Twitter beats its 2016 diversity goals but its workforce is still predominantly white

And who says diversity necessarily leads to hiring less capable applicants?

What if a more diverse team is actually the better team, even if on an individual level some are slightly less capable?

You whole "all that matters is meritocracy" bunch are hilarious to read.

You're full of ****.

You do it because you like the yummy feeling you get in your tummy when you show the world just how compassionate you are.

Absolutely

Roughly translated.....

"If you hire the disabled lesbian from a minority ethnic background so you can tick a diversity quota box the competing firm down the road will hire the white bloke who REALLY knows wtf he is doing"

About right?

I don't think it should rely on diversity alone. I think you should look at all their CV's and choose who you think is more suited for the job and if you end up with a team then that is the team. Its not racist to not hire someone who doesn't meet criteria.

My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.

My team 2.5 years ago was a single female. Now there are 6, after we "hired for diversity". We actively targeted and grew the number of women, which has gone up drastically. Based on what you lot are saying, we should now have a less talented team, because obviously we hired the women just to fulfill quotas, right? What a joke.

Based on the fact that men aren't taking action but women are.

The point you seem to be missing is that it might be even more talented if you had not restricted the appointments to just females to achieve diversity.

Your objective was primarily a different gender mix, not necessarily excellence.

But it's the companies who are "taking action". Twitter is actively trying to recruit more minorities and women. What do you mean by "men aren't taking action but women are". What action are women taking? It's the companies taking the "action", not the women who are applying.

Using your logic, the NHS should "hire for diversity", and specifically hire more male nurses. Would I support that? No, it is sexist.

And why should I care about "diversity"? As long as the best applicants are getting hired, that's all that matters.

Might have been better.

Might have ended up worse, too.

Maybe they are trying to overcome cognitive biases that assume whites and men are the better candidates?

Women are generally better nurses, because there is a biological difference between men and women. E.g. women are more empathetie, and care more about children and the vulnerable.

Women are generally better nurses, because there is a biological difference between men and women. E.g. women are more empathetie, and care more about children and the vulnerable.

May very well have done BUT your approach was based on an absolute definitive strategy to recruit more women simply because they were women.

My point highlights the potential flaw in your approach because you would not necessarily have ended up with the best employees.

Another company might which you and your narrow-minded blinkered cohorts seem to overlook, or worse, choose to deliberately ignore.

So maybe hospitals should do the same to overcome cognitive biases that assume women are better nurses?

Making a similar statement about men and technology careers would be viewed as sexist.

You are assuming men are better than women.

Also, you have no clue how recruiting works, do you?

Why are you incapable of viewing a women's issue without bringing up a man's issue?

Should all women's issues be ignored, because there are also men's issues?

This is you: "We should not help group x, until someone helps group y".

It's pathetic.