You could absolutely have more diversity by simply adding people, rather than displacing or removing anyone, which is precisely what the comment suggested.
I think more emphasis should be given on the benefit that diversity brings to the organization. A university or a company with lots of young white middle-class people will miss a lot of ideias that people from other backgrounds might bring.
This is exactly the sort of problem increased workplace diversity helps to solve, and it's a great argument for an expansive definition of diversity, which includes traditional measures such as race and gender, but also non-traditional measures, such as socioeconomic background, education, etc. (To wit: The best engineering team I've ever worked on was three computer science grads, two boot-camp grads with backgrounds in chemistry and sports medicine, respectively, and myself, with a degree in English lit but extensive industry experience. We all brought different things to the table, and we produced robust, maintainable services.)
A great company should have an eclectic mix of skin colors, backgrounds, sexes, etc. Diversity is power. But this also includes diversity of thought-- you should have complete liberals, staunch conservatives, atheists, the faithful, etc.
You'll need an HR department with a backbone, to ensure everybody understands the importance of being civil. With great diversity comes great (and wide) perspective.
Yes. You make a good point. I would fully support a system that account for diversity of thought directly. That’s hard to do. Your suggestion of means testing applicants is interesting. Do you have others?
reply