[EricH]

Originally Posted by inkling16

If NASA (or any other organization) believes that the "team" they are creating will be the better for having a more diverse membership, aren't they justified in hiring anyone who adds to the diversity of the team?

If you disagree with the idea that more diversity does not create better teams, that is fine, many don't. However, if you accept that some organizing bodies believe this, then their implementations make perfect sense.

Let me put it this way:

You are competent for job X. You are hired for job X. But, if you KNOW that you were hired for job X because you were the nationality you are (and the workplace that has job X specifically needed more of your nationality), and NOT necessarily because you are the most qualified candidate for job X, is that a compliment or an insult? And, regardless of which it is, who is it directed at?




Do not take this to mean that I disagree with the idea that more diversity creates better teams. On the contrary, I agree with that idea. I choose to disagree with the point of view that forcing diversity on the teams (or other organizations) is a good thing in all cases. I could go into some cases in point, but that goes into at least one of the two areas not discussed in polite company. Suffice it to say that I like the Rooney Rule--you HAVE to consider at least one "person of different characteristics" for any open position above a certain level, but hiring them is not required. Once their foot is in the door, it's up to them to apply the leverage to finish opening it.