En vogue HR policy is to use skin color, ethnicity, sexuality and gender (hereon “social identity”) to inform hiring decisions. This is called hiring for “diversity”.
The argument made is two-fold:
that this is redistributive social justice, that (for example) black people have less social privilege and therefore should experience positive discrimination.
that diversity of social identity necessarily leads to higher performing teams by introducing people of different backgrounds and experiences.
I refute these arguments by:
showing that social privilege, while sometimes correlated with, is not aligned with social identity. Instead it is aligned with more complex issues such as economic status, education, crime and policing, non-nuclear families and cultural norms.
showing that diversity of background and experience is not predicated on diversity of social identity.
arguing that therefore those discriminating along lines of social identity are not solving the underlying problem, but are instead carving new lines of societal division.
Could I argue that the “identitarians” are making a category mistake in that they view the category of relevant characteristics to be those of social identity, when in fact it is another less superficial category?
If not, can I point to a logical fallacy in the identitarian position (eg correlation not causation?)?