Mark, once again I completely agree with you. If it weren’t for the fact that you use Apple products, i would swear that you’re my twin

I don’t understand why “diversity” has become such a virtue in recent years. I am not sure whether most employers truly believe in the “virtue” of diversity as a good in itself, or whether they are merely attempting appease the public. In any case, I don’t see why there is an uproar over hiring candidates based on qualification factors alone. By allowing themselves to be sucked into the quest for diversity, employers are making ethnicity (and other diversity-makers) part of the qualification for employment. It is silly to say that one’s shade of melanin or Yamulke / Crucifix / Crescent ought to affect one’s qualifications for employment.

There is no such thing as being “overqualified” for a job. One is either qualified for a job, or one is not.

Granted, Microsoft has better things to do than to compose mental “compare and contrast” essays on two candidates for weeks on end, but I too think that the right questions can be asked to find the best candidate.

Given the case where two candidates are extremely similar (they are not identical, of course – the world is too big for that), why is the “virtue” of diversity allowed to become a deciding factor? It is as rascist for an employer to pick Asian Bob over equally qualified Caucasian John for purposes of diversity as it is for Charlie the British pub owner to hang an “Irish need not apply” sign on the front of his store.

Employers who seek to be just in their hiring might do well to repeat this phrase several times before heading to the office: “May the best man win!”

In a vacuum, sure, everybody’s special and unique blah blah blah, but the realities of the acceptance process for just about any organization short of Google or Microsoft make it infeasible to get to that level of detail.

I support that discrimination. But let’s call a spade a spade here.

Exactly. Define the goals (diversity for instance), then honestly represent them. My problem is that these sorts of programs are always represented as “non discriminatory”. You’re defining your results before looking at applicants, of course your discriminating. An honest representation of the system is all that I want to see.

The buttons above the comment box don’t appear to be working in Firefox 2 (bold, italics, quote, etc.) I added the code as I typed.

But tweaking demographics so that you can marvel at the “randomness” that you have created is, well, an oxymoron.

I’m shocked! You’re suggesting that a racially mixed group of people specifically chosen to fit a predetermined demographic isn’t both natural and random?

From my perspective, qualified is purely about competence to do the job, based on education, experience, and ability.

Ah. Well in that case, there are other qualities that can (and in many cases should) be used in addition to raw qualifications when choosing the best person for the job.

I’d argue that diversity needs to be raised to a level that is laudable. Human nature, from my experience, is to surround one self with like individuals. To break out of that, and to support the concept of diversity, both by being “diverse”, and nurturing a diverse circle is to rise above a comfort level.

Diversity, to me, is just another word for “some measure of randomness” or “a result with some points deviating from the statistical mean.” Certainly, people tend to surround themselves with like individuals, and they should be open to expanding their circle. But that’s more on a personal level. If you ignore aspects of applicants that don’t matter, and hire people based on “the best person for the job” (relevant qualities and qualifications), the diversity or lack of diversity that results is merely a function of how diverse the pool of qualified applicants is.

I’m all for openness — a liberal outlook at life and fellow human beings. But tweaking demographics so that you can marvel at the “randomness” that you have created is, well, an oxymoron. You cannot create diversity. Diversity simply is. And you can accept the diversity that presents itself to you, or you can wall yourself in and reject it.

I think it means that every effort will be made to make the job available to as many as possible, and that all factors will be considered in choosing the right person.

The first part of that is covered by “equal opportunity.” If the factors you are considering dictate how qualified the person is for a job, then it relates to their qualification. Picking the go-getter with a high-school diploma over the lazy college grad could very well be choosing the more qualified person. Qualifications aren’t limited to tangible things.

I know for a fact that I’ve been the most “qualified” but someone else was given the job based on the feeling that I would not be “happy” with the job and it’s limits regarding advancements/salary cap/daily routine turning boring. Was I discriminated against?

Not at all. If you seemed like you’d be bored by the job, it sounds like you’re not qualified for it. Qualifications are more than just the raw ability to do the job.

Here in Florida, still considered the “South” by some, a blanket statement of “committed to diversity” can simply be a fancy way of saying this isn’t a good ol’ boys club and we look to surround ourselves with all types of people to succeed in the business world.

“Equal opportunity” is how you say that it’s not a good ol’ boys club. Being open to diversity is different than being committed to it.

I will say that I don’t believe in quotas or hiring practices that are precipitated on human resources agendas, ie, hiring veterans or low income persons for tax break incentives.

Then it sounds like we’re on the same page.

Diversity has been raised up by our society as a laudable goal… as something that should be engineered. But only way you can engineer diversity is if you specifically choose someone other than the right person for the job. You’re placing meaningless attributes ahead of meaningful ones.

Maybe “committed to diversity” is interpreted as some by “committed to being open to diversity” — which is completely in the spirit of “equal opportunity.” But that’s not what it says, and that’s not what is being considered when things like race, gender and religion earn university applicants additional points, or when gender quotas are filled on construction crews.

There’s this crazy notion going around that the world would be a better place with more female dump truck operators, more white NBA players, more middle-aged movie theater employees or more Hawaiian chess champions. Diversity is a fine result (and one that people should keep themselves open to), but it makes a very poor goal — a poor thing to enshrine as a “commitment.”