> Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." Where is the science to back that up?

The same question could be asked for the converse statement that represents those pushing for these policies: "Discrimination to reach equal representation is fair, cooperative, and good for business."

The truth is that we don't know either way. My biggest frustration with those arguing in either direction is that no one has really put forth any specific and objectively measurable ways to evaluate these policies.

I personally believe that diversity is economically valuable, but that how valuable it is depends on the task/goals of a team. In some circumstances it will be very valuable and other it will be of negative value. And in many cases it may be of negligible value relative to other things you can optimize for.

What kind of diversity is another valid thing to question? Why are certain kinds of diversity like gender and race given priority over other kinds of diversity such as cognitive (aspie/autistic to neurotypical) diversity, socioeconomic diversity, national origin diversity, urban/rural diversity, etc.

If a team/company is composed entirely of the same race and or gender but every member is from a different country are they more or less diverse than a team/company composed of all Americans of various races and genders?

These are all important questions and it's good and healthy to express skepticism.

Discrimination is by definition unfair; therefore divisive. I thought everyone agrees on that.

It's very hypocritical to scream how discrimination against women or POC is bad and needs to be routed out, only to turn around and start discriminating yourself.

Discriminating against anyone (yes, even people you disagree with or don't like) is unfair.

Treating people differently based on their gender is sexist.

Smearing, bullying and firing somebody for disagreeing with you is bigoted.

The hypocrisy on display in this whole brouhaha is astounding.

Discrimination is not by definition unfair, the context is important, or do you think aiding people in need but not those who aren't is unfair?.

If you want to reach a balanced state from a unbalanced one, you need to discriminate to provide more for the people that are behind.

What we should provide is equality of opportunity (i.e. anyone should be given a fair and equal treatment in an interview) not equality of outcome (someone should be given a job, just because they represent a certain segment of population).

Exactly. I really can't understand why someone would fail to see this. Unless they have some other definition of equality. But I genuinely would like to hear other definitions and discuss the semantics of that word in the social context.

equality of opportunity should mean that equivalent effort should yield equivalent results, right?