However, generation Z does not differ much from others in saying that “diversity is paramount” (51% for generation Z, 47% for Americans overall). The relatively low percentage of generation Z saying “merit supercedes all” (15% versus 37% for Americans overall) is accounted for more of generation Z saying “not sure” (34% versus 16% for Americans overall).
I agree though I place more blame on the people that designed the test protocol. They screwed up by failing to take into account how different colors reflect IR and whoever was on the project team and didn’t question the test protocol is at fault as well. We don’t know if the people working on this were a bunch of white guys or if they were from different racial backgrounds. Regardless, everyone on the team seemed to lack the knowledge that color reflects IR differently.
All else being equal, if you had more experience and more expertise for a particular job or promotion, would you be okay losing out on the job or promotion to something less experienced with less expertise if they were “diverse”?
My guess is that everyone loves the idea of diversity, but they wouldn’t answer the same if they personally were rejected for a job/promotion because of their skin color or gender.
Perhaps people know that this is already the case, and that it is most commonly to the disadvantage of non-white job seekers (see https://www.pnas.org/content/114/41/10870 ), even though employers do not generally say up front that they explicitly favor white applicants.
In other words, the idea that hiring is done purely by a definition of “merit” that does not include illegal discrimination and is not otherwise “rigged” (e.g. nepotism) may not be widely believed. So the term “merit” may have become tainted by the association with racism, nepotism, etc. in hiring processes, and “diversity” is seen as the opposite of such.
That’s quite a stretch to justify diversity hires by claiming they are simply a non-discrimination policy. If employers hire by skin color or gender they are breaking Federal law.
Education and the workplace are different conversations.
Businesses are established to generate wealth and provide for employees/investors. Anyone saying they choose diversity over ability is short-sighted and should be sure to remember their preferences when the firm fails. The problem with the polling is that the question ignores any potential value in diversity. It assumes less output from the decision to be diverse. It’s possible that diversity enables the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts, but that’s not obviously a possibility given the structure of the question. Would you hire a diversity candidate if it were to cost you 20% of your bonus next year? The answer would be a nearly unanimous no.
Educational meritocracy uses discernable, measurable facts to separate everyone into groups, with no regard for qualitative variables.
I’ve never met anyone who said: “I deserve to be there, but I’m glad they took my spot and gave it to someone less qualified with unique attributes”. Diversity is always the next persons’ issue.
It won’t be too long before Gen Z flips from slim majority white to a plurality white. That means the boys that are white will make up approximately 25% of Gen Z and will be competing against the 75% of Gen Z that gets some kind of diversity bonus.
The law apparently does not prevent illegal discrimination from being common, probably because individual cases are hard to prove or disprove (and therefore enforce against illegal discrimination), even though statistical patterns from numerous samples can be obvious.
The 75% are still much more likely to get some kind of diversity penalty, as described at https://www.pnas.org/content/114/41/10870 , than a diversity bonus that seems to be largely imagined at private employers.
@tpike12 - My point was that yes you will get different answers if you focus on the “negative” of losing out on a job. You’re also asking a biased question at that point.
That’s pretty presumptuous to say. What about over represented minorities? I wouldn’t expect them to get this “bonus”.
And what about the advantages non-minorities usually have (i.e. legacies, connections etc.)
Am I the only one who finds the first sentence of the article above amusingly ironic?
“Some Microsoft employees are openly questioning whether diversity is important, in a lengthy discussion on an internal online messaging board meant for communicating with CEO Satya Nadella.”
That’s your interpretation. It’s certainly not what I wrote or suggested. People like Nadella are admitted into American universities because American universities actually see value in diversity. So to question such a man about the value of diversity in an American company he now runs seems to me incredibly ironic.