I think we should have a better understanding of what companies mean when they say diversity is more important that skill/experience.
Some of us seem to believe this to mean that skill/experience is not important at all. I'll provide a metric and scenario to illustrate what it actually means.
Position A requires Skill B. The range of possible talent for Skill B could be put on a spectrum from 0 to 100. 0 being no skill at all and 100 being the best possible at said skill.
Position A requires a 60 score of Skill B. Now, when diversity becomes a hiring factor, that doesn't mean they will accept a diversity candidate if they do not possess a 60 score of the required skill. If 2 candidates applied and one scores 70 and one scores 80, they both qualify and both will do a sufficient job for the position. But if candidate 1 with the 70 score fit the diversity requirement over candidate 2 with the 80 score...candidate 1 will more likely get the job.
This is what is meant by diversity being important over skill/experience.
Yes, sure, snore... then let's just pretend quotas to fill doesn't exist or companies putting the "how diverse they are in percentage". Seems like you have worked to every single company in the HR and see how all of they hire right?
Don, that's the very definition and function of diversity hiring. This is how it's done. Everywhere.
I never said quotas don't exist or that companies do not tout how diverse they are. I simply showed you how they make that diverse hire, how they attain their quotas, how they establish their diversity percentages.
You do realize you are on the verge of suggesting that diverse candidates cannot be both diverse and qualified, don't you?