Suppose we have an institution, but the membership doesn't closely mirror the demographics of the United States. (World demographics never seem to matter; in these concerns we are strictly nationalist.) We are then obliged to reach out for new members of whatever type is underrepresented in our rolls. Why?
We could reach the same result if we kick out and ban members from the overrepresented class; is that an acceptable solution? Why was the founding demographic able to start the institution, and why can't any other group start their own; not a copycat junior auxiliary but an independent innovation from scratch, like the first one was? Certainly if they have good talent that is unfairly ignored, they could do so.
Why does the composition of the group matter? One might say that it does in an vital institution like government, but is our group really that important? Seriously? If diversity is better than uniformity, it means that people are different according to their background. But if people are different according to their background, then pure meritocracy is shattered and there's an acceptable basis for excluding people of a certain background.
Comments