I said "no," but after reading the 8:54 pm post about diversity of perspective, I agree with those who voted yes. "Race" all by itself shouldn't be a factor; what we call "races" are just socio-geographic categories masquerading as evolutionary nomenclature. We love to categorize people based on the color of their skin and their geograhic location, and then assume there's some fundamental difference between us all. That being said, there are significant differences between every individual, more so within certain groups than between them. So diversity of experience and background should be the defining factor in job selection, not a racial label written down on a piece of paper. I hate having to mark down "white" in the SAT info sheets, as well as on questionaires. Because yes, that's the color of my skin, but it lets people come to so many conclusions about "who I am." I've just started leaving that stuff blank.

I said yes. The logic behind this isn’t easily explained in a few sentences or even paragraphs, but here are a few pointers: Read “the Wisdom of Crowds,” by James Surowiecki, for a fascinating explanation of why diversity is more important than consistent expertise in allowing a group to arrive at good decisions. In a nutshell, the “experts” are all swayed by the same intellectual fashions. Add someone different, give her a chance to speak her mind, take her seriously, and you’ll shed a new light on the problem. This isn’t just about race, of course; it’s about genuine diversity. The book is intriguing and an easy read. He doesn’t claim that crowds are always wise but discusses the conditions that sometimes make them surprisingly able to make accurate predictions. Consider the U.S. military, probably our most successful practitioner of “affirmative action.” The military decided some decades ago that they needed people of color in leadership positions in order to lead the enlisted force successfully and without destructive racial hostility. They spend a lot of money ensuring that their officer corps is racially diverse, and their training programs work very well. They don’t do this because they’re bleeding-heart liberals but because Vietnam taught them something about the dangers of allowing overwhelmingly white officers to lead a force disproportionately composed of people of color. We need diversity, of many sorts, and the lens that makes us see this as a compromise with meritocratic principles is usually a pretty distorted lens. Who decides what “merit” is? Speaking just for myself, I’m cynical about standardized tests, for example, because I’m weirdly good at them; I’ve known since high school that people who know as much about the material as I do won’t do as well on the test. I’ve learned since that they may out-perform me in real-life situations.

We need to create a world of balance and equal treatment among each others. I do not find a reason why it is important to focus in differences rather than focus in fundamental, positive abilities of human beans. It is time to change. It is time to remove differences we may find on the way and start to see people as they really are. Just people like everybody else.

can i hear some thoughts as to why people said yes?