Why is this argument not used in promoting minority rights?

You are speaking naively and idealistically.

YES, to a rational person, diversity is generally a positive – in sport, business, and so on. Although not 100% of the time.

The diverse people that you hire (or add to the team) have to be contributors to the effort—putting a black or a Mexican left fielder on your team for the sake of diversity is worthless – if that person cannot hit and cannot catch a ball. So the key point in your statement has to be – if the non-white person is qualified and able to do the job he is hired for. Diversity for the sake of diversity, without quality, is actually a disservice, not a positive.

Second, and more directly to your point – the main flaw in your argument is the assumption that businesses / people / organizations all want improvement. Many do, of course.

But many organizations would be perfectly happy to have lily-white employees and never hire a black or a hispanic or a woman or a homosexual… these organizations don’t give a hoot about diversity or quality—all they care about is saving their safe, white, unthreatening environment.

This is why you see the Republican party rail against :
-fair voting laws
-affirmative action at all levels
-fair housing laws

and so on.

They’re into protecting the status quo of the 1950s, as opposed to the realities of 2014.

Your mistaken assumption is that the whole world sees diversity as an advantage. It doesn’t. Many do, many don’t.

You start from a false premise.

There is no such thing as “minority rights.” There are equal rights. To the extent there is a general societal assumption about the place of the majority, the rights of the minority need protecting.

You make a valid point. I don’t want to get hung up on semantics. What I am trying to say is that it is not only minorities that suffer when they are deprived of equal rights, but society as a whole.

The bandit’s harsh assessment of political and social reality is pretty much on the mark. The idea that the overall society benefits when all of its members are allowed equal opportunity is a concept that virtually no one denies. The sad truth, however is that a large bulk of our population lacks the abstract reasoning abilities required to recognize that equal opportunity in this country is not already ideal. It is only in the arena where profit is direct and obvious as (any NBA game will demonstrate) that opportunity can consistently be based on merit.

Minority rights? Is that any different than basic civil rights that apply to everyone equally?

The group in power has no incentive to share with others. Even if sharing would make society stronger as a whole that would reduce their influence thus they resist.

Diversity only helps if the candidates are qualified, competent, and dedicated.

I’ll add a first person story that I’ve mentioned here before. I started working for a large auto company after graduating from a well respected engineering institute with a graduate degree. The company hired about 6 of us at the same time for similar engineering positions: 5 white guys, 1 black. We were all electrical, software and mechanical engineers and were working on advanced engine controls. It soon became readily apparent that the black guy did not know anything. We’d each help him with his circuit or with calibration or software or… he knew nothing! We covered for him and help him with his work without telling our supervisor or anyone else. Since he was worthless as an engineer (sorry) we decided to have him write up the reports – something we hated to do but he could. He would made a big production of it and pretended he was our boss and giving us advice and telling us what to do. He attended the worthless management meetings while we worked on the project. He signed his name to the reports and included our initials! He socialized while we worked.
Our boss needed people who knew systems, not someone who can type so he started looking for another position for him.
During lunch one day he actually said to us: “I am their token black. Watch me go!”
In a very short time the company made him a Superintendent in the plant! A f***ing superintendent! He knew nothing, but had staff that did and upper management could say they promoted minorities.
That really soured me to the idea of quota and “diversity” promotions . After that experience and seeing a few other high profile examples I began to automatically doubt the competence of minorities in those positions. Did they get to those positions of authority because they earned it or was it because of the color of their skin?
The company went bankrupt, but no doubt met its diversity quotas right up until the end.

Fantastic example,@LuckyGuy!

It breaks my heart to write it. I can’t say for a fact that that incompetent management caused the company’s downfall. But I can say for a fact that other employees, staff, and even customers lost faith in our company’s ability to perform based upon some of the ignorant comments that came out of his mouth.
When part of the CEO’s bonus is dependent upon meeting a diversity target you’d better believe they will meet that target at all costs. They even set up whole departments to make sure they achieve the goal.
Look at any large company annual report. Find me one company that has a middle aged white guy as the Director of Diversity or similar position. You will have to look hard very hard indeed.

@LuckyGuy – similar, in a way, to the story of John Galt’s ‘conversion’ in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

@LuckyGuy , I appreciate your story. Diversity for the sake of diversity is a questionable idea. When all else is more or less equal, diversity tends to bring in fresh approaches and new ideas.

@LostInParadise Absolutely agreed. “When all else is more or less equal.”

The problem is that razor edge that defines “less”. . Do you pick the diverse candidate with scores and capability 30% lower? Hopefully not. How about 30%? Mmmm… How about 10%? Well, OK.
Personally I’d like to see diversity measured as proficiency in foreign languages! Forget skin color.

A global company should be able to send reps to other countries and have them speak in the native tongue. That is so powerful! Any foreign company wishing to sell products or work with engineers in the states sends people that speak English. We should do the same.

As long as the top dog CEO is told to have X% of the managers be “diverse”, come time for his bonus he will force his Diversity Manager to hire candidates that make the numbers. That way he can buy his little angel the pony she wants.

@LostInParadise ” What I am trying to say is that it is not only minorities that suffer when they are deprived of equal rights, but society as a whole.”

I was unaware that America held “society as a whole” in such high regard as to protect its well-being. My observation is that the rights of the individual are more important to Americans.

@LostInParadise wrote: What I am trying to say is that it is not only minorities that suffer when they are deprived of equal rights, but society as a whole.”

Lost, is the second phrase—“society as a whole” – your belief or assertion, or are there facts to back it up?

Wait, when was the last time we actually restricted the eligibility of those who can serve in office or can gain sufficient education by skin color or ethnicity?

@dappled_leaves , @elbanditoroso Consider the under-representation of women in government. Just how skillful are women as political leaders? The historical record shows that despite the prejudice against them, when they have been able to reach leadership positions, they tend to do rather well. In recent times, consider the influence of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Corazon Aquino, just to take a few off the top of my head. Going back in history, consider Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great and Maria Theresa. It would appear that the small percentage of women in government is due more prejudice than to lack of ability. Based on their record, one could only assume that society would be better off if more women were in leadership positions.

@LostInParadise I don’t disagree with you at all. I’m just saying that I don’t think most Americans care.

@LostInParadise – I’ll buy most of that (about women). Although the sample size isn’t really large enough to make a full determination.

But it’s not just that it’s a woman – it has to be a talented / capable woman. Meaning that Laura Bush doesn’t qualify to be president solely because she’s a woman. She would be horrible. You need a person trained for the position they hold.

Well, Lee Iacocca spoke at my college graduation and he spoke about his family immigrating here and how the diversity in America is a wonderful thing that makes our country great. I graduated in 1990. He was definitely making an argument for diversity and the benefits of it.

As far as women in politics, I think in this day and age we have plenty of capable ans qualified woman. I also think the American public is open to voting for women. I just think there aren’t as many women running for the positions as men. Women are less likely to view themseves as capable (there are books written about it) and less likely to pursue power. That is a social problem regarding how women are raised; their conditioning during childhood.

I also think overall the American public is ready and willing to recognize great abilities regardless of race. Someone who is a fantastic engineer, to use the industry @LuckyGuy mentioned, is going to get hired and all the employees and management are going to respect his knowledge regardless of race. My engineering school at my university had a lower GPA requirement for minorities when I attended. A lot of schools have moved away from affirmative action and reduced requirements for minorities and I tend to agree with that move. One reason that change has occured was because many of the students who got in with lower requirements struggled too much or dropped out. It wasn’t fair to white kids who were more likely to do well who couldn’t get in because a minority took the spot. Not that white kids are inherently more likely, the point is the quotas were lowering the standards too much. Also, we are supposed to evaluate an individual on his own merit regardless of race, so at this point maybe we should really be doing that. There was a time for affirmative action and quotas, but I think the time is ending. I waver on my opinion regarding affirmative action and quotas.

As far as sports; if black people are actually statisically more likely to do better in certain sports, keeping them out of the sport keeps the competition level. Allowing minorities is an equality and moral question for me. I think everyone should be allowed to apply and their skill and merit should be what counts. It is even odd to me to write “allow” regarding people being able to be considered for a sport or anything. I can’t imagine not allowing someone to be considered based on race, except maybe for a specific role in a movie maybe.

Something I hate to write, but it is very similar to @LuckyGuy story, is I know several people who were raised in very liberal homes where they didn’t speak negatively or sterotype races, and they didn’t build sterotypes in their minds or form negative prejudices until they were adults working with specific minorities. It’s not true that “racism” is always learned at home. It also can be very complex. I can talk to a person and they can be very concerned about Mexicans pouring into our country illegally and then in the next sentence tell me how incredible the Mexicans are at their jobs. My SIL was supportive of the new Arizona laws giving more authority to local authorities to protect the borders, and she is Mexican born and raised. She certainly is not racist against Mexicans.

I don’t think most of America is trying to keep minorities out of anything as long as the minorities can perform in a way that meets expectations or exceeds them. However, I do think a lot of people have a biased towards hiring people who they identify with, which can include race, so if the people in power are white, they might be more likely to hire white people, but not necessarily, it depends on the person. If the people in power are more diverse, everyone at every level will likely become more diverse. I think if you ask most white people they will tell you they don’t even notice race if the person meets cultural expectations in every other way. I guess the question is, does the cultural expectation create an unfair situation?