Falsely equivocating spending on diversity programs to "donating to the KKK or literally setting cash on fire" is really telling.
This monthly discussion comes up on HN and it's already turning into a dumpster fire.
I hope this is right.
But I keep seeing stats like that being thrown around and implying that the cause of those high financial returns are diversity when it is as likely that projections of high financial returns give you the money and time to focus more heavily on diversity. Both can also be symptoms of a common cause such as healthier management.
Again, correlation is not causation.
Falsely equivocating correlation and causation is really telling.
Nobody said anything about causation, you raised that straw man yourself. If you'd look up the stat I quoted, you'd see McKinsey says the same thing:
>While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizatio...
This is the rare case where BIPOC is actually a useful concept. Is this still true when counting only BIPOCS (no Asians, no Hispanics, etc.)?