They clash. You either have a meritocracy or diversity quotas; you either choose people because they’re competent or because they are of a certain sex/race.
But what might preclude someone who happens to be of a different race or gender from also being the most competent person for the job?
The people pushing this radical view on diversity and equality tend to paint all people they see as marginalized as unable to compete on a level playing field.
This has always bothered me. Interviews for technology related roles are almost always an assessment of innate cognitive ability, something that has no real correlation with race or gender. The idea that certain groups might be disadvantaged here and require help is especially insulting.
This is bad faith interpretation. The prevailing viewpoint is that the playing field is not, in fact, level.
this is an extreme oversimplification. those aren't mutually exclusive and diversity isn't just "quotas". read a book
Thanks for the recommendation. I read harry potter. It was great. Not sure what I learned about 'diveristy', though.