Thomas Sowell pointed out two problems with the "idea" in
Discrimination and Disparities.
First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.
Setting that aside, his second point requires deeper consideration. Disparities are often caused by upstream circumstances, like fewer children having adults in the home that value education, leading to fewer candidates that meet diversity criteria to hire from in the first place. By laying quotas on at hiring time, people are wrongly assuming the problem to be occurring where it is detected (in hiring) and not where it originates (in-home attitudes to education and work).
In the meantime, corporations hire consultants that emplace DEI "initiatives" that train workforces to detect "microaggressions," among similar evidence-free curricula. They do this, not because it solves a problem, but because it allows favorable public relations announcements.
How about initiatives funding scholarships, and contributing to in home book programs? How about funding campaigns for supporting community libraries?
These would go at the root of the issue, rather than the cosmetics of the issue. But then, they couldn't gain the indulgences for failing to actually be diverse as a corporate culture.
First, what evidence do we have that diversity does result in a company performing better, or gaining that amazing employee? He argues that this is an unfounded assumption.
Setting that aside, his second point requires deeper consideration. Disparities are often caused by upstream circumstances, like fewer children having adults in the home that value education, leading to fewer candidates that meet diversity criteria to hire from in the first place. By laying quotas on at hiring time, people are wrongly assuming the problem to be occurring where it is detected (in hiring) and not where it originates (in-home attitudes to education and work).
In the meantime, corporations hire consultants that emplace DEI "initiatives" that train workforces to detect "microaggressions," among similar evidence-free curricula. They do this, not because it solves a problem, but because it allows favorable public relations announcements.
How about initiatives funding scholarships, and contributing to in home book programs? How about funding campaigns for supporting community libraries?
These would go at the root of the issue, rather than the cosmetics of the issue. But then, they couldn't gain the indulgences for failing to actually be diverse as a corporate culture.