Diversity could not be understood on group level. There is a difference between inter- and intragroup variance. Diversity is about valueing individuality.
I disagree with the emphasis on closing various types of gaps. If this means some groups or individuals accelerate away from others, so be it. It is my understanding that we benefit greatly from the culture and technology, which largely comes from those with Westen values and who have IQs over a 120. So I'm not okay diverting academic resources away from those that are cognitively gifted just so you can close gaps. Also, schools will naturally exacerbate gaps because individuals that are fast learners (high g) will accelerate away from the low g students. Schools don't need to close all the gaps. Don't throw all your money at the smart kids, and don't throw all your money at the slow ones either. It is especially important that you don't throw all your money at the students that are learning English as a second language. I'd hate for music, robotics, or archery classes to be deprioitized relative to special ed and ESL courses.
Would Like to see more on Diversity and Inclusion. Professor, do you agree with what Professor Jordan Peterson says about Diversity, Inclusion & Equity? He makes some great points. I strongly believe that a smart company will always hire the right person regardless of color, race,or sexual orientation. Here is the link to Professor Peterson ruclips.net/video/TqcRVmOpIbY/видео.html
@@armintrost7406 The problem with Peterson's view is that it acts in bad faith towards the concept of diversity and how it relates to your own reasoning. It's quite obvious to most (intelligent) people that diversity is about differing characteristics amongst your workforce in order to broaden its overall perspective. The problem is how to ensure you have that diversity within your workforce. While developing a very personal and intimate relationship with your employees can clue you in to what their unique perspectives are, that's simply ridiculous when you try to do that with a workforce of hundreds or thousands. Thus, you can use indicators to save yourself some time. For example, a black person is going to have had a COMPLETELY different experience than a white person in their life so far. This is basic sociology. Therefore, by ensuring that you have diversity amongst "identity groups" such as oppressed classes, you are also ensuring diversity without even knowing what their experience has been. It's also simply stupid to think that a group of homogenous employees would be able to tap into markets outside of their own group identity, as their marketing would be through the lens of one class trying to entice another without even representing them in their workforce. Representation causes people to identify and trust an organization, so it will be much easier to retain their business when your competition lacks representation compared to you.
I disagree with the emphasis on closing various types of gaps. If this means some groups or individuals accelerate away from others, so be it. It is my understanding that we benefit greatly from the culture and technology, which largely comes from those with Westen values and who have IQs over a 120. So I'm not okay diverting academic resources away from those that are cognitively gifted just so you can close gaps. Also, schools will naturally exacerbate gaps because individuals that are fast learners (high g) will accelerate away from the low g students. Schools don't need to close all the gaps. Don't throw all your money at the smart kids, and don't throw all your money at the slow ones either. It is especially important that you don't throw all your money at the students that are learning English as a second language. I'd hate for music, robotics, or archery classes to be deprioitized relative to special ed and ESL courses.
Please do a complete coverage of diversity and inclusion
Would Like to see more on Diversity and Inclusion. Professor, do you agree with what Professor Jordan Peterson says about Diversity, Inclusion & Equity? He makes some great points. I strongly believe that a smart company will always hire the right person regardless of color, race,or sexual orientation. Here is the link to Professor Peterson ruclips.net/video/TqcRVmOpIbY/видео.html
I am 100% in line with Peterson's view. I know his work pretty well
@@armintrost7406 The problem with Peterson's view is that it acts in bad faith towards the concept of diversity and how it relates to your own reasoning. It's quite obvious to most (intelligent) people that diversity is about differing characteristics amongst your workforce in order to broaden its overall perspective. The problem is how to ensure you have that diversity within your workforce. While developing a very personal and intimate relationship with your employees can clue you in to what their unique perspectives are, that's simply ridiculous when you try to do that with a workforce of hundreds or thousands. Thus, you can use indicators to save yourself some time. For example, a black person is going to have had a COMPLETELY different experience than a white person in their life so far. This is basic sociology. Therefore, by ensuring that you have diversity amongst "identity groups" such as oppressed classes, you are also ensuring diversity without even knowing what their experience has been.
It's also simply stupid to think that a group of homogenous employees would be able to tap into markets outside of their own group identity, as their marketing would be through the lens of one class trying to entice another without even representing them in their workforce. Representation causes people to identify and trust an organization, so it will be much easier to retain their business when your competition lacks representation compared to you.