. That is not a controversial statement. Observe how I am not making a claim that pretends what that data would say in either direction.
I’m not really interested in trying to find this thing. But I don’t feel like you’re reading what I’m saying. It is very likely a real dataset. It’s just not very deep. It’s public info like stock prices, leadership profiles, and published diversity stats. You can find similar datasets if not this one precisely. And if you would again look at what I said originally, it should be expected that there is a relationship. Why? Because the fastest growing companies of the recent past are generally growth stocks based on the coast in naturally more diverse areas. As I already stated it’s probably not causal.
I think it’s unnecessary to suggest anything here is “VERY suspect”. That’s unlikely. It’s just not very interesting. Like, they’re showing p values of 0.1 on some pages. Shrug. You’re reframing this discussion, which could have been mild agreement off the top of insufficient evidence to identify a causal effect, to an annoying about whether the exercise is a lying conspiracy or not. I’m just not interested in engaging with that.
Tell that to the Chinese who are not subject to the diversity standards and see how their economy is doing. They could accelerate the domination if only they diversified.
The Chinese economy is grinding to a halt. That being said, nobody would seriously claim that diversity is the only, or even the most significant driver of economic growth or business performance. Not even the most deluded chief of diversity.
The entire system is incompatible with diversity of thought.
And as a result, life is just great for minority ethnic groups in China like, say, the Uighurs.
It's difficult to talk about the problem of these diversity efforts without sounding like a bigot. But I'll give it a shot.
In the last 3-4 years the amount of, what I will term, "bullshit diversity" has spiked dramatically. The internal politics involved (at least where I have worked) do nothing but create division among the employees. No one will voice it but the term "diversity hire" gets thrown around in one of several reworded forms regularly. I have been at two companies with Chief Diversity Officers whom I lovingly refer to as "Chief of Racism". It's not uncommon for these people to go into company meetings throwing around all sorts of language implying preference of one race over the other. They never say it outright, but imply it with "poorly performing diversity metrics" and "efforts to reach out to marginalized communities". It's nonsense in the strictest sense. Perhaps it's some savior complex.
I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do. I, and likely many others, view these bullshit positions as manifestations of identity politics. Due to the riots in 2020 companies are focused on driving home this non-sense language about inclusion wherever they can. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like other diversity initiatives, and personally I'm glad to see this position being rendered moot.
I have no idea how to say "diversity of thought doesn't exclude diversity of traits". I've tried before and have been labeled everything from right-wing extremist to white supremacist. The zeitgeist effectively prevents actual discussion on what diversity means. I am puzzled how simply selecting on race/sexuality/whatever somehow brings better engineering/sales/leadership to a company.
All I know is I never hear this charlatans talk about how this improves the quality of the product. The metric they appear to be chasing is putting brown people in company photos (for the optics) and this seems like the opposite of the alleged intention. I've worked with engineers from all background, races, and other traits. A common thread seems to be everyone is tired of this. It would be nice if this noise was relegated to Tumblr and Twitter where it belongs.
In the last 3-4 years the amount of, what I will term, "bullshit diversity" has spiked dramatically. The internal politics involved (at least where I have worked) do nothing but create division among the employees. No one will voice it but the term "diversity hire" gets thrown around in one of several reworded forms regularly. I have been at two companies with Chief Diversity Officers whom I lovingly refer to as "Chief of Racism". It's not uncommon for these people to go into company meetings throwing around all sorts of language implying preference of one race over the other. They never say it outright, but imply it with "poorly performing diversity metrics" and "efforts to reach out to marginalized communities". It's nonsense in the strictest sense. Perhaps it's some savior complex.
I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do. I, and likely many others, view these bullshit positions as manifestations of identity politics. Due to the riots in 2020 companies are focused on driving home this non-sense language about inclusion wherever they can. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like other diversity initiatives, and personally I'm glad to see this position being rendered moot.
I have no idea how to say "diversity of thought doesn't exclude diversity of traits". I've tried before and have been labeled everything from right-wing extremist to white supremacist. The zeitgeist effectively prevents actual discussion on what diversity means. I am puzzled how simply selecting on race/sexuality/whatever somehow brings better engineering/sales/leadership to a company.
All I know is I never hear this charlatans talk about how this improves the quality of the product. The metric they appear to be chasing is putting brown people in company photos (for the optics) and this seems like the opposite of the alleged intention. I've worked with engineers from all background, races, and other traits. A common thread seems to be everyone is tired of this. It would be nice if this noise was relegated to Tumblr and Twitter where it belongs.
I agree with you that misuse of DEI aims has become rampant, and I've seen it become counterproductive in ways that make my head spin.
However, I've also seen cases of outright bigotry — sexism, racism, agism — where having a DEI office was a godsend and immediately nipped a different variety of bullshit in the bud.
Ideally I'd like to see these DEI efforts settle on some reasonable application of goals and practices that reflect values that most people can agree on. I worry that having it bundled into HR will actually make it worse, as it will just become part of the unaccountable faceless bureaucracy that HR has evolved into, at least typically in the US.
But such is my experience of modern life in the US — well-intended ideas become abused and performative, and then are either ingrained in Kafkaesque bureaucracy, or thrown out like the baby in the bathwater, and we go from one extreme to another.
However, I've also seen cases of outright bigotry — sexism, racism, agism — where having a DEI office was a godsend and immediately nipped a different variety of bullshit in the bud.
Ideally I'd like to see these DEI efforts settle on some reasonable application of goals and practices that reflect values that most people can agree on. I worry that having it bundled into HR will actually make it worse, as it will just become part of the unaccountable faceless bureaucracy that HR has evolved into, at least typically in the US.
But such is my experience of modern life in the US — well-intended ideas become abused and performative, and then are either ingrained in Kafkaesque bureaucracy, or thrown out like the baby in the bathwater, and we go from one extreme to another.
> I think these diversity efforts are doing the exact opposite of what they intend to do.
They intend to neuter any opposition by ensuring every organization is riddled with politically-approved agents.
Prove you don't discriminate by having a chief diversity officer, then that officer makes sure only the like-minded can get/keep jobs. It is after all their job description - the not like-minded contribute to a "hostile atmosphere".
They intend to neuter any opposition by ensuring every organization is riddled with politically-approved agents.
Prove you don't discriminate by having a chief diversity officer, then that officer makes sure only the like-minded can get/keep jobs. It is after all their job description - the not like-minded contribute to a "hostile atmosphere".
I think hiring more women has powerfully positive effects throughout an org. I agree hiring "races" is counter-productive. It creates more racism and division than it intends to solve. The idea that I am uniquely Black or you are uniquely Asian doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's a broad spectrum we insist on reifying. How Black should I be to claim the Black experience?
Leaning on the common struggle as the wage class is what unites. The unique focus on how oppressed each of us are turns us all into victims. It's not really something I've seen in my lifetime before the last ten years and I think it's garbage in, garbage out.
Leaning on the common struggle as the wage class is what unites. The unique focus on how oppressed each of us are turns us all into victims. It's not really something I've seen in my lifetime before the last ten years and I think it's garbage in, garbage out.
>I think hiring more women has powerfully positive effects throughout an org. I agree hiring "races" is counter-productive. It creates more racism and division than it intends to solve. The idea that I am uniquely Black or you are uniquely Asian doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's a broad spectrum we insist on reifying. How Black should I be to claim the Black experience?
All the points you raised against hiring based on race can also be used to be against based on gender. Why do you think one is "powerfully positive" and the other is "counter-productive"?
All the points you raised against hiring based on race can also be used to be against based on gender. Why do you think one is "powerfully positive" and the other is "counter-productive"?
Well, for one, they're 51% of the world's population. We also have studies that demonstrate positive influence in more gender-equal workplaces. "The lowest overall occurrence of psychological distress as well as same occurrence for women and men was found on the most gender equal workplaces." [1]
The distinction of sex occurs everywhere throughout nature. At a broad level, it's consistent.
The amount of melanin in your skin is not. There is a spectrum of mind-blowing diversity in facial features among Black, Hispanic, Asian, White, whatever. In this category, what divides us spans a multitude. It's a cudgel we heft to beat our fellow human being with.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3541387/
The distinction of sex occurs everywhere throughout nature. At a broad level, it's consistent.
The amount of melanin in your skin is not. There is a spectrum of mind-blowing diversity in facial features among Black, Hispanic, Asian, White, whatever. In this category, what divides us spans a multitude. It's a cudgel we heft to beat our fellow human being with.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3541387/
>Well, for one, they're 51% of the world's population.
Asia makes up 59.4% of the world population, and Africa makes up 17.6%. Europe and North America by comparison only makes up 9.4% and 7.5% respectively.
>We also have studies that demonstrate positive influence in more gender-equal workplaces.
There are studies that do the same for ethnicity. With a cursory search I found:
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
"In the case of ethnic and cultural diversity, our business-case findings are equally compelling: in 2019, top-quartile companies outperformed those in the fourth one by 36 percent in profitability, slightly up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014. As we have previously found, the likelihood of outperformance continues to be higher for diversity in ethnicity than for gender."
>The distinction of sex occurs everywhere throughout nature. At a broad level, it's consistent.
>The amount of melanin in your skin is not.
But no ethnic/racial diversity proponent would claim that the benefits comes from the difference in amounts of melanin in someone's skin, just like no pro gender diversity proponent would claim the benefits come from the shape of someone's genitals. The equivalent would be something like "distinction of cultures/language" occurs everywhere throughout nature, which as so far as we know is true. Whales of the same species have different calls depending on where they're from, for instance.
Asia makes up 59.4% of the world population, and Africa makes up 17.6%. Europe and North America by comparison only makes up 9.4% and 7.5% respectively.
>We also have studies that demonstrate positive influence in more gender-equal workplaces.
There are studies that do the same for ethnicity. With a cursory search I found:
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...
"In the case of ethnic and cultural diversity, our business-case findings are equally compelling: in 2019, top-quartile companies outperformed those in the fourth one by 36 percent in profitability, slightly up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014. As we have previously found, the likelihood of outperformance continues to be higher for diversity in ethnicity than for gender."
>The distinction of sex occurs everywhere throughout nature. At a broad level, it's consistent.
>The amount of melanin in your skin is not.
But no ethnic/racial diversity proponent would claim that the benefits comes from the difference in amounts of melanin in someone's skin, just like no pro gender diversity proponent would claim the benefits come from the shape of someone's genitals. The equivalent would be something like "distinction of cultures/language" occurs everywhere throughout nature, which as so far as we know is true. Whales of the same species have different calls depending on where they're from, for instance.
It seems like you were more interested in setting me up for a trap than steel-manning me.
My primary objection is to the reification of race, which drives us to compete for ideas of purity that don't really exist. And that is happening, especially in American workplaces. It's contributing to more outrage, not less. I don't think that's healthy for anyone.
My primary objection is to the reification of race, which drives us to compete for ideas of purity that don't really exist. And that is happening, especially in American workplaces. It's contributing to more outrage, not less. I don't think that's healthy for anyone.
I believe that current approach to diversity is too focused on race\gender\orientation issues. I suspect that this rather brings more imbalance. To make things truly shine the scope must be widened. The first criterions which come to mind are general intelligence and skills. I strongly believe that the current sad state of Google search which everybody complains about can be easily attributed to their policy of hiring smart and skillful employees.
I think I see what you mean, but "hire stupid and incompetent people" seems like a hard sell.
And I don't think it'll pay off.
And I don't think it'll pay off.
[deleted]
They were brought in as a panic reaction to "omg, we need to show we're not racist!", but it didn't take long to realize that they are the most resource diverting (into waste), agitating, and destroyers of psychological safety of anyone they've ever hired.
Like "AI ethicist", it seems these roles only attract the most unethical and toxic people in the world.
Neither role is even inherently evil. It just seems that only evil people want to (or get to?) do them.
Like "AI ethicist", it seems these roles only attract the most unethical and toxic people in the world.
Neither role is even inherently evil. It just seems that only evil people want to (or get to?) do them.
The problem with these positions is that they are all diversity hires themselves, and create animosity between employers and employees.
Low demand for the professional windbag.
Nah, still plenty of space for it - if you're a tall man with western European ancestry.
[deleted]
“Let’s fight bigotry by targeting inherent groups of people”
Yass kween!
Yass kween!
You were assigned windbag at birth? I’m so sorry.
Now you’re just doubling down on your own bigotry, sad.