irstupid said:
While I agree that the most qualified shoudl get the job. I mean it doesn't seem fair if you have more experience, more education, interview better, ect and someone else gets the job? But diversity can be a benefit. People of difference cutlures, races, sexes, ect all have different upbringings, experiences, points of views, ect. A woman may look at a probelm different than a man, so having all men in a group may not ever see a certain solution or problem. She may not be as "qualified" as another man that applied, but her being a woman and having a different way of looking at things may be more important than his GPA being higher. So the most qualified person may not always be the most right person for the job. So I'm all for diversity for those reason. I'm against diversity for what seems to be the reason in todays world though. Fitting a quota for good publicity, being PC, ect. Companies and their diversity agendas feel more like them donating to charity than them actually believing that it will help their business. (You know they do it for the good publicity, and possibly some tax incentive even) |
While I agree with this, the means to go about this change is to change your hiring to look for people who exemplify attributes that are on demand, not by utilizing affirmative action to try to brute force your way through a problem. The goal should be to hire those who have a different way of thinking, not to assume that because they are a different gender, they have a different way of thinking. No attribute is race or sex specific, and few individuals embody all of the traits of the race or sex they belong to.
Basically, diversity of sex or race is basically meaningless in a vacuum, while diversity of thought is important. While the two are correlated, you cannot hire assuming the two are one in the same.
