Equal Opportunity and Diversity
[Company name] is an equal opportunity employer based in [city]. We are committed to diversity in the workplace.
I removed the name and location from that quote, because I don’t want this to be directed at them specifically. Some overpaid lawyer likely came up with it anyway, and it is commonly used phrasing.
The problem is simply that the second sentence contradicts the first.
Equal opportunity means not taking things like race, religion or gender and making them meaningful in hiring decisions where they shouldn’t matter. You offer equal opportunity to applicants, regardless of irrelevant qualities.
You cannot be committed to diversity if you support equal opportunity. If you support equal opportunity, you are explicitly stating that you are not going to engineer demographics. The only way to achieve desired diversity is to offer unequal opportunity.
You cannot have both equal opportunity and demographically sculpted results.
The deluded promoters of “equal opportunity + dedication to diversity” want to believe that an employer can discriminate in favor of one person without necessarily discriminating against someone else. They’re wrong. Discrimination in any direction is the rearranging of a meritocratic result. Discrimination in favor of one person is discrimination against another person. It’s a mathematical fact.
Here are some sample applicants, listed in order of decreasing merit.
- Shawna Jackson
- John van Dyke
- Cindy McAdams
- Craig Newberry
There they are, ordered by merit (Ms. Jackson being the most qualified). If you can discriminate in favor of any of the last three applicants by moving them up a slot without that move resulting in someone else moving down the list, then I’ll see if I can arrange for a Nobel Prize of some sort.
