Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But even if we took the argument as fact, it doesn't mean that we have to accept every naive consequence. We don't need to say "Of course the vast majority of CEOs, world leaders, and very wealthy people are male, because the most intelligent people are almost all male". We can choose to have a better society than that. I don't think that intelligence is the most important factor for those positions, so let's talk…
Well, there is a reason why I chose those examples. I'm not arguing for diversity at all costs, which seems like what you're arguing against. I'd say in general having researchers and university teachers that are intelligent is good. Diversity is also good. There should be a balance - I think that diverse researchers and teachers can solve problems that a homogenous group of researchers would never solve. For example…
There's a huge assumption built into this, about what dimensions of diversity are virtuous. Our society places great value on showing diversity on scales of gender and race, and to a lesser extent also on religion and more recently, gender identity.
Why are these demographics the ones for which we should be endeavoring to ensure diversity? Why shouldn't we strive to find a balance between, say, people from an urban background versus those from a rural background? Or people with fluency in various languages? Or "morning people" versus "night people", or those who prefer to file things versus those who stack papers on their desk, or left- versus right-handed?
Having variations along all these dimensions, and countless others, would also bring greater variation in world view, and thus presumably improve the pool of ideas that could drive their work. So why is it that seeking diversity in race and sex is paramount, while finding someone from out in the countryside is never even thought of?