That is, it reduces the number of viable teams one can form from a population. And if you have an existing team you need to grow, it can rule out some candidates.
In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people. So long as those people are qualified, I am okay if the cost is missing out on a slightly more qualified candidate. Not least of which because horing isn’t an exact science in which qualifications are completely measurable and all possible candidates are always considered.
Again, reality is messy. So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. If I am such hot shit that I definitely should have gotten the job, then I won’t have a problem getting a job elsewhere.
It is. You're either racist or you're not. You can sugercoat it with comfy terms such as "diversity" or "inclusion" but as soon as you positively discriminate for one race, you negatively discriminate against another and that is racism, even if it "only" affects white males.
Or stated differently, would you be for quotas if it meant a POC doesn't get the job, because there are already too many? If not, why?
If only it were this simple...
In reality, life doesn't seem to be constrained to our underdeveloped conceptual boxes, no matter how much we get attached to them.
I don't think it is so easy to answer that question off the cuff, especially without further details.
Also, I think it is very important to remember: these situations are usually _not_ zero sum. Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude.
They are not reparations. A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm. You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals. I can't help but think of soviet farmers that were dispossessed in the name of communism.
>Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude
Again, you don't harm groups, you harm individuals. It's something different if you take taxes, where white people happen to pay more because they earn more, and use them to improve education in areas mainly inhabited by people of color. That would actually be not zero sum. But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation.
I do welcome actions that help marginalized groups. But the way these issues are currently handled is short-sighted, ill-conceived and unethical.
That's not correct. First definition on google: "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged." Reparations are not limited to material compensation.
> You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals.
A group is a collection of individuals. Some things happen on the individual level. Other aspects or dynamics are only present on the group level and must be analyzed there.
> But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation.
This is correct on the specific dimension you are looking at. But you are ignoring second order effects. That job may have a significant positive effect for the marginalized individual, and then in turn have a positive ripple effect on the marginalized community that he or she comes from. This could certainly result in a positive sum situation for society as a whole.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm totally with you that this could be taken too far, and we must proceed with caution. I also agree we should try to focus on cases where the positive sum benefits are most clear. But it is a difficult problem, and I think many instances of positive sum benefits are not fully appreciated.
What makes you say this? Doesn't this kind of assume that there aren't other reasons why such gender, racial, or cultural imbalances exist?
> So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal.
There are large areas of the country still recovering from the recession. It's not like everyone is living in an economically prosperous area of the country. In those areas, not getting hired is a _huge_ deal.
In any area, not getting hired is a huge deal to the person not hired. It is just as huge for everyone else as it is for white men.
How come you're so confident that "that’s not how things work"? Do you have any idea about epistemic standards in social sciences? And if qualifications are not completely measurable, then how much more qualified is "slightly more qualified" and thus disposable? Lastly, on what grounds can people that promote diversity claim to have enough expertise to regulate this process of affordable exclusion?
My expertise is no greater than my expertise in selecting people to hire. I make no claim that this effort should be enforced by regulation. I enforce it through my hiring and recruitment efforts.