The hard cold truth of modern style racism

Diversity has no value. Judges are not to represent their ethnic groups, but to interpret the law.


That this is weird for you, might be one of the reasons for the lack of black judges.
Cultures whose goal is exclusiveness, do not survive because of the lack of diversity which means less exposure to new ideas and different approaches to problems.

It also means less diverse personality traits. Employers have to look harder for exactly the kind people they are looking for in non-diverse culture. For Example:
People from some countries are much more social and open, others are more reserved. The Japanese tend to be more polite and less aggressive. Brazilians tend to be more adaptive and creative in solving problems than most other countries. Filipino tend be more willing to help others. Egyptians tend much more reserved in public but very family orientated. Nigerians tend to be hardest working. The Dutch and the Swiss tend to be the most innovative.

The more diversity in the workforce, the more employers have to choose from.

"A lot of different flowers make a bouquet."

Muslim Origin

I see that you have stated your position. I see your claim. IMO, it seems likely that nay gain from what you say, would be lost due to the friction of different people working together.


IM2, for example, comes from a culture where he expects a black judge to represent black interests in the courtroom, instead of doing the traditional american culture thing, of meeting his professional responsibilities.


What is the gain to society from this diversity?
Innovation, creativity, and cultural insights. Homogeneous groups tend to think along the same lines which on the surface may seem to make things work more smoothly. However, if you want people to think outside the box, you need diversity, different backgrounds, different races, cultures, and sexes.


That is the theory. How would you like to support it? Hint: Other people agreeing with you, is not a supporting argument.

There has been numerous research studies that show rather conclusively that better decision making comes out of diverse groups than homogeneous groups. In addition, many large companies such as Apple, Amazon, Disney, Johnson and Johnson, Mastercard, Kaiser Permanente, Coca Cola, and Marriott have reached this conclusion even before all the research.
  • Most studies surrounding diversity in the workplace have found that for every 1% increase in gender diversity, company revenue increases by 3%.
  • Higher levels of ethnic diversity increase revenue by a whopping 15%.
  • 67% of active and passive job seekers say that when evaluating companies and job offers, it is important to them that the company has a diverse workforce.
https://www.socialtalent.com/blog/r...around-the-world-that-are-embracing-diversity
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals



1. They made the decisions in advance of the data? Interesting.


2. Let's take a look at one of those studies why don't we?

3. I'm very curious how they correct for all the variables with your claim on revenue, especially family run businesses.

4. Job seekers are people coming out of universities where they A. have been indoctrinated, and B. are likely to be very diverse and not wanting to work with overly white groups. That is not wanting diversity, and wanting people like themselves.
 
Cultures whose goal is exclusiveness, do not survive because of the lack of diversity which means less exposure to new ideas and different approaches to problems.

It also means less diverse personality traits. Employers have to look harder for exactly the kind people they are looking for in non-diverse culture. For Example:
People from some countries are much more social and open, others are more reserved. The Japanese tend to be more polite and less aggressive. Brazilians tend to be more adaptive and creative in solving problems than most other countries. Filipino tend be more willing to help others. Egyptians tend much more reserved in public but very family orientated. Nigerians tend to be hardest working. The Dutch and the Swiss tend to be the most innovative.

The more diversity in the workforce, the more employers have to choose from.

"A lot of different flowers make a bouquet."

Muslim Origin

I see that you have stated your position. I see your claim. IMO, it seems likely that nay gain from what you say, would be lost due to the friction of different people working together.


IM2, for example, comes from a culture where he expects a black judge to represent black interests in the courtroom, instead of doing the traditional american culture thing, of meeting his professional responsibilities.


What is the gain to society from this diversity?
Innovation, creativity, and cultural insights. Homogeneous groups tend to think along the same lines which on the surface may seem to make things work more smoothly. However, if you want people to think outside the box, you need diversity, different backgrounds, different races, cultures, and sexes.


That is the theory. How would you like to support it? Hint: Other people agreeing with you, is not a supporting argument.

There has been numerous research studies that show rather conclusively that better decision making comes out of diverse groups than homogeneous groups. In addition, many large companies such as Apple, Amazon, Disney, Johnson and Johnson, Mastercard, Kaiser Permanente, Coca Cola, and Marriott have reached this conclusion even before all the research.
  • Most studies surrounding diversity in the workplace have found that for every 1% increase in gender diversity, company revenue increases by 3%.
  • Higher levels of ethnic diversity increase revenue by a whopping 15%.
  • 67% of active and passive job seekers say that when evaluating companies and job offers, it is important to them that the company has a diverse workforce.
https://www.socialtalent.com/blog/r...around-the-world-that-are-embracing-diversity
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals



1. They made the decisions in advance of the data? Interesting.


2. Let's take a look at one of those studies why don't we?

3. I'm very curious how they correct for all the variables with your claim on revenue, especially family run businesses.

4. Job seekers are people coming out of universities where they A. have been indoctrinated, and B. are likely to be very diverse and not wanting to work with overly white groups. That is not wanting diversity, and wanting people like themselves.
I think decisions were based on the success of diversity. The Rand Corporation, one the best known think tanks in the world was one of first organisations to discover the value of diversity in it's teams. Long before diversity became a buzz word, Rand discovered it's value. The company's success relied on finding new and better ways of doing things. They accomplish this by breaking the mold of the 50's and 60's in which research organization relied on White American males with MBA PhD's. They built their research teams and consulting groups with diversity in sex, age, race, ethnic backgrounds. Although there were more clashes between members over solutions, they produced 50% more viable solutions than traditional homogeneous groups. Today it's employees come from 50 different countries and speak 80 different languages. 51% are women. All major ethnicity and races are well represented.
 
As of this very second, 24 states have all white supreme courts. 18 state supreme courts have NEVER had a non white justice. In 2019. Yet in places like this people want to argue about how things are all in the past, or some other silly auto response some whites have when people of color speak truth.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
A new Brennan Center report details vast racial and gender disparities on state supreme courts around the country.
Alicia Bannon, Laila Robbins
July 23, 2019

We spent a year studying the gender and racial makeup of state supreme courts, which are typically the final arbiters on state law. Our new report, State Supreme Court Diversity, paints a bleak picture of the demographic makeup of these powerful courts. It also points to judicial elections as a key inflection point for addressing the racial disparities we found.

Currently, white men are dramatically overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Though white men make up less than a third of the population, they hold a majority of seats on state supreme courts. Meanwhile, though people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population, they hold only 15 percent of state supreme court seats.

Twenty-four states currently have an all-white supreme court bench. This includes eight states in which people of color are at least a quarter of the state’s general population. And in states that have at least one justice of color, there are substantial gaps between the diversity in a state’s general population and its high court bench: the percentage of people of color on the bench is higher than their representation in the state’s population in only five states.

Eighteen states have never had a Black justice on their state supreme court. And 13 states have not seated a single justice of color since at least 1960, the earliest year for which we had comprehensive data.

Elections have rarely been a path to the bench for people of color. Since 1960, only 17 justices of color have first reached the bench through an election, comprising 4 percent of initially elected justices. Comparatively, 141 justices of color were initially appointed to the bench since 1960, comprising 12 percent of all initially appointed justices.

Although candidates of color were more likely to have prior judicial experience as challengers to incumbents or as candidates for open seats, they won less often than their white counterparts.

State Supreme Courts Don’t Reflect the Diversity of the Communities They Serve
What are you bitching about now, retard?

Could you try to explain your grievance without random C&P?
 
I see that you have stated your position. I see your claim. IMO, it seems likely that nay gain from what you say, would be lost due to the friction of different people working together.


IM2, for example, comes from a culture where he expects a black judge to represent black interests in the courtroom, instead of doing the traditional american culture thing, of meeting his professional responsibilities.


What is the gain to society from this diversity?
Innovation, creativity, and cultural insights. Homogeneous groups tend to think along the same lines which on the surface may seem to make things work more smoothly. However, if you want people to think outside the box, you need diversity, different backgrounds, different races, cultures, and sexes.


That is the theory. How would you like to support it? Hint: Other people agreeing with you, is not a supporting argument.

There has been numerous research studies that show rather conclusively that better decision making comes out of diverse groups than homogeneous groups. In addition, many large companies such as Apple, Amazon, Disney, Johnson and Johnson, Mastercard, Kaiser Permanente, Coca Cola, and Marriott have reached this conclusion even before all the research.
  • Most studies surrounding diversity in the workplace have found that for every 1% increase in gender diversity, company revenue increases by 3%.
  • Higher levels of ethnic diversity increase revenue by a whopping 15%.
  • 67% of active and passive job seekers say that when evaluating companies and job offers, it is important to them that the company has a diverse workforce.
https://www.socialtalent.com/blog/r...around-the-world-that-are-embracing-diversity
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals



1. They made the decisions in advance of the data? Interesting.


2. Let's take a look at one of those studies why don't we?

3. I'm very curious how they correct for all the variables with your claim on revenue, especially family run businesses.

4. Job seekers are people coming out of universities where they A. have been indoctrinated, and B. are likely to be very diverse and not wanting to work with overly white groups. That is not wanting diversity, and wanting people like themselves.
I think decisions were based on the success of diversity. The Rand Corporation, one the best known think tanks in the world was one of first organisations to discover the value of diversity in it's teams. Long before diversity became a buzz word, Rand discovered it's value. The company's success relied on finding new and better ways of doing things. They accomplish this by breaking the mold of the 50's and 60's in which research organization relied on White American males with MBA PhD's. They built their research teams and consulting groups with diversity in sex, age, race, ethnic backgrounds. Although there were more clashes between members over solutions, they produced 50% more viable solutions than traditional homogeneous groups. Today it's employees come from 50 different countries and speak 80 different languages. 51% are women. All major ethnicity and races are well represented.


Link?
 

Forum List

Back
Top