• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is diversity beneficial outside of image?

Do you believe diversity offers a company benefits beyond their image?

  • yes

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • No

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Total voters
    38
RabidAlpaca said:
Actual diversity, as in a mixture of specialties and knowledge would be, but if they're hiring anyone but the absolutely best candidates for the job, they're hurting their company. Hiring just to be diverse is a ridiculous way to do business.
Click to expand...

True, tokenism and Snapshot diversity are huge problems. But efforts for diversity can also be an effort to bring in diverse opinions and experiences. That almost always brings strength.
 
HonestJoe said:
Maybe if you had access to a wider range of perspectives and opinions you would see the benefit. :)
Click to expand...

What benefit do you think exists, that he isn't seeing?
 
Excon said:
What benefit do you think exists, that he isn't seeing?
Click to expand...
I was mostly making a joke but isn't access to a wider range of perspectives and opinions generally a benefit?
 
HonestJoe said:
I was mostly making a joke but isn't access to a wider range of perspectives and opinions generally a benefit?
Click to expand...
Not when they are wrong.
 
Excon said:
Not when they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, you can have one which may be right or may be wrong or you can have several to choose from, some of which are right and some of which are wrong.

It isn't just about simple right or wrong anyway. Take the example given above about nobody at an American cereal company knowing people in some other countries put yoghurt rather than milk on cereal.

Similarly, I work in IT for a hospital and some of the people we hire aren't just ones with IT skills and knowledge but people who also have medical knowledge. With both covered within the team, we can provide a better service than just having one or the other.
 
HonestJoe said:
Well, you can have one which may be right or may be wrong or you can have several to choose from, some of which are right and some of which are wrong.
Click to expand...
I made no mention of them being right in any way shape or form.
I clearly stated not when they are wrong.


HonestJoe said:
It isn't just about simple right or wrong anyway. Take the example given above about nobody at an American cereal company knowing people in some other countries put yoghurt rather than milk on cereal.
Click to expand...
Pretty much irrelevant and does not supersede qualifications.
Now if a company wants to hire someone for such, good for them, that would be the qualifications and relevant.
But seeking diversity for the sake of diversity is asinine. And we know the type of diversity you are speaking to is not the diversity meant.


HonestJoe said:
Similarly, I work in IT for a hospital and some of the people we hire aren't just ones with IT skills and knowledge but people who also have medical knowledge. With both covered within the team, we can provide a better service than just having one or the other.
Click to expand...
Unless hired for such insight, irrelevant.
 
molten_dragon said:
My company is on a big diversity kick lately. I believe the main reason companies strive for a diverse workforce is because it makes them look good. But that's not the message that they try to pass off to us (obviously).

So do you think that diversity offers a company benefits beyond making them look good? Do you think a diverse workforce works better/smarter/harder/more efficiently/etc. than one made up of the best qualified people regardless of demographics?
Click to expand...
Yes, diversity does have benefits, but it's not the "be all and end all" that some portray it to be.
 
molten_dragon said:
My company is on a big diversity kick lately. I believe the main reason companies strive for a diverse workforce is because it makes them look good. But that's not the message that they try to pass off to us (obviously).

So do you think that diversity offers a company benefits beyond making them look good? Do you think a diverse workforce works better/smarter/harder/more efficiently/etc. than one made up of the best qualified people regardless of demographics?
Click to expand...


I think it helps society if the society is in fact diverse. If like China for example, there society is not diverse, then it has no benefit.

One thing I've personally found to be true is in the business world, being the most qualified is only one factor that determines who gets hired/promoted, and its not even the primary factor. Favoritism based on a wide range of things has a far bigger impact on hiring and promotion than qualifications. Family connections, friends of somebody the boss knows, loyalty to whoever has dirt on the company and was nice enough not to whistle blow, rewarding someone for a favor owed. And I'm going to go there: who the boss has a crush on, who is willing to flirt with the boss while skilling keeping him at a safe distance, who is willing to sleep with the boss. If you have factors like these playing a bigger role in hiring/promotions than qualifications up front, IMHO its hard to make the "just hire the most qualified person" case. Chances are if you get advanced through the "most qualified" path, you're probably the hardest, smartest, most talented worker in the building; willing to go the extra mile time after time after time while others have nowhere near the same level of expectations, many of whom hold key positions possibly over you because they advanced through the favoritism path.
 
Ah diversity....

By all means let's not hire based on qualifications or ability, let's just look at skin color and genitalia.
 
Excon said:
I made no mention of them being right in any way shape or form.
I clearly stated not when they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Opinions and perspectives are going to be right or wrong (or most likely somewhere in between). You can't talk about "wrong" and not let "right" in to the discussion too. The point is that if you're working with just one and it is wrong (or imperfect), you're stuck with it. If you have several varying opinions (of varying validities), you might have a discussion and work towards the best conclusion.

Excon said:
Pretty much irrelevant and does not supersede qualifications.
Click to expand...
I was making a much more general point (joke) about the benefits of ending up in a situation with a diversity of knowledge, experiences and opinions. How we might get there is a different matter.

Excon said:
But seeking diversity for the sake of diversity is asinine. And we know the type of diversity you are speaking to is not the diversity meant.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree there is no point seeking diversity for no specific reason and I fully understand what most people are talking about when they refer to diversity (positively or negatively) but there is an element of the practical diversity I'm talking about that will inevitably come from a group with a range of ages, genders, social, racial or national backgrounds compared to any kind of homogenous group.

Again though, I'm talking about the outcome, not the route to it (yet?). I don't think there can be an honest discussion of those practical questions (Affirmative Action, quotas, employment discrimination laws, "the glass ceiling" etc.) without some shared understanding and agreement on the consequences.

Excon said:
Unless hired for such insight, irrelevant.
Click to expand...
They are hired for that insight. What's more, they can be hired to bring that diversity to the wider team. With two candidates, one high technical and one less technical but with clinical experience, the choice may well factor in what range of technical skills and clinical background already exist in the team.
 
I suppose it could but "diversity" is usually just a political correct word for different skin tones.
 
molten_dragon said:
That's a load of crap, since I see plenty of straight white males get hired and promoted.
Click to expand...

But would you call that diverse?

I mean this is a big country with vast regional differences. Would you consider a company that hired nothing but straight, white men from all over the country with vastly different backgrounds as diverse? If your answer is no then doesn't the poster have a point that "diverse" has become code word for not straight white male?
 
Last edited:
DB20 said:
Ah diversity....

By all means let's not hire based on qualifications or ability, let's just look at skin color and genitalia.
Click to expand...

And my post wasn't meant to imply favoritism in hiring and promotions means people are not qualified to hold their positions, only that they might not be the MOST qualified. So in a world where hormones, loneliness, eye-candy, flirtation, being in the right family, having the right friends, office politics, etc. all play a bigger role than being the MOST qualified anyway; I can see why some people do not take issue with promoting diversity in the workplace in the mix. Especially if for whatever reasons people of different ethnicity or genders are statistically under represented in the eye-candy, filtration, official politic, nepotism "in-crowd."
 
HonestJoe said:
Opinions and perspectives are going to be right or wrong (or most likely somewhere in between). You can't talk about "wrong" and not let "right" in to the discussion too. The point is that if you're working with just one and it is wrong (or imperfect), you're stuck with it. If you have several varying opinions (of varying validities), you might have a discussion and work towards the best conclusion.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I did not mention it and it was not needed.,
When you are dealing with right and wrong, diversity matters not one bit.


HonestJoe said:
I was making a much more general point (joke) about the benefits of ending up in a situation with a diversity of knowledge, experiences and opinions. How we might get there is a different matter.
Click to expand...
Which is why I replied with the following.
Pretty much irrelevant and does not supersede qualifications.​
It was irrelevant.


HonestJoe said:
I certainly agree there is no point seeking diversity for no specific reason and I fully understand what most people are talking about when they refer to diversity (positively or negatively) but there is an element of the practical diversity I'm talking about that will inevitably come from a group with a range of ages, genders, social, racial or national backgrounds compared to any kind of homogenous group.
Click to expand...
There are very few situations (in regards to over all employment) where such is needed. And when it is, it is hired for. As expanding business onto foreign markets taught us. You know; Like with the Chevy Nova.


HonestJoe said:
Again though, I'm talking about the outcome, not the route to it (yet?). I don't think there can be an honest discussion of those practical questions (Affirmative Action, quotas, employment discrimination laws, "the glass ceiling" etc.) without some shared understanding and agreement on the consequences.
Click to expand...
Consequences? That is offensive as it implies something that is not there.
The only thing needed for that discussion is qualifications.
 
When a company elevates diversity to a level of importance above qualification and ability, I think that the diversity they achieve does not have many tangible benefits outside of improving their image in the eyes of a PC obsessed society. In fact, if employees and applicants became aware of such a practice, I think a great deal of resentment may be fostered towards the company.

If a company were to seek diversity while still maintaining the same standards for all applicants, I think they could see some benefits beyond image if they chose the applicant that satisfied the diversity goal over another otherwise equal applicant that did not. Namely, I think it's useful to have different perspectives at the workplace. In any case, it is my understanding that companies do not do this and instead try fabricate diversity by changing the standards by which they hire employees. Diversity is great when it happens, but I think that trying to force it yields results that are of little actual value.
 
 
Rainman05 said:
Sowell is the man, man.

He's a genuine intellectual, stops and thinks and questions.... as opposed to many the "progressive" movement hails as intellectuals which are just pretentious pricks who go along for the ride.
Click to expand...


The man is an absolute treasure, and we are lucky he has continued to put out a book a year. Seriously, if I could have dinner with one person, it would be him. I could listen to him for hours-and he makes complex subject matter straightforward. He is also tragically stigmatized by leftists (though he was once a marxist) as an "uncle tom". There should be elementary schools and streets named after him. Im need to stop with the man crush. :3oops:
 
 
shavingcollywob said:
I suppose it could but "diversity" is usually just a political correct word for different skin tones.
Click to expand...


And most ironically while liberals say the value diversity of appearance, they do not for one second tolerate diversity of ideology. If you arent a liberal, you are the enemy.
 
"Diversity" is "Marxist Culturalism" aka "Political Correctness." Diversity is liberal fascism or liberal racism with a smiley face. Racism is racism with or without a smiley :)


>" DIVERSITY is simultaneously an important and contemptible term in today's climate of political correctness. According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, diversity means: diverseness, multeity, multifariousness, multiformity, multiplicity, variousness. Its related words are: difference, dissimilarity, distinction, divergence, divergency, unlikeness. Diversity's antonyms are: uniformity and identity.


Diversity implies toleration of differences among people no matter what that difference might be, including those differences that are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Diversity also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways, and form institutions and groups among like-minded friends and associates. In the political arena, diversity implies decentralized decision-making power that in turn requires limited government.


What's called for and practiced by college administrators, courts and administrative agencies is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a doctrine of live-and-let-live. Instead, diversity is an increasingly popular catchword for all kinds of conformity -- conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what's politically correct thinking.


Part of that lesson is non-judgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another, or all cultures and their values are morally equivalent. I'm waiting for one of those multicultural/diversity idiots to tell us about the moral equivalency between Western and Taliban treatment of women.


Universities, corporations and government offices that do not hire, promote or admit the right number of minorities, women, disabled or other "protected" classes of Americans are seen as politically incorrect. As such, they risk exposure to heavy-handed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement actions, government and private lawsuits, loss of government grants and contracts, or loss of university accreditation.


Diversity is simply the old racism in a new guise, spiced up with a touch of sexism..."<

Continue -> WALTER WILLIAMS
 
US Conservative said:
I got maybe 10 minutes in, and it never stopped being ridiculous. Its no wonder liberals see the world as half-empty.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
It may be parody, but is perfectly representative of what liberals say today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom