You can argue over definitions and terms as much as you want, but the uniform you wear is often defined by your opposition. In other words, it may not be completely relevant what you or OP think diverse is or isn't. It is very relevant what the power structures and people implementing these policies think it means, no?
If someone has a kid that potentially is going to be quota'ed out of jobs or education, why wouldn't they worry about it?
diverse is code word for non straight White male. Slightly more diverse would be straight White female.
Obviously OP is simply saying, as a White man, he worries his children through no fault of their own by virtue of birth would be excluded or limited by these cultural trends.
Blame on their kid? What sense does this make? He's blaming the system.
There's a manager/HR somewhere saying "hold my beer"...
Not just optically. Even slightly different cultures can result in novel ways of thinking or world views that bring something new.
Diverse viewpoints are more likely to arise from introducing 3 black women to a group of 3 white men than if you introduced 3 more white men.
> it is quite possible that yet another white man with a different background would provide the greatest diversity,
Are you and the parent really arguing white men are even better than black women at diversity?
People with different backgrounds are "better" at diversity than people who look dissimilar, for sure. The wealthy black woman who went to school at Stanford alongside all the other white men on your team does not bring any meaningful difference in viewpoint. The tribesman from Kenya, on the other hand, comes with a very different outlook.
Of course, something akin to "Must be a US Citizen" is attached to most jobs because we don't actually care about diversity, just optics.
Yes or, for another example, an Israeli would add diversity to a group of Americans (of various colours).
Meanwhile, the person who is self made (real diversity in this situation) and successfully bootstrapped themselves gets passed over because thier skin color is too bright.
Qualified diverse people are rare (no relation to skin color "diversity"). That is why everyone is cracked out over skin color and gender because there is an actual population of people that the HR secretariat pool can EASILY identify by just taking a glance. Thier mission, of course, is to please thier white male executives.
Compare and contrast with people saying "neurodiverse" when they mean "neurodivergent". I think there is general agreement that a single person should be described as "neurodivergent" rather than "neurodiverse". Some people say the wrong word just because the two words are so similar and are happy to be corrected.
On the other hand, if we're talking about other kinds of diversity then I don't think there's a similar pair of terms. "The addition of this gender-divergent person increases the gender-diversity of the team"? I don't think so!
According to the plain old-fashioned definition, this is true. According to the modern political definition, “diverse” is approximately a synonym for “non-white”.
1. A single person cannot be diverse or not diverse. 2. There is nothing wrong with your kids being in a majority demographic. It sounds like you're more worried about the world discriminating based off race and other traits.
I suspect you agree with all of this but it's a little scary how insidious these policies are. Even in your dissent you're seeing things from their perspective.