Martin Fowler: The Fallacies and Reprocussions of Diversity Imbalance

Here's a simple example. Assume hypothetically that due to historical differences the vast majority of investment decisions are made by a non-diverse demographic who prefer to invest in people like themselves. So even though the diverse groups outperform, it may not be enough to overcome the "unfair advantage" of easier access to capital.

Yes, you are correct. I made an edit to that effect.

If I observe something, it is occurring, correct? Or I could not have observed it.

The question becomes why is it occurring? We can observe "simple" things like trees and rocks and disagree on the reasons happen the way they do.

I'm not trying to argue from ignorance here. Certainly you could ask each and every person and draw some general conclusions. But that kind of approach is very fluffy and you could spin the results to say just about anything you wanted. If you have a master's degree in computer science and decided to be stay-at-home dad, is that because the system is flawed? Perhaps you just prefer being with your kids? Most people don't make those kinds of decisions for any one reason. It's complex.

Like I said, I love diversity. I think my biggest problem is this continuing thing we do where we define diversity as external characteristics. It's the internet age. I could care less what your sexual organs are or skin color is.

EDIT: Just to be sure I am advancing the discussion, the moral question is this: Assume I run a company with 100 employees. Only 20 of them are a member of a sub-group that is 30% in the larger population. Is it the moral thing for me to do to hire another 10 people of this subgroup, even if it means not hiring people of another group that might be better qualified just so the ratios match up?

If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have two follow-up questions. One, how many kinds of subgroups do I need to track? One-armed people? People who have beards? Who gets to decide what subgroups are special or not? Two, is it moral for a voter to make somebody do something because they personally find that it has a moral outcome? If I wanted people to be nicer in the world, could I pass a law that required all of them to give 10% to charity? Does something I feel morally outraged about automatically mean I should go mucking around with somebody else's freedom? If so, where's the stopping point?

As for Jim Crow laws, please note that I am not saying that society shouldn't evolve. I'd argue that some degree of legislating morality is necessary for society to move along -- even though I find it most distasteful. But there should be time limits on these things. That's why I bring up the internet. I really don't need grandpa's generation telling me how I should think. This is something each generation needs to settle for itself.