Do you realize that, if you believe the odds are long against this strategy succeeding, you have to be taking the position that this isn't a serious problem in the status quo? And vice versa? I mean, you're not going to give long odds against gravity or penicillin winning, right? They're going to ROFLstomp the alternatives. If diversity is not ROFLstomping the alternatives, then we did not have a diversity problem.
Unfortunately, that is the crux of the problem. In the short-term diversity isn't really that important to the "majority". And diversity isn't going to ROFLstomp the alternatives. It isn't like there are a group of Blacks that are all Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs. White males are long shots for the most part as are Blacks.
The reason why diversity matters is more for society in the long-run. You want everyone to maximize their potential. And lastly, I think most people want others to have a fair shot at their full potential. People like to at least think they are fair.
So the diversity problem isn't about short-term ROI, but rather long-term maximization of human potential. Of course this is almost the total opposite of the argument proposed in the article.
Unfortunately, that is the crux of the problem. In the short-term diversity isn't really that important to the "majority". And diversity isn't going to ROFLstomp the alternatives. It isn't like there are a group of Blacks that are all Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs. White males are long shots for the most part as are Blacks.
The reason why diversity matters is more for society in the long-run. You want everyone to maximize their potential. And lastly, I think most people want others to have a fair shot at their full potential. People like to at least think they are fair.
So the diversity problem isn't about short-term ROI, but rather long-term maximization of human potential. Of course this is almost the total opposite of the argument proposed in the article.