> You no longer are opting to choose based on cost/performance of the employee
If performance is actually better with a diverse team then preferring diversity in the hiring process is based on cost/benefit.
> whether they earned it or not
Businesses don't care if you "earned it" they care about cost/performance. My parents are both quite intelligent and up until high school I learned more from them than I did from school. If I had less awesome parents I would have a significantly harder time finding a job. It's not fair, but it does not demoralize me.
So I cannot say I have personally reviewed the studies on diversity improving outcomes, but I have a suspicion that it applies only when all other things are equal (as in talent/skills/performance were all as equivalent as they could be vs the non diverse comparison). My point is there is hardly ever a scenario where you are presented with >1 candidates which have equivalent skills and some happen to be diverse.
Someone else made the point though, that we probably suck as determining level of skill/performance anyways? I can personally attest to that, and maybe based solely on that fact, hiring for diversity might be a winning strategy, I simply don't know. I know I am terrible at judging others skill/performance during an interview, and am striving to improve it.
If performance is actually better with a diverse team then preferring diversity in the hiring process is based on cost/benefit.
> whether they earned it or not
Businesses don't care if you "earned it" they care about cost/performance. My parents are both quite intelligent and up until high school I learned more from them than I did from school. If I had less awesome parents I would have a significantly harder time finding a job. It's not fair, but it does not demoralize me.