"You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads."

I'm not, and this is a real problem with the kind of thinking in this area these days. Opposition to a quota system is not the same as support of the status quo.

"I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech."

> The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.

The implication that diversity in ethnicity, gender, etc., is the same as diversity of thought is not a good quality assertion. It certainly isn't uniformly true.

> work at such a forward looking company.

"Forward looking" is certainly an assertion, here. Not everyone would agree that quotas are "forward looking."

You've asserted several things that are themselves unsubstantiated or at least controversial.

"Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?" is a particularly good example of what I referred to in my comment, actually. You're essentially shutting down any rational conversation by asserting that disagreement is necessarily in support of "hiring practices of the past."

>The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.

Managment may think many things, but that presuposes that diversity of thought comes from the diversity of skin. I can practically guarantee that if your company hired a diverse mix of races, but they were all of technical background and straight HS to college to work then you would not get the diversity of thought you would get if you focused your spare hiring capacity on hiring retiring US marines, radar techs, prisoners, people close to retiring age or any other group that is typically left out (or persevered to be left out) of the typical high tech startup.

So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race?

In some ways I agree; we're all shaped by adversity and experience. But I don't think you can ignore the incredible lack of people from black or hispanic backgrounds in tech either. The goal of increased diversity in entry level hiring is advanced by the suggested HBCU recruitment drive. Supporting it doesn't preclude recruiting from other talent pools.

> So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race?

That isn't at all what the commenter argued. They argued that diversity in ethnicity/race is not the same as diversity in background. The commenter did not provide a superlative or other qualifier.

You assume that hiring a black person to an all white team, gives much thought diversity. My argument is that it does not, if that person had a middle class background and similar upbringing.

If you hire a former gang-banger who is a wiz with eletronics, then you will have some real diversity.

You don't think that hiring a black guy will provide some useful perspective? (Or an immigrant?) I don't get why you contend that class is the only fundamental distinction here.

Tech is often focused on the minutiae of our machines, but even then information and learning is not evenly distributed. I've worked with various minority engineers and also Indian/Chinese/Persian/etc and they've all had really different views on how to approach things, how to manage conflicts, and different mathematical backgrounds too.

"does not give much diversity" isn't the same as "will not provide some useful perspective."

This is the issue I have when discussing these matters with certain people. When everything is presented in such stark black-and-white terms there's little room for discussion.