Should jobs and employment be based on merit or diversity?

At the root of humanity is identity. Our unique identities set us apart from other people and make us who we are, they represent the quantum of our lives and the truth on which we based our ideals.

Humanity having varying powers, brought on historical advents that created social hierarchy, social relevance and importance based off gender, race, sexuality and ethnicity, inclusion suffered.

For example, women have been deprived of key positions because they are simply women. There is also the issue of unjust gender pay gap where contemporaries matter.

Around final quarter 2017, former host of E!’s daytime show, The Daily Pop, Catt Saddler quit her job after she discovered that her male counterpart, Jason Kennedy was earning twice her salary.

Even worse, the company blatantly refused to increase her salary to at least be on similar trenches as Kennedy.

Asides that, Blacks, Latinos and Asians have long been deprived of jobs, roles and several advancements because of the color of their skin. Gay people have also either quit positions or been fired from positions because of who they are.

Some were good enough, but deemed not good enough. While in the earliest days of these ideals, such ideas might have found credence, they slowly grew to became unrealistic.

The sentiment of excluding certain people over fears of incompetence — background, sexuality — irking others to unsettle a particular place or downright bigotry and derogation because they are historically subordinate have been slowly becoming blatant wrongs.

ALSO READ: Meet Eniola Hu, the woman who refused to kneel down at her traditional wedding

Diversity

Thus, diversity became the new reality, as a way to mandate companies, people, governments and key decision makers that influence the world to include the previously maligned demographics.

Diversity is a modern global goal due to global history of derogation upon certain demographics and the advent of colonialism, tribalism, racism, sexism and discrimination based of sexuality and/or ethnicity.

With the world rightly — across influential walks of power, governance, capitalism and medicine — geared towards effecting the most positive change across the global board, diversity became the answer.

Needs for equity, fairness and equal opportunity have become a global truth.

What is diversity?

A new standard that seeks to guarantee everyone equity, fairness and equal opportunity regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or sexuality at a particular endeavour.

Diversity seeks inclusion for all, so everyone has the opportunity to succeed and so the world has a chance at equitable distribution of wealth.

Ingredient propelling diversity

Social hierarchy, privilege and subordination or derogation precipitate the need for diversity. The social and moral strata of the world makes certain people more likely to get certain opportunities than others.

I know what you’re asking; if diversity is so necessary since some have been historically maligned, why then is it being forced?

Sometimes, due to the reluctance of certain powers to embrace diversity, powers that be have to mandate them so everyone has a chance at grabbing theirs on the food chain.

As much as we strive for rightness, some people prefer familiarity to the promise of change, thus embrace realities that continue to malign certain people.

Asides that, other people are just downright conservative and others, callous bigots who see some people as unworthy of certain opportunities even with compelling qualifications and reasons that might suggest otherwise.

Asides that, if some things are not forced, the desired results will not be achieved. Racism, slavery and other crooked concepts required some form of conflict before resolution.

Mandating diversity can then be seen as the positive disruption those conflicts that predated the eradication of slavery and apartheid employed.

Thus, those mandates are a form of conflict.

How is that?

They seek to unsettle the status quo and rustle certain feathers; making some people uncomfortable and others, revise their ideals and laws for a positive end that occasion large changes which benefit the world, long term.

ALSO READ: What exactly is national character?

Should diversity then be the fundamental criterion over merit?

Therein lies the problem. Ordinarily, diversity is subordinate to merit — defined as the quality of being good or worthy of a reward.

Diversity is simply a human creation that seeks to include certain people because they have been historically maligned. Merit is earned through years of validation in school or via valuable experience.

If we adequately interpret making diversity fundamental to merit, it means more deserving candidates for a job due to academic qualification or valuable experience lose jobs to presumably lesser qualified candidates.

It means people get jobs they ordinarily might not deserve but for the colour of their skin, their gender or sexuality.

The problem with that is simple; we are replacing the problem bias with sentiment and calling it diversity. It means people can always also hide under that umbrella to perpetrate unfairness.

On July 9, 2018, Urban Central critiqued the problem with diversity via the millennial-focused TV Series, The Bold Type.

In an episode, Jane Sloan, a white protagonist lost a job she thoroughly deserved due to the a company's intention to honour racial diversity. She started ranting to her black friend, Kat who cut her to say, "now you know how black people have been feeling."

Urban Central noted that Jane, despite being white had the right to complain about losing a job she would have deserved.

The problem diversity might create

Diversity is not about revenge or exchange of disadvantage or vindication for years of derogation or even validation after suffering. It is about inclusion, to eradicate a problem.

The issue on The Bold Type is an example of the narrative that mandating diversity could create.

Humanity places a premium of earning what you get. Thus, the concept of diversity over merit seems a skewed concept that promotes sentimentality over realism.

An unrealistic concept is usually more likely to fail that not.

But what about necessity?What about bias?

Diversity is not just about sentimentality, it is about a telling global need to share wealth and distribute value across ethnicity, gender, race or sexuality.

We also should not forget that the reality of our world is that merit is what governments or capitalists make it. People have long gotten positions over who they know than what they know.

ALSO READ: Small girl, big god, a online victory for women

Merit itself, is a skewed human concept that has long become a subjected to bias and sentiment that strict application.

We have seen 2:2 students get jobs over First Class graduates because of who they know. We have seen women lose jobs because a boss thinks a woman is too soft or will get pregnant and require a maternity leave.

We have also seen women get jobs over men because of sexual privileges they grant to bosses. It is a crazy world.

Is this then sufficient reason to jettison merit?

Merit itself is flawed, but it is not enough reason to completely jettison merit for diversity.

For every instance of flawed merit, there are 10 other instances of implementation of valid merit for opportunity.

Equally, even though diversity can be used for wrong ends and selfish reasons to propagate false narratives, we still need it.

Regardless of what is the standard — merit or diversity, human beings will abuse it. It is who we are. It is why power for us requires checks and balances, and separation.

Thus, what we need is balance

We need both merits and diversity, with both being important to forging the pillars of equity, fairness and equal opportunity which diversity seeks to implement.

Thus, mandating diversity is not the problem. The problem is how to mandate diversity. Inclusion and diversity are proven ingredients in successful modern day companies.

You cannot just force diversity

We need to find a balance between merit and diversity and implement both.

How do you do that?

California for example seeks gender diversity in major boardrooms. The solution wouldn’t be to simply bring a woman on board a room dominated by men and vice versa.

The solution would be the find women/men of equal standing in qualifications and experience to match the places previously dominated by women/men.

It would mean, to find a woman/man that would provide as much or even better output than the man/woman who would ordinarily have gotten that job.

For example, in a boardroom where a man with 2 Ph.ds and 35 years of experience with an assertive personality is required, recruiters who crave diversity must strive to find a woman exactly like or similar to that.

Sometimes, we must take chances too

While that is noted, nobody also says that another type of personality wouldn’t be as effective. Thus, we might need to test diversity first.

We should also bear in mind that qualifications and valuable experience are not always certain to project work efficiency and effectiveness.

While some people might not have the grade or experience, they grow in(to) the job or are naturally suited to those jobs despite inexperience or lack of required qualifications. Thus, recruiters are those who need to do justice.

The key to effective implementation of diversity is finding a balance of competing qualifiers to creating the perfect employee that suits the job and ticks the box for diversity. It is not enough to just force diversity, even though the world needs or even craves it.

A mixture of diversity and merit is what we need.

With that noted, we need to understand that certain jobs might be suited to certain genders. Most women might not be work in quarries, for example.

Most men might equally be unsuited to jobs in areas of fashion or fashion retail.