There is a common, belief that “diversity” is a moral good.
That is unalloyed bullshit.
It is at best value neutral.
Would you trust a steel that was “diverse” with random materials tossed in for “diversity”?
If you penned up sheep and wolves together, how “diverse” will your collection of beasties remain? And how many sheep will remain?
Diversity is only good or bad in an antifragile sense – to the degree to which it allows multiple solutions to a problem to be tried, with the ones that do not work, or work much less effectively, weeded out. It’s moral value is highly scope dependent.
A hundred people of both main sexes, is needed to perpetuate the species. In the short run, you can have a lot fewer men than women, but in the long run an imbalance either way tends to destabilize societies. In a different scope – say, an office, or on a hunt – childbearing ability may be irrelevant, or even actively get in the way of getting a needed job done.
A hundred people of different ethnic populations will have different strengths and weaknesses (Kenyan runners, IQ differentials, resistance to or prevalence of certain diseases) that may suit them better or worse to different environments, and surviving in different crises. Outside of some cultural factors, being does absolutely nothing to bring different paradigms or solution models to bear on a problem or job at hand. Unless you’re racist enough to believe that all Latins inherently make uniformly different, wiser choices, because “Latino/a”.
“Diversity” is a red flag that someone doesn’t understand the needs of the scope, that they are at best ignorant, and most likely not thinking. Yes, your classic heist story has different people in different roles, but would we really want a stamp collector as the getaway driver if they’ve never ridden more than a bicycle?
I personally hired a black guy to work with me because of all the people who applied, man, woman (a couple pretty ones), white, hispanic, etc., he was the only one who’d done his own computer assembly out of curiosity, had gone beyond his certification classes to learn more, and had the active problem-solving and research mindset. There were a lot of “diversity” options that I would not have trusted to turn on a computer, and even the “privileged” ones were similarly lacking.
He has a good attitude, and is willing to learn. He also replaced a guy who was great at math, a fantastic musician, understood computers, but never looked deeper, couldn’t sit down and focus, or explain things to customers.
Statistically, the people most likely to go “had a minor issue, looked this up, anything else I need to worry about” are “privileged.”
The worst two people at one office I had dealt with were also “diverse” in a very stereotypical way. Every single visit they were guaranteed to have an issue. That issue was guaranteed to be user error or inability to read the damn prompt. Often it was a repeat issue. Utterly helpless until they were saved.
Incidentally, the third most annoying was “privileged” – and a perfect example of “only a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. His enthusiasm and unwillingness to simply wait for a fix almost made up for it, but not quite.
So if you ever hear “diversity” be wary. It means something else is more important than the job at hand. It’s also why Charles Johnson at gotnews.com has an investment strategy of shorting any company that begins making a big deal about, or big changes towards, pro-SJW and pro-diversity initiatives.
