Philip Schroeder.
Short answer, diversity is racist and sexist.
It is the idea that because people look the same, they think all the same as when people look different they will bring in a broad set of opinions.
Because more often than not it is one way path, which ultimately means anti-male and anti-white (and, most recently, also anti-Asian and anti-Indian) policies, ignoring merit and the good idea to hire the right person for the job, focusing only on shallow, immutable characteristics like your genitalia or skin pigmentation.
It is just a form of newspeak that made a lot of people react negatively to it, despite its alleged good intentions - same as “social justice”, once you realise its ultimate goals are actually quite far from anything you might define as “just” or “fair”.
I have read countless times that diversity boosts revenues by 40%, but that is kind of a bogus number, coming from the (in)famous HBR which was done by either inept or dishonest people comparing apples (garage startups with a handful of buddies) with oranges (multinational conglomerates spanning over at least 4 continents) - guess which ones might have better margins and better economics?
The programs organized under these broad headings are primarily focused on excusing and tolerating poor performance, substandard results, and result in a decrease in overall group effectiveness instead of increasing it.
Our current Biden/Harris administration is replete with “diverse” individuals, and it’s abundantly obvious that these people were put in places of authority and responsibility not based on either their abilities or skills, but on their diversity aspects. There is a profound difference between rejecting a highly qualified candidate because of some outlying aspect of their makeup, and promoting a very marginal or unqualified candidate based upon that same outlying aspect.
A case in point would be the significantly damaging effect of hiring a public spokesperson based entirely upon her diversity qualifications, without the slightest regard for her ability to effectively fill that critical position.
Another example would be the promotion of a “transgender” person, or persons, to fill critical positions in the administration based primarily upon the “transgender” status.
The programs organized under these broad headings are primarily focused on excusing and tolerating poor performance, substandard results, and result in a decrease in overall group effectiveness instead of increasing it.
Our current Biden/Harris administration is replete with “diverse” individuals, and it’s abundantly obvious that these people were put in places of authority and responsibility not based on either their abilities or skills, but on their diversity aspects. There is a profound difference between rejecting a highly qualified candidate because of some outlying aspect of their makeup, and promoting a very marginal or unqualified candidate based upon that same outlying aspect.
A case in point would be the significantly damaging effect of hiring a public spokesperson based entirely upon her diversity qualifications, without the slightest regard for her ability to effectively fill that critical position.
Another example would be the promotion of a “transgender” person, or persons, to fill critical positions in the administration based primarily upon the “transgender” status.
These foolish decisions result in weakening and damaging our nation, and not strengthening it. Now, if these individuals were highly qualified, beyond all doubt that they were the most clearly and obviously best individuals for these roles ~ their diversity aspects should not hold them back from being advanced. But advancing them primarily based upon these aspects has proven to be completely and obviously wrong.
The programs organized under these broad headings are primarily focused on excusing and tolerating poor performance, substandard results, and result in a decrease in overall group effectiveness instead of increasing it.
Our current Biden/Harris administration is replete with “diverse” individuals, and it’s abundantly obvious that these people were put in places of authority and responsibility not based on either their abilities or skills, but on their diversity aspects. There is a profound difference between rejecting a highly qualified candidate because of some outlying aspect of their makeup, and promoting a very marginal or unqualified candidate based upon that same outlying aspect.
A case in point would be the significantly damaging effect of hiring a public spokesperson based entirely upon her diversity qualifications, without the slightest regard for her ability to effectively fill that critical position.
Another example would be the promotion of a “transgender” person, or persons, to fill critical positions in the administration based primarily upon the “transgender” status.
The programs organized under these broad headings are primarily focused on excusing and tolerating poor performance, substandard results, and result in a decrease in overall group effectiveness instead of increasing it.
Our current Biden/Harris administration is replete with “diverse” individuals, and it’s abundantly obvious that these people were put in places of authority and responsibility not based on either their abilities or skills, but on their diversity aspects. There is a profound difference between rejecting a highly qualified candidate because of some outlying aspect of their makeup, and promoting a very marginal or unqualified candidate based upon that same outlying aspect.
A case in point would be the significantly damaging effect of hiring a public spokesperson based entirely upon her diversity qualifications, without the slightest regard for her ability to effectively fill that critical position.
Another example would be the promotion of a “transgender” person, or persons, to fill critical positions in the administration based primarily upon the “transgender” status.
