Let's dig into this merit vs diversity thing a bit, shall we? Because I work in a place where it comes up often, uttered by people who should know better but don't. A short thread.

The argument is that focusing on diversity will eliminate or water down hiring by merit. This position therefore treats diversity and merit as mutually exclusive. Here's why it's a claim that lacks merit.

The need for diversity won't arise in the first place if true merit was a factor in hiring. The version of merit that this claim posits is really just privilege.

If your workplace hires the same type of person all the time, it is not because they are smart or smarter than everyone else. It's because they are not smart enough to see their own shit. Power, privilege and selection bias are better explanations.

Let's even assume that same type of person is hired based on merit. That does not mean that merit does not exist in others. It just means that in addition to merit, other factors are at play, including preference for a particular kind of person.

The claim also suggests that there is something called merit that is agnostic to social conditions in which it is produced. Or that merit is a singular value that is knowable from examining a resume.

I have often heard this claim from people who are quite mediocre. But they are allowed to keep their jobs. This suggests that you don't need to be meritorious (in their sense of the term) to actually be good at your job.

One last thought on this. This merit crap is often an excuse for not giving others a chance, and for not supporting them to succeed when they do get a chance. It is also a sign of deep ignorance regarding the richness that diversity brings to workplace.