I agree. In the past, arbitrary "diversity" rules have led to some ridiculous hires in my industry.
In the beginning, it created a great opportunity to promote previously unlikely candidates, and help expand the pool of qualified candidates.
Today, it has gone too far.
My personal opinion is this - racism does still exist, but anyone who believes it is pervasive as it was 25 years ago is a complete and utter moron. In the last 10 years, I have had management over me that was far more diverse (female, black, hispanic) than in the prior 8. In addition, the NEXT generation is showing just how NON RACIST they are. My nieces (17 and 19) are dating black men....I sincerely doubt they are suffering from any delusions of race. And they are hardly atypical, as they live in Pound Ridge (anybody on the East Coast can tell you just how whitebread THAT area is).
Point is, I think diversity rules have gone too far. BMG's point about upper management in Silicon Valley, IMHO, is misplaced. It is not unusual, since many start ups (now post start ups) from 1990 on still have large percentages of their original management, which happened to be white and male. You can't expect that situation to be altered rapidly (and I do consider 13 years fairly rapid in the life span of a company...particularly in the IT industry).
I would point out to him that the upper management at BET (Black Entertainment Television) is virtually ALL black. One is a very good friend of mine. Should they hire me for diversity? I think not. They hire based on many factors, and cultural factors will play a role. I could hardly say that I know that much about the culture they are trying to reach out to.
This is not an argument AGAINST hiring for diversity. It's just an argument that points out using single specific items like "Silicon Valley management" needs deeper analysis and insight before applying a blanket statement. It is also an argument that points out that hard and fast diversity rules are frequently poorly developed. |
