Youβre reading an excerpt of The Holloway Guide to Technical Recruiting and Hiring, a book by Osman (Ozzie) Osman and over 45 other contributors. It is the most authoritative resource on growing software engineering teams effectively, written by and for hiring managers, recruiters, interviewers, and candidates. Purchase the book to support the author and the ad-free Holloway reading experience. You get instant digital access, over 800 links and references, commentary and future updates, and a high-quality PDF download.
You might also hear someone say, βWhat about diversity of thought, isnβt that more important than what people look like?β or βDoesnβt my opinion matter anymore?β
Ideological diversity (or diversity of thought) is the presence of diverging viewpoints, especially political viewpoints, in a group of people. Measuring ideological diversity can be useful in circumstances where this heterogeneity affects behavior or outcomes.*
Itβs hard to look at a definition like that and think βdiversity of thoughtβ would be a bad thing. Itβs not! Inviting underrepresented people to sit at the table and giving them a microphone brings different viewpoints to an industry that has historically heard only a limited set of ideas in a feedback loop.
Itβs important not to conflate ideological diversity with diversity related to the immutable traits that define so much of individualsβ lived experiences. It is also necessary to question the motives of the person who insists that βdiversity of thoughtβ has nothing to do with increasing representation in the industry.
βDiversity of Thoughtβ should be achieved as a result of diverse representation.Michelle Kim, co-founder and CEO, Awaken*
βcautionβ Language doesnβt exist in a vacuum. The phrase βdiversity of thoughtβ has a history, and that history is racist and misogynistic.* Of course not everyone whoβs ever asked the question is operating within those ideologies, but it may help those confused by the difference to learn a bit about how and why the phrase has been used in disingenuous ways to actively counteract D&I efforts within an organization. A notable tech industry example of the βdiversity of thoughtβ argument, in fact, comes from James Damoreβs infamous manifesto against diversifying Google.*
βdangerβ βIdeological diversityβ and βdiversity of thoughtβ are often used as dog whistles by individuals who have deliberately co-opted the language of diversity and inclusion, placing extreme conservative ideology on equal footing with systemic oppression based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. They express feeling silenced and oppressed for their particular beliefs, a cousin to the idea of βreverse racism.β In this case, βideological diversityβ is a cover for espousing racist or sexist beliefs.
Without assuming anything about the person using these phrases, but still being aware that they may be operating with anti-D&I sentiments, a useful question to ask is whether or not the ideological diversity argument is being used as a way to diminish or dilute the concerns of URGs.
βimportantβ But also, it is critical to be clear about where you are drawing the line. Your employees should feel free to express their views and beliefs as long as they are not harming others, and the arbiter of harm is the people being impacted. While this may sound unfair, it is the default for everyone who is not part of a majority group. If there were ever a time to say βwhen you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression,β* this would be it.
Source: Sarah Mei
Source: Jason Shen
You might also hear, βIsnβt this reverse sexism/racism/-ism?β
In some cases with these kinds of comments, people genuinely want to know whatβs allowed and whatβs not. But they may also be trying to get around any action the company is proposing, or they might be on the defensive. They may be afraid that their place in the company is at risk.