Basically, if talented and intelligent people of a given background are not turning towards science, the discipline loses out on their potential talent. So there’s an objective benefit to diversity.
Also, challenges experienced by people of a given background may not be addressed if they’re not there to address them.
Same question for you. Where are the facts to back up the opinions?
I disagree. Science is science, not racial relations, gender relations, or anything else.
If someone can use the scientific method to formulate a hypothesis, create a way to test it, and observe the results, what difference on earth does it make whether a person is a man woman, homosexual, transgender, asian, black, white, purple, or anything else?
If constructs are put into place to steer less qualified people into certain fields at the expense of more qualified people to make a workforce, college, or any other endeavor more “diverse”, how does that make science better?
If a paint manufacturer is going to adjust their hiring processes to employ people based more on their gender or skin color instead of their resume or qualifications, how is that difference in anatomy or race going to produce better paint?
Why is it important that a mathematician have a different skin pigmentation to solve a problem? Why should a hypothesis be viewed any differently because someone has a penis versus breasts and a vagina? Does having different anatomy somehow make it more valuable or valid?
People should be accepted, graded, hired, and paid on the basis of merit, not on the basis of their skin pigmentation, country of birth, or physical anatomic equipment. To conduct affairs on the basis of those things over merit is to promote mediocrity.
Same old, same old. Your real and imagined “challenges” don’t matter in math, chemistry, physics, and so on...and most of the “challenges” are imagined or self-inflicted. As for the myth of the missing “talented and intelligent” people, what people choose to do with themselves is their business. It is a fact, however, that our leftist run universities and other organizations do all that they can to affirmative action into science and engineering the usual suspects, who tend not to be able to do what’s necessary. Nice left talking point post, but the reality of “diversity” is Patrick Chavis, not another Jonas Salk.
There is much less of a problem of projects losing the talent of smart people of “diverse” background, than projects being forced to hire untalented and unintelligent people solely to meet diversity requirements.
Historically black colleges are complaining about affirmative action to Ivy League schools promoting students beyond their competency. You end up with ethnic and women’s studies majors from Ivy League schools instead of physicists and doctors from HBCUs.